This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Chairsatan Bernanke - Meet President Paul?

Tyler Durden's picture




 

An important advance indicator of leading conservative frontrunners for the presidency was won by Criminal Reserve archnemesis Ron Paul. The Washington Times reports: "Texas Rep. Ron Paul  has won the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2012 presidential preference straw poll of 3,742 activists, the chairman of the huge annual gathering of conservative activists announced on Saturday. The Republican lawmaker, long a favorite of the party’s libertarian wing, took 30 percent of the votes cast, followed by Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with 23 percent. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who has said he will not be a candidate in 2012, and New Mexico former Gov. Gary Johnson tied for third, with 6 percent of the vote. Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich followed with 5 percent. Tied at 4 percent were Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Trailing them was former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who garnered just 3 percent of the vote." Now since the mere prospect of "President Paul" sends shivers of mortal terror down the spine of every self-respecting member of the criminal Wall Street syndicate, does this mean that in order to guarantee 4 more years of Teleprompting, JPM and GS will send the Russell to 36,000,000, the unemployment rate to -15%, and the labor participation rate to -100%, just to make sure that the peasantry is content enough and chooses 4 more years of unmitigated dollar debasement and what is rapidly becoming a weekly iPad cadence? With the popularity of American Idol plunging to record lows, the mission to brainwash America for 4 more years may be just that more difficult. Add 15% inflation and the vassals may actually stirs for once.

From the Wash Times:

The poll, sponsored this year for the first time by The Washington Times, is seen as one of the earliest tests of grassroots popularity among the party’s dominant conservative wing, and Mr. Paul, who ran unsuccessfully for the nomination in 2008, has traditionally done well in the CPAC voting.

Asked in the survey if they were generally happy with the field of GOP contenders lining up to challenge President Obama next year, 56 percent of CPAC voters said they were generally satisfied with the current crop of candidates, while 43 percent said they were not.

The announcement of the vote came at the end of the third and final day of the CPAC gathering in Washington.

This year’s event attracted a record attendance of over 11,000, and more than 3,700 attendees participated in this year’s straw poll — up more than 1,300 from a year ago.

One thing is certain: the only man in Washington who actually understands what is really going on, and is a firm believer in a return to the gold standard, has about a snowball's chance in a tokamak of taking over the country under the current status quo, where the corruption, the cronyism and the corporatism begin and end with the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches of government.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 02/12/2011 - 21:44 | 956759 holdbuysell
holdbuysell's picture

Just on the possibility that he could, at minimum, marginalize the Fed and give the US back the ability to print its own money (as Lincoln had to in order to finance the Civil War), I would vote for him.

Sat, 02/12/2011 - 22:04 | 956802 ghostfaceinvestah
ghostfaceinvestah's picture

Agreed, we need another Old Hickory.

Sat, 02/12/2011 - 23:43 | 956970 tellsometruth
tellsometruth's picture

agreed

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 09:03 | 957378 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

Oh, getting rid of the Fed - how brilliant!

Let me complete that sentence:

Now since the mere prospect of "President Paul" sends shivers of mortal terror down the spine of every ...

  • ... working American who thinks that rich hypocrites suffering from 'austerity' in their country clubs cannot possibly feel the real pain of being unemployed?
  • ... college graduate who thinks that dramatically rising youth unemployment would escalate into a 'lost generation' under ronpaulian government inaction?
  • ... small business owner who thinks that gold standard magnified deflation perpetually redistributing wealth to those who hoard or inherit gold is unfair to those who chose the wrong parents and are trying to produce something real?
  • ... farmer who thinks that Ron Paul abolishing anti-monopoly laws and eliminating farming subsidies would make the agrobusiness versus small farms fight a very one-sided affair? Bye-bye small independent farms and hello big monopolies? Hello even higher food prices?
  • ... elderly who thinks that Ron Paul cutting (and eventually eliminating) Medicare and Social Security would push them into poverty and would expose them to death by curable but too expensive to treat illnesses?
  • ... bank account holder who thinks that Ron Paul eliminating the Fed and FDIC would expose them to much severe boom and bust cycles and would expose them to losing their life's savings to bank crashes?
  • ... ordinary investor who thinks that Ron Paul eliminating the ban on insider trading, fiduciary duty of banks and other government financial regulations would be a perpetual payday for Wall Street?

An important reminder, Ron Paul does not think we need any financial regulation:

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/12/17/ron-paul-i-dont-think-we-need-...

Wow! I'm sure Wall Street is readying the Ron Paul Campaign contribution coffers already. He is really their man - he just does not realize it yet. Ron Paul might even be willing to implement what Wall Street has lobbied for for decades, for free?

There would be one good aspect of Ron Paul being elected President: apparently after the roaring twenties and the Great Depression and 7+ million Americans dead due to the depression we need another, fresh reminder is needed to show what libertarian anti-regulatory laissez-faire policies and the gold standard really brought to the average American ...

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 09:14 | 957412 The Profit Prophet
The Profit Prophet's picture

Interesting theories you have there Paul...........at least "Mr. Paul" openly proclaims his libertarian economic views.  Perhaps you can enlighten us on the wisdom of promoting extended low interest rate monetary stimulus in an environment of a completely unregulated OTC derivatives market.....and please include an explanation of how Keynes' theories accounted for modern financial innovations designed to increase liquidity exponentially. 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 10:23 | 957459 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

Interesting theories you have there Paul...........at least "Mr. Paul" openly proclaims his libertarian economic views.

Unfortunately, history has taught us that honest idiots in power are way more dangerous than sleazy but intelligent bastards.

But yes, he is honest and consistent about his views.

Perhaps you can enlighten us on the wisdom of promoting extended low interest rate monetary stimulus in an environment of a completely unregulated OTC derivatives market.....and please include an explanation of how Keynes' theories accounted for modern financial innovations designed to increase liquidity exponentially.

I could go on and on about how the current system should have blown up numerous times since 1934 when the gold standard was abolished.

Alas, it keeps muddling through in a much more civilized fashion than the Gilded age has suffered through its "Panic of 1893", "Panic of 1907" and "Great Depression" periods of boom and bust cycles.

The current system is the worst (except all the alternatives), it's messy but it tries not to leave the elderly rotting in poverty and illness, it does not force them to beg for 'charity' of the rich, it does not let a whole generation of youth get lost (without a fight) just because they were born in a wrong phase with a boom and bust cycle:

http://projects.flowingdata.com/images/0730suicide-epidemic.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan

So yes, beyond the reasons I listed above we have very real historic reasons to be deeply worried about libertarian 'free for all, big fish eats small fish' capitalism and gives us reasons to be very worried about the concept of the gold standard that would hard-code the perpetual growth of the accumulated wealth for the wealthy ...

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 10:35 | 957488 par4
par4's picture

1934 gold standard abolished? Bretton woods pegged dollar to gold at $35 to the ounce. Yes?

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 10:47 | 957500 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Yup, this guy would rather die of liver failure than throwing up every now and then.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 11:02 | 957514 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

Tell that to the 7+ million Americans who died from effects of malnutrition during the Great Depression and ask them how they liked the libertarian heaven of 'throwing up every now and then' ...

And to preempt your usual lie that the "Fed caused the Great Depression", here's a few facts:

The Fed did not actually expand the monetary base and did not "print easy money" - remember, the US was still on the gold standard until 1933/1934:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?bgcolor=%23B3CD...

Note how the monetary base was largely constant, following gold reserves.

What enabled the roaring twenties was the anti-regulatory laissez-faire environment offered by two republican administrations - combined with a post-war "this time it's different!" zeitgeist. Banks gave easy credit on margin - to buy stocks, which as we know can only go up in price, right? :-)

Once that house of cards collapsed the administration watched as literally thousands of banks went bankrupt as more and more people withdrew their funds (and put it into their safes) and more and more debtors (and over-leveraged banks) got squeezed by debt deflation.

What got the US out of the deflationary spiral? Going off the gold standard in 1933/34 (confiscating gold and then repricing gold), printing a lot of dollars and the government spending them - combined with a more active Fed and FDIC to ensure that people cannot lose their hard deposits in a bank crash.

European countries (the US crisis was quickly exported to Europe as well and expanded into a world economic crisis) dropped the gold standard as well - those who dropped it earlier got off better - those who dropped the gold standard later (like France, the last holdout) had a prolonged crisis.

You can see how the US monetary base increased after the gold standard was dropped, dramatically.

Unemployment also started going down when the gold standard was dropped:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SlVu0t0KqXI/AAAAAAAAFxo/rzSqiWrqGu...

And here's a full-blown painful recession with the gold standard fully place (the 'Panic of 1893'):

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_VgJQTp0Bsf0/TUXXtHR_P9I/AAAAAAAAAHY/tOUr4y8watA/sl...

It was an ugly, almost decade-long affair to recover from a simple panic. Not some quick 'throwing up' ... And the busts went on and on, in quick succession.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 11:12 | 957537 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Sorry, you are intellectually inconsistent.  Either Bernanke is competent, or is incompetent.  Which is it?  You don't get to pick and choose to fit your current state of cognitive dissonance.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 11:17 | 957547 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

When it comes to implementing monetary easing to fight deflation then Bernanke is pretty competent - albeit he is somewhat isolated due to not enough fiscal spending, so the US job market is in a worse shape than the German or Chinese job markets.

What was your point? You did not state any.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 12:00 | 957604 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Yes I did.  You just refuse to see it because it destroys your argument.  Either Bernanke was right in that the Fed caused the Depression (meaning laissez faire was not at fault--something that is widely understood by those who actually LOOK at the policies of the Hoover administration, a man who came into office decrying laissez faire, and was in fact such a socialist buffoon that Roosevelt campaigned against his intrusion into the economy!), or he was wrong, and as such his whole theory of how economics works is wrong, so perhaps he shouldn't be in charge of the economy.  Not an invalid assertion, as he has YET to make a correct economic prediction.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:09 | 957711 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

Either Bernanke was right in that the Fed caused the Depression

No, the point is that the Fed could have done more in avoiding it.

So the libertarian, non-interventionist Fed let the Depression happen - and that's a big difference ...

How that supports your view that the Fed should be more libertarian again I fail to see :-)

Or do you want to abolish the Fed altogether, letting the big banks be the ones who do the bailing out? They'd have power over vast areas of the economy and during busts they'd conveniently pick the winners and losers - like they did before the Fed was created ...

or he was wrong, and as such his whole theory of how economics works is wrong

You are such an intellectual simpleton, really. You see the world in black and white, good and evil, right and wrong.

The concept of someone not being right in one aspect of his argument while he might be right in others never occurs to you, right? :-)

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 14:19 | 957818 Dangertime
Dangertime's picture

"So the libertarian, non-interventionist Fed let the Depression happen - and that's a big difference"

This is where you err.

 

There is no such thing as a libertarian non-interventionist Fed.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 15:50 | 957978 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

There is no such thing as a libertarian non-interventionist Fed.

Well, lets drop the 'libertarian' qualifier then. I only wanted to point out that the doctrine of the freshly-created Fed (looked upon very suspiciously) was very different from the doctrine and mandate of the Fed today.

The Fed in 1929-30 was very cautious. The Fed today has 80 years of a track record of avoiding depressions and babysitting one of the most successful global economies of the last 100 years - and still it's being attacked ferociously.

Imagine yourself to be Fed Chairman in 1929 and raising the prospect of QE :-)

It was unthinkable.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 20:12 | 958414 BigJim
BigJim's picture

 

I've read a lot of your posts, and seen the other regulars point out your errors.  Repeatedly. Yet here you are again, posting the same old shite.

Just one example of your sophistry:

"The Fed did not actually expand the monetary base and did not "print easy money" - remember, the US was still on the gold standard until 1933/1934:

      http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?bgcolor=%23B3CD..."

Well, that's hardly surprising, is it? That's the BASE money supply. But money in a fractional reserve system is more than just the base money supply, isn't it, troll? If we look at M2, that expanded by 300% between 1913 and 1929. I'd call that quite an expansion, wouldn't you?

Being wrong is one thing. But people have pointed out your errors repeatedly. Given how well you articulate your sophistries, you are clearly sufficiently intelligent to know your arguments are specious.

Fuck off, you dishonest piece of shit.

 

Mon, 02/14/2011 - 11:20 | 959539 h3m1ngw4y
h3m1ngw4y's picture

the troll and paid shill is working overtime. i dont even care anymore to junk. just overread him

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 15:02 | 957872 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Switching terms, lying and sayng one thing is another, is intellectual dishonesty.  Libertarian central planners?  You are awash in contradictions.  A mass of cognitive dissonance.  Living death.

You can't argue against someone who constantly redefines terms to manufacture arguments.  You, and those like you who rule our country, have lead us to the brink of disaster and beyond, yet you blame all of the problems you have caused on the guys who aren't in power.  Those who allowed the Depression of 1920 to end immediately.  You LIE and say that Hoover was laissez faire when that is clearly not the case.

If you can't dazzle them with science, baffle them with bullshit.  That is exactly the course you have taken.  You lie and obfuscate the truth, and claim that there can be no truth.  Christ, you're like a Randian villain in the flesh.

Guess I'll just shrug, and let you kill yourself and everyone else who can't see you for what you are.  Enjoy your apocalypse.  You made it, and you deserve it.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 17:24 | 958146 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

I agree wholeheartedly with the "Living Death" part.

The apocalypse is coming, and I am worried for all of us who have tried to prepare; I hope those of you who caused it rot in Hell.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 20:03 | 958403 tellsometruth
tellsometruth's picture

Or do you want to abolish the Fed altogether, letting the big banks be the ones who do the bailing out? They'd have power over vast areas of the economy and during busts they'd conveniently pick the winners and losers - like they did before the Fed was created ...

No bailing out is what most of the people wanted in in the fall of 2008...quick fire sale less dangerous than years of stagflation with risks of hyperinflation in endless attempts of bailouts... but the congress was told the world would have ended martial law yadyayda

The question is do you not believe this credit crunch was intentionally constructed by allowing Bear Stearns to happen and Lehman to fail with the BK laws in the UK?


Sun, 02/13/2011 - 12:46 | 957669 SheHunter
SheHunter's picture

Let me tell you my point More Critical.  What we have now is working far less than you expound. We DO have masses of underemployed and unemployed youth. We DO have masses of elderly people who cannot live on their government pittance. We DO have masses of able, younger adults out of work recieving so few coins from the government that they house up togaether, go back with parents or move into a park.  So with all that occuring anyway and steadily increasing I say BS and enough is enough and what we have now is not working.  RP will not do away with the programs you list in your first blog.  He would not be allowed to even if he did want to- the senate and house would not allow a clean sweep of these programs.  So, with the undeniable recognition that what we have now is not working...and with the knowledge that our huge government care programs would not be obliterated overnight and likely not ever ...what is your reluctance to wiping some of the tarnished slate clean?

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:12 | 957715 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

What we have now is working far less than you expound.

I don't see 7 million dead and I don't see hundreds of thousands of children (along millions of adults) living in Hoovervilles either.

You may want to see the busts and panics of the gold standard - I don't.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:30 | 957739 Dr Hackenbush
Dr Hackenbush's picture

meanwhile, in this century, the FRB system (which began w/gold) has grown into the worst money system ever thrust upon mankind, and getting exponentially worse.  Ridding the debt  system would allow a represenative gvmt to actually help the poor, elderly, middle class, blah, blah, instead of the bankers and crony politicians.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:53 | 957780 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

meanwhile, in this century, the FRB system (which began w/gold) has grown into the worst money system ever thrust upon mankind, and getting exponentially worse.

I do not share that view. I see that civilization improved leaps and bounds, and I see that given enough political will the federal debt can not only grow slower but can be reduced in absolute terms:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?bgcolor=%23B3CD...

Most of the 'exponential' thing we are seeing is civilization getting interconnected more and more. There's more business per capita, more communication per capita, there's more people to begin with. That inevitably brings growth with itself and it inevitably needs more money to represent all that trade proportionally - and that's good, not bad.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 14:41 | 957840 Dr Hackenbush
Dr Hackenbush's picture

if we can't agree that massive rising debt in a top down money system inhibits a government from performing basic functions, i.e., helping poor, then we've come as far as we can.  The neo-liberal expansionism, in the long run, has only done well to preserve political lives.  It has created a world where synthetic growth cycles, fueled crazy use of critical resources, just for the sake of creating resources in order to pay off debt.  It's a train laying its own track.  In a finite universe, stable growth/ stable currency, would be far-far better, and no one has to starve to death, anywhere.  

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 15:56 | 957988 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

if we can't agree that massive rising debt in a top down money system inhibits a government from performing basic functions, i.e., helping poor, then we've come as far as we can.

Well, but didn't this happen 10 short years ago:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?bgcolor=%23B3CD...

?

I.e. the federal debt can be paid down, given the political will.

The US is a very rich country with 15 trillion dollars per year income, with natural resources / mineral rights alone worth hundreds of trillions of dollars - and it's still printing the currency that it is indebted in.

A debt of 14 trillion dollars may sound a lot but in relative terms it's not that bad really.

To put it differently: the US has grown so much that its sheer economic output could pay down the total federal debt of 1980 within 1 month.

Yes, debt goes up 'exponentially' but so does productivity, size and global value ...

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:35 | 957749 SheHunter
SheHunter's picture

Agreed.  Our hundreds of thousands of poor are less visible. They are living in parks and deserted industrial buildings and in deserted school buses behind the Quality Inn in Rawlins WY (to name one loction) and beneath the Elko NV overpass at the second exit (to name another location).  Our starving and abused children are living in housing for the poor neigborhods and in deserted warehouses.  I do see some of what you are saying but consider this: if we had our poor living in Hoovervilles they would be hard to hide. A public humiliation for our country.  Perhaps our sordid government would be more inclined to act if they could less easily hide the poor. Do some googling on how our cities hide their poor prior to hosting large events...let's get the poverty out into the open.  Many of us RP advocates know it would hurt but, hell,many are hurting already. Hurts like hell when you're pulling the tooth but then the ache goes away.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:57 | 957785 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

Our starving and abused children are living in housing for the poor neigborhods and in deserted warehouses.  I do see some of what you are saying but consider this: if we had our poor living in Hoovervilles they would be hard to hide.

Why do you assume that during the Great Depression there was no hidden/latent poverty? Of course there were tens of millions more - the Hoovervilles were just those who lost everything and lost all remaining links to more prosperous parts of American civilization.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 14:15 | 957793 njdoo7
njdoo7's picture

 

Just because YOU haven't seen them yet, doesn't mean it's not happening.  Sure they are relatively smaller now, and surely you can make unfounded assertions that they will not grow, but matter of fact is they are here and currently growing.  The system you advocate is not preventing these things from occuring, regardless of what you wish to believe.

"Like a dozen or so other cities across the nation, Fresno and Sacramento are dealing with the arrival of modern-day Hoovervilles. The illegal encampments of homeless people are reminiscent, on a far smaller scale, of Depression-era shanty towns."

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/03/25/us/20090326-TENTS_index.html

Just like most in the mainstream you try to divide an issue into two views, red or blue, black or white, left or right...  It's not: maintain the status quo or have busts and panics.  Isn't it convenient how your 'one and only opposing choice' is from a time in history when the fed existed and exerted some control over interest rates.  Isn't it convenient that the system you advocate also contains bust and panics.  Your two opposing options/outcomes that you try to present aren't even true representations of the debate at hand.  Your argument is founded upon misrepresenting opposing views, because it is not strong enough to actually address them..go figure.  

 

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 16:05 | 958005 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

Sure they are relatively smaller now

Not just 'smaller' but 'much smaller' - and that is what matters.

There were literally more than ten million Americans in Hoovervilles and 7+ million died due to the effects of the depression.

You sure cannot be making the point that the current recession (it did not even depression status) is comparable on any level with the Great Depression?

Yes, it's the deepest recession for a long time, so yes, it's unprecedented for pretty much anyone involved. It could be much worse if you take away the (very feeble, in international comparison) safety nets.

Compare it to how the crisis was handled in Germany - the fiscal and monetary response was rather skillful.

Firstly, the German governmental sector spent up to almost twice as much as the US government, during the crisis:

http://www.cepr.net/images/stories/germany-U.S._23832_image001.gif

Imports are rising:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/DEUIMPORTQDSNAQ_Max_630_378.png

Exports are rising:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/DEUEXPORTQDSNAQ_Max_630_378.png

Unemployment is dropping:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/DEUURAMS_Max_630_378.png

And it never reached the peaks that US unemployment reached.

That is how a full-blown keynesian stimulus program works in practice.

So yes, it can be done, given enough political will to actually help the economy. GOP sabotage was really harmful in that respect - and now they are blaming it on Obama. That was obstruction executed in a skillful manner.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 17:07 | 958113 akak
akak's picture

There is one thing that rabid statists of your persuasion can NOT deny, and that is that your vision of the perfect society rests on massive and all-encompassing coercion at the hands of the omnipotent State.  Your vision is the very antithesis of "progressive", as it merely represents a return to the millenia of violence and coercive control by an all-powerful elite that prevailed prior to the Enlightenment.  Your naive and abominable political and social goals are regressive and evil in every sense of those words.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 18:15 | 958230 stormsailor
stormsailor's picture

7 million people died of starvation in the depression?

 

in the us, or worldwide.

 

is that 1929 through 1939?

 

is that all effects, or just starvation?

 

where is this quantified, and not just historian speculation.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 15:01 | 957875 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You choose liver failure and death over vomiting.

I would choose not to drink, personally.  Bartender Ben doesn't cut anyone off.  Ever.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 16:21 | 958035 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

I'll just keep on drinking, thank you.  It cools the rage, as opposed to some for whom it fuels it.  If I couldn't have a few to mellow out, I would probably have been shot in a clock tower a long time ago. ;(

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:29 | 957736 Dr Hackenbush
Dr Hackenbush's picture

.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:54 | 957779 tellsometruth
tellsometruth's picture

More Critical T...

You again bring up valid points for Libertarians/paulnuts (i am one) to consider with the whole less regulation vs wanting real regulation. 

I look at this way.  Our current system is based on too much subsidy and the regulations not being properly enforced or ignored and the Judicial System is not providing the their Check to the balance of Power along with the MSM not doing its checking either.

if there was complete transparency in our (new) system and honest economic education I do beleive we would be much better off.  This is based on a transition out of our current crony capitilism that informed citizens of both the left and the right despise. The Checks and balances of a free market with unbiased education and media would serve the people best.  I know a little pie in the sky but it is sunday morning and there is finally snow in the forcast out in my neck of the woods (cascades)

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:59 | 957787 tellsometruth
tellsometruth's picture

Also to note, I believe the prevelant Apathetic view towards our Gov and Econ would change drastically if people felt their calls for transparency were heard.  Thus leading to feeling of having some control, rather than the current norm of not wanting to no any details b/c they get pissed off and turned off by the whole discusssion and return to the midless dribble pouring out the TV

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 16:39 | 958064 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

I agree that transparency might be a game-changer.

I'm very curious to see how the whole Wikileaks concept plays out. (even if in the end it will not be called Wikileaks.)

OTOH it's also clear that sociopaths simply do not care about popular opinion - witness Berlusconi.

Furthermore there's subtle abuse like hidden monopoly fees in form of intentionally complex and ever changing bills and calculations - which most voters do not grasp.

So while transparency will be helpful in shining light on the really shady deals - it does not work against subtle, deniable abuse and it does not work against those who do not care about being exposed.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 18:58 | 958299 tellsometruth
tellsometruth's picture

Thanks for the response... I appreciate opposing view points in a discussion, and that most certainly is/will become increasingly important for folks of historically opposing viewpoints (conserv & Lib) that are narrowing their focus to rid us all of the root causes of present circumstances.  EX Dennis and Ron standing up to fight the Renewal of Patriot Act

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 14:07 | 957789 tellsometruth
tellsometruth's picture

Anyone for Cat skiing at MT Bailey Oregon this Friday  (oldest operation in US)?  Forcast looks like Pow Pow! We need one more!

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 14:11 | 957806 ZackLo
ZackLo's picture

Is that you Krugman? didn't print enough money? I guess we'll find out if they were right but printing money creates the the "hoarding effect" that you detest..Common sense man they are printing money, businesses are  going to go load up on triple the supplies(on borrowed money) to head off the future depreciation of the currency(higher prices) ,people won't be hired because all the money was spent on inflated goods... then bam! The bottom falls out because nobody has a job because businesses couldn't afford to hire the people to support said inflated goods prices...When the prices adventually crash their is no chance of those prices ever getting back to where they were, because everyone borrowed to supply the goods at those prices and also everyone would be borrowing to buy those goods at those prices....

 

so instead of making creditors eat their own losses for they're own stupidity you would rather an endless supply of liquidity to drown out all of the problems until noone produces goods at all. (talk about wearing a blind fold)

You know when people sell things people generally, at least today in the modern age, buy those goods reshape them and sell them...shit people produce doesn't come out of thin air...like the notes they create at the fed.

That is why debt is so evil, because if you go into debt, you have to make more or at least as much as you borrowed to get out of debt. That is the unavoidable disconnect. No free lunch even if it unwillingly stolen from the masses through debasement.

banking institutions were supposed to deal with "time preferance" as in I have this gold and I'm saving it, so i put it in a deposite at the bank for a fixed amount of time and they lend it to someone who runs a profitable operation. Someone around 1000-2000 years ago realized hey the people never come in to get said gold. So they went on to make 10x the deposit  checkbook entry so you have a small gold supply servicing a 10x leverage debt load(now fiat servicing a 100x? 1000x?)...there's your boom and bust cycle. Abolish fractional reserve it only serves to goose prices to where they otherwise wouldn't be, and expropriates the purchasing power and labor to the middle men creditors.

the expansion of production of goods and the division of labor has been wrecked for as long as humans have been around because of this fact.

natural growth is deflationary because production expands but big corporations hate the basic law of diminishing marginal utility (deflation?), the more you make the less it's worth,

There is no and will be no recovery. Until the debt is purged from the system. There will be no  division of labor until creditors lose the fractional reserve power. honesty will not take place in the division of labor until the printer is destroyed and some commodity is deemed money.

read your history.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 12:09 | 957614 Kayman
Kayman's picture

Uh... MCT

There are small fish left ?

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 12:40 | 957658 dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

 

 

"but it tries not to leave the elderly rotting in poverty and illness, it does not force them to beg for 'charity' of the rich"

but its okay to provide them with their lives by the enforced charity of the taxpayer instead of people actually asking for and being thankful for the help they recieve from those most capable of giving it.

 

" let a whole generation of youth get lost"

 

Who allows all the drugs into the country and who provides the schooling.  Not a surprise that a generation that has been brainwashed into waiting for the government to provide them with jobs and a future get lost hanging around waiting for nothing to happen.  It wouldn't be by chance that the large pool of unemployed will be available to fill the ranks of the new police state.  tsa fema and other assorted paramilitaries.   

 

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:19 | 957724 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

but its okay to provide them with their lives by the enforced charity of the taxpayer instead of people actually asking for and being thankful for the help they recieve from those most capable of giving it.

Yes in essence - and it's not "charity", it's insurance benefits - you are entitled to them, you paid your dues in the good times in form of taxes.

There are people who'd rather starve and die than beg for 'charity' from others and then have to 'thank' for the generosity.

Also note that charity is a fundamentally pro-cyclical force: it works when there's prosperity but people are ... thrifty in times of need: millions were forced to live in Hoovervilles ...

FYI, Adam Smith, the creator of libertarian economics, supported not only taxation but progressive taxation as well.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 19:59 | 958398 dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

the fund from which these benefits flows is empty and the real cost will be the taxes collected from the yet unborn.  I camp out nearly every year while the weather is above freezing because I like camping out and its somewhat cheaper.

I can acept a certain level of taxation.  I can't accept the level of debt assumed for all these entitlements which sucks the life force out of a nation paying the vig to the squid.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 20:23 | 958442 BigJim
BigJim's picture

No, you're right, it's not 'charity'.

Charity is when 'A' gives freely to 'B'.

Our current system has 'C' threatening to imprison 'A' if 'A' doesn't give money to 'C', who may (or may not) give money to 'B' if 'B' is a member of a politically-decided beneficiary group.

While 'C' creams off a generous cut of this 'charity', of course.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 21:04 | 958527 dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

even johnny the douche never jacked a thread like ol "meat head".  time for tyler to send him off to the weight pile permanantly

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 21:47 | 958610 BigJim
BigJim's picture

It's our fault, really. Despite knowing you should never feed the trolls, we still do it...

His posts are just so patronising, mendacious, and wrong, it's hard to resist.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 12:49 | 957675 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Government is not the sole source of charitable activities, and is not "charitable. Unfortunately, your charitable utopia, is coercive and oppressive towards many. It is the greatest of evils, to oppress your fellow man. Your utopia strives for the lowest common denominator among the broadest group of people by rewarding failure, rather than success.

Your "Big Fish" is the result of government activity (bailouts, TBTF, subsidies, regulations, etc.).

it does not force them to beg for 'charity' of the rich

Have you driven by any strip mall parking lot lately? How many people are standing on the curb holding signs? These folks may start having to unionize soon.

Your utopia allows us to sweep our dirt under the rug of government, and make it  somebody elses' problem. This is not compassion. This is convenience. It is avoidance!

Oh then there is the idea that we no longer have the money to pay for any of this shit.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 09:49 | 957440 Catullus
Catullus's picture

When is this troll going to realize that no one is listening??

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 10:27 | 957476 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

As I've said before, he isn't a troll, he's a Statist.  I do read what he has to say and here's why:  "The current system is the worst (except all the alternatives), it's messy but it tries not to leave the elderly rotting in poverty and illness, it does not force them to beg for 'charity' of the rich..."

This statement scares the shit out of me.  It denies the ability to change for the better as it dismisses ALL alternatives, despite admitting that what we have currently is FUBAR.  Secondly, it acknowledges the right of the government to arbitrarily decide how much of the fruits of my labor it can take at gunpoint,  AND agrees. 

Now while I take this comment a little figuratively rather than literally, it is the sentiment that matters.  This isn't trolling, it's Statism, and it's well spoken, well researched, and IMO dangerous as Hell.  I would recommend that you pay attention to what he says, because it is the well spoken people with these beliefs that will see to it that you end up sharing your "equal misery" with everybody else in the work camps.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 10:54 | 957510 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

It denies the ability to change for the better as it dismisses ALL alternatives,

I do not deny alternatives at all. (I even suggested a monetary system that could replace the current fractional reserve banking system.)

I criticise all the alternatives that are much worse than the current system though.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 11:54 | 957591 Rick Masters
Rick Masters's picture

Nice argument. Makes a lot sense. I'm not sure though that Wall Street will exactly welcome him eventually. But i do share some of your reservations about paul and his brand of economics. It would cause a lot of initial suffering. But yuo can';t help but like both the Paul's for their consistent and fair views that don't favor one group above another.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:27 | 957731 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

But yuo can';t help but like both the Paul's for their consistent and fair views that don't favor one group above another.

Well, I don't doubt his honesty (I really don't), but let me count the ways of how he favors one group over others:

  • the gold standard fundamentally favors the rich
  • monopolies fundamentally favor the rich
  • low taxes fundamentally favor the rich
  • 'no regulation' fundamentally favors the rich

'The rich' is the group Ron Paul happens to be a member of.

If he made arguments that were distinctly against the group he is a member of I could take his views more seriously. Right now I just see that he is deluding himself from a very privileged position in life.

Or if his arguments were simply right, I would not consider which group he is a member of.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 20:33 | 958463 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Nice try. But no.

  • the current fiat system favours the rich. Take a look at income inequality now, vs 1971 when we finally lost the last vestiges of the gold standard.
  • monopolies can only exist with government support
  • the current system of taxation favours the rich, because though it is nominally progressive, in reality it is so full of loopholes that the wealthy pay practically nothing. The tax code isn't thousand of pages long to make people pay MORE tax. Under a flat tax the wealthy would pay a lot more than they do currently.
  • regulations favour large companies because i) they are the firms that have the financial clout to influence the lawmakers who concoct the regulations, and ii) have the size to absorb the regulatory overhead.

But you know all this already, don't you, troll?

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 12:06 | 957612 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

That's why I said that I took the comment somewhat figuratively.  You have offered solutions in the past, one fiscal policy solution that I would even say merited a place at the drawing board. 

My complaint with you fundamentally is your faith in Government.  I also notice you didn't respond at all to the point about agreeing with redistribution at gunpoint, nor the comment about "equal misery". 

You want me to continue to feed people who can't and won't feed themselves.  I am a charitable man, but I resent you telling me who to feed and how much. 

I resent you telling me what kind of seeds I can plant. 

I resent you telling me I can't sell eggs to a neighbor who wants them. 

I resent "officials" sitting in an office 400 miles away and telling me what's happening with my local wildlife, when I am there looking at it. 

I resent you telling me that despite paying the proportionate amount of taxes for my family and one or two other families, you not only say it isn't enough, but that I don't pay my "fair share".

I resent going shopping on the first of the month and seeing "poor" people dressed like professional athletes buying shitty groceries and Playstation3 games with my money

I resent ridiculous gun laws that seek to hamper the ability of my family to protect itself while criminals ignore them like they always have.

I resent the victimization of criminals who are coddled when they should be shot like dogs in the street.

This may just seem like some red necked rant, but it is part of the fundamental reason so many of us are so pissed.  The biggest joke we are ever told by our Government is that we are a free people.  We aren't free, we're just controlled rather than shot.  For now.  Give it a year or two.  The most basic aspects of our day to day existence are legislated to fucking death, and I am of the opinion that we need a SERIOUS reset.  Either way we're gonna get it.  Your way is just slower,  and IMO evil, because you would drag everybody down to the same level before we die, rather than let those who have a chance, take a chance.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 12:32 | 957650 Sam Clemons
Sam Clemons's picture

Nice.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:47 | 957750 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

My complaint with you fundamentally is your faith in Government.

I have no 'faith' in government at all.

I just happen to favor being a 'voting shareholder by birthright' in a large national company (the government) over being born into a Gilded Age system of monopolistic oligarchies which would already be owned by a random collection of rich brats who never knew real work.

You never really answered that point of mine, and I think it's crutial:

Democracy is the fundamental non free market concept: you get a vote by birthright, but you are not allowed to sell that vote.

Also, inheritance of wealth is the fundamental anti-democratic concept: some person gets a lot of resources not out of merit but out of chance.

So if such a cherished concept as a voting democracy is so fundamentally against two key concepts of libertarian free markets, does that not tell you that 'free markets' are not really an absolute thing to begin with, but are man-made concepts which works in many areas but which has to be limited/policed in many other areas?

I also notice you didn't respond at all to the point about agreeing with redistribution at gunpoint, nor the comment about "equal misery".

I do not agree that compulsory insurance fees (which taxes really are) is 'redistribution at gunpoint'. You get huge benefits from being allowed to be part of a developed, modern civilization [ask the millions of illegal immigrants ...]  and even Adam Smith himself agreed that progressive taxation was just and fair.

I think fair is fair, if you benefit from civilization you should pay an income-progressive share of its costs.

Also, I do not see "equal misery" - I see safety nets working in bad times - at least in countries that implement social safety nets properly. (Most of northern Europe for example)

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:59 | 957786 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

Though it may be cliche, Democracy is that old addage about two wolves and a sheep arguing dinner.  And now that we've reached the point where the minority is feeding the majority, Democracy is exactly the vehicle that will destroy mankind.

I'm not anti-tax, and have never said anything of the kind.  I do benefit from being a tax payer, but for those of you who believe in the status quo, too much is never enough.

And my vision of YOUR saftey net:  I live next door to another family of four.  I have a winters worth of food stocked away with some extra to share, and the neighbor has none.  You would put a gun to my head and force me to give them half, insuring we ALL die in February, rather than allow me to survive and maybe help the other family through.  That's a very simplistic analogy, but it is entirely representative of the end result of a Statist's social engineering.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 14:04 | 957801 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

BTW, you say that you don't see taxation as redistribution at gunpoint, but I challenge you to "Opt Out".  You will be dealing with armed men who will sieze your assets and possibly imprison you.  Sorry you didn't see the gun that was pointed at me through your rose colored contact lenses.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 14:36 | 957838 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

BTW, you say that you don't see taxation as redistribution at gunpoint, but I challenge you to "Opt Out".

Consider the equivalent of renting a shop in a mall. You are not entitled to keep all your revenue: you have to pay the company that keeps the mall running!

You have several ways to opt out of 'paying the rent':

  • leave the mall for another one - you are not required to do business there
  • stop your business

In terms of taxes you too have two 'free market' ways to 'opt out':

  • leave the US (you can even forfeit your citizenship)
  • stop engaging in US economic activities if the fees are too high to you and you find it unprofitable.

But in reality it will never be unprofitable: progressive taxation makes sure that there's always income at the margin so there's always incentive to make even more money.

Adam Smith understood that.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 15:08 | 957881 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

Hey, thanks for the alternatives, how fucking generous of you.  Do you see the how sick your basis is?  If you don't like it, get the fuck out, or quit playing completely.

Do you think I'm singling out income tax when I bitch about armed robbery?  Income taxes aren't really even the biggest part of my beef with the govt., but even if I quit my job, then they will do their damndest to tax me off of my land which I paid for with taxed dollars, when I work on that land (even as simple as picking rocks from the ground and building a fencerow) they call it improvements and tax me more,  capitol gains on my profits; they will continue to raise the fees I pay for license plates, licenses (drivers, hunting and fishingn etc), gas taxes, sales taxes, levies, tolls......  on and on and on FOREVER.  You see no problem with that, I LOATHE it.  LOATHE.  This isn't greed either; I'm no rich man (not even close), and money isn't my motivator. 

And don't worry, in a year or so at the outside, I will be done playing.  (and I'm a long way from getting at my pensions)  How fortunate for me that you have taken the time to explain to me my options.  I am going to pick up my toys and go home; laughing all the way to the fucking woods at the money that I'm NOT putting into the system I have grown to DESPISE so much.  How ironic that the majority of my savings I've set aside is budgeted for Goddamned property taxes.

EDIT:  Oh, and BTW, if Adam Smith was standing at my doorstep advocating the fairness of the taxes I pay, and trying to tell my I still had motivation to make more, I'd punch him in the ball sack as surely as I would you.  Fucking academics.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 15:22 | 957897 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

Note that 'leaving' or 'not doing it' are the two 'opt out' options that a free market world gives you. Here's a third one you have in the US which option you would not have in a 'mall'. This is given to you by democracy:

  • Convince enough other voters to change the laws of the land and eliminate taxes

This is an option you generally do not have in a pure 'free market' world.

Hey, thanks for the alternatives, how fucking generous of you.

I have not created those rules - it's the hundreds of millions of people living in the country who evolved the rules through dozens and dozens of elections through hundreds of years.

Also, what 'opt out' do you think would be fair, in addition to the three options given to you? Do you think your wish overrides the interests of those other people who actually built the country?

Also, don't you think that I replied your original request "does the system give me any opt-out?" rather richly ...

If you do not think that popular support does not have the power to change the outcome then why do you think Ron Paul could make any difference?

Reality is that if enough 'shareholders' of the country vote for a change in the company's bylaws then it is changed.

The current mess is the result of groups of people often having opposing interests - so some sort of imperfect compromise gets implemented.

they will continue to raise the fees I pay for license plates, licenses (drivers, hunting and fishingn etc), gas taxes, sales taxes, levies, tolls......  on and on and on FOREVER.

I think you are deluding yourself if you think that you would not see that in a government-free world.

Just check history and see the kind of contracts Standard Oil required of anyone who wanted to transport goods over rail-lines they owned.

It was utter, anti-competitive "pay to play" at its purest, going on for decades and not being accountable to anyone. If you did not contract? Sorry, no rail transport for you into important markets. You always had the free market 'option' to build your own railroad to every city in the country :-)

Politicians at least face reelection every couple of years and civil servant greed is typically limited to their own paychecks and benefits.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 15:31 | 957922 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

This is absolutely the worst post you have ever made.

First of all, I have stated more than once that I am not anti-tax.  What I am, and you are not is: pro responsibility.

There is very little chance of convincing voters to change the status quo; see my above post.  Our democracy has reached that tipping point where it is democracy itself that is our fast track to oblivion. 

Who are you saying "built the country"?  The eaters?  The Founders?  The Framers? The WWII generation?  Current productive "builders" of society?  You believe that the majority of "builders of society" would side with you?  You side with the eaters because it makes you feel good.  The people you stand for built nothing.  What a fucking joke.  I build pipelines.  What do you build?  What do you PRODUCE?

Secondly, I never said Ron Paul could change a thing.  I never said I was a Paul supporter. (although I would probably vote for him) There is no more changing things, the tipping point has been reached.  51 percent of the population is now voting to steal from the other 49, and it will never go back.  You want me to feed you, and I'm getting pissy about it.  Two wolves and a sheep.

EDIT: If you are going to add to your posts, please have the decency to mark it "Edited", or reply to your earlier post.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 16:26 | 958043 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

First of all, I have stated more than once that I am not anti-tax.  What I am, and you are not is: pro responsibility.

In what way do you see me in favor of irresponsibility? I'm in favor of insurance-alike safety nets that improve the competitiveness of a country - I'm not in favor of other kinds of (easier to abuse) benefits.

There is very little chance of convincing voters to change the status quo; see my above post.  Our democracy has reached that tipping point where it is democracy itself that is our fast track to oblivion.

Harsh realities do tend to 'convince' voters in the end. But are people short-sighted? On average, yes - humans go to crazy levels of specialization on short-term assumptions that circumstances will not change. Just think about New Orleans marsh-land housing for a moment ...

So I'm not sure what you think could be done against that - dictatorship of those who regard themselves to act in the common good?

Who are you saying "built the country"?  The eaters?  The Founders?  The Framers? The WWII generation?  Current productive "builders" of society?  You believe that the majority of "builders of society" would side with you?  You side with the eaters because it makes you feel good.

Sorry but you are really making sick arguments here.

How is 'universal healthcare' an eater's society?

How is 'world-class public schooling' an eater's society?

How is 'good public roads and public transportation' an eater's society?

How is 'not letting the elderly die in misery' an eater's society?

How is 'not letting unemployed people receive zero income for one short year after they became unemployed' an eater's society?

I very much support measures that stimulate productive behavior. I'm against hoarding, I'm against freeloading.

What do you PRODUCE?

Yes, I very much produce useful things, so I understand your perspective and share the sentiment.

I just don't see how good safety nets in society work against the concept of a responsible, productive society. In my first-hand experience they increase productivity.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 18:06 | 958220 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

Here is the real issue at hand, the one that no one wants to discuss, but all arguments end there:  We have too many people on this planet that are fed because of the efforts of too few, and until this is remedied there is no solution.  When the conversation finally gets down to the gut it all comes out: I'm sick for acknowledging nature, and you're rational because you deny it.

I and a very few others here, have the balls to at least admit it.  I also, like too few, accept my mortality and acknowledge that my solution means I and my family may be stepped on like ants on a hill.  It is what it is.  You call it a sick argument, but that is a cop out.  We keep people alive on feeding tubes and life support, with nurses aides wiping our asses in the name of humanity.  Guess what? We should have pulled the pin on Grandpa a long time ago.  We feed masses of people in ghettos for generation after generation, like rats in a grain bin, all in the name of humanity.  We keep entire nations fed when Mother Nature would have killed three fourths of them at birth, all in the name of humanity, then decry the cruelness of survival and wonder why we can't curb disease.  Nature has been forsaken, and our chickens are coming home to roost.  You call me sick; I call myself a naturalist.

I have no desire for "universal healthcare" because the healthcare system became so corrupted decades ago in favor of profit, that for every person helped by "unattainable" healthcare, one has been saved by staying completely the Hell away from it.  I also believe that we keep too many people alive for too long in the first place.  If that means I drop dead from a stroke at 50, so be it.  THAT'S LIFE.

We don't have a first class public school system, in fact all we have is an expensive piece of shit.  We get less results out of more money than any other "first world" system; we (American) are an embarrassing piece of shit.  We would do ourselves a service to have involved parents take necessary steps to insure our childrens private education, rather than what we have now.  (Crying foul over the poor?  Perhaps we should consult Darwin on this one.  I know I'm "sick", but you have your head in the sand and we are overpopulated.)

You need to stop putting words in my mouth.  As this discussion evolves to its most basic level, you continue to duck the question and add shit I never said.  Roads are one of the things I am all for having tax dollars go to.  (Remember, I have repeatedly said I AM NOT ANTI TAX)

When did I say that I was anti-unemployment, or even safety net?  I am anti "the entire concept of generational welfare", which is what three year federal emergency extension unemployment benefits is turning into.  I am also aware that we "created" these ghettos full of generational poor, and now don't want to talk about them because they are an admission of failure.

You're against "HOARDING"?  Define it.  And think hard when you do, because you are getting real fucking close to defining your own core too.  I grew up in a family that for generations put away food at least one year in advance.  I butchered my own supper for the first time at around six years old.  When a storm comes up that might close roads and put power out for days, I don't even blink.  Am I hoarding, or practical?  Are you really going to punish me for being a worker and a saver?  When I have exta money I don't go on cruises or buy new cars, I buy land and fencing and trees and tools and lumber for sheds and animals and diesel and and and.  So people who have been fortunate and made a couple of extra dollars should do what with it?  What qualifies as hoarding to you?  Food is bad, but baseball cards are good?  Gold? Galvanized Washers? Anything but food?  So when I have enough to weather a storm and the fucking partiers who went to Mexico on their Visa Card don't, am I hoarding?  You sure make it sound that way.

I used the example of the family with no food living next door to me.  I have a whole winters worth of food and they don't.  Would you let me keep it and do what I could to help them, or would you take it at gunpoint to insure everyone's death? 

You say you produce something of value; tell me what it is.  Be honest.  Why didn't you just say what it was the last time around? 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 20:19 | 958433 GreenSideUp
GreenSideUp's picture

Colonel, I salute you for your most excellent rants on this thread.  I loathe it all along with you.  

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 21:43 | 958601 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

Hang in there, because there are millions more like him out there, literally willing to take the food from your children's mouth and give it to someone HE DECIDES deserves it more.

I am no skilled debater, but when you hang in there long enough, the true ideals surface: He knows what is good for you and yours better than you do.  Beware.

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 04:18 | 962842 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

The key argument you are ignoring and which you are not addressing is very simple:

there are people who honestly argue that safety nets increase productivity and who argue they they do not lead to an "eater's society".

Do you agree that private health insurance increases productivity, because you can sleep better and because you can rest assured that your loved ones will be fine and will not fall prey to extreme events?

If you agree with that (and I think you do) then you will see why I argue that public insurance achieves similar effects.

The question is that you think that on balance it's a net minus - while I think that on balance it's a net plus.

Do you agree so far?

 

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 04:50 | 962857 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

We have too many people on this planet that are fed because of the efforts of too few, and until this is remedied there is no solution.

I don't see that for most developed nations.

In Germany for example, labor force is growing steadily, even in the 'boom' years:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?bgcolor=%23B3CD...

Close to 60% of the population participates in labor. Only 7% of the population is unemployed and receives UE benefits. Being unemployed is generally not a desired social state for people to be in.

If you look at the population pyramid:

http://tfw.cachefly.net/snm/images/nm/pyramids/gm-2010.png

Then you'll see that about 30% of the population is clearly outside the labor force age: either still a child, or simply too old for most jobs (taking health into regard).

That leaves roughly 10% of 'other' non-working citizens, who are in large part unemployed. Maybe 3% is the rate of people who could under any definition be considered pure 'eaters', and even of that a significant portion are early retirees who have built wealth.

So I'm not sure what exact problem you are talking about. Yes, the population is getting older with better health-care and retirement limits are being pushed out, but otherwise the overwhelming majority of people who do not work do it because they are either too young, or clearly too old.

What do you want to do to improve that? Child labor? Killing the elderly?

So without you giving a clear rationale I have trouble answering the rest of your post - as you really depend on that key assertion - which assertion I think is fundamentally flawed.

 

Tue, 02/15/2011 - 04:57 | 962861 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

You're against "HOARDING"?  Define it.

It's a very simple definition:

Hoarding is the accumulation of wealth in form of cash equivalents and its subsequent parasitic usage during depressive periods, without any real work performed.

Note that I do not consider it hoarding if you save up money while there's inflation going on: inflation is the price you pay for inactivity.

I consider it hoarding the moment the rest of society pays you a rent for no work performed.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 20:26 | 958446 Sam Clemons
Sam Clemons's picture

I really like you.  Where do you live?  I'd like to hang out and discuss worldly things sometime.

I quit posting here in bulk some time ago because I was junked many times and could see that a lot of people weren't ready to discuss what you touched on above. 

I once had a post saying that we've pulled forward so much demand through credit creation and wasted so many natural resources that we are setting up a "survival of the weakest" society for both companies and individuals.  It is almost like we are making the entire earth an Easter Island experiment.

I went on to say that this would slowly degenerate the human race as our virtues devolve because of bad education and bad familes, and would eventually lead to long-term survival issues for the entire human race.  After all, all exponential bubbles pop.  I really fear when the population bubble bursts because there really is no respect left for hard work or not looting one another.  And most of all, people don't even get that universal healthcare is a byproduct of an "eater" society.  There is no such thing as a free lunch - normally we will pay double for it or it will end up worthless - which is what education and medical care are both becoming.

You know how in futuristic movies there are two sets of humans, one set is troll-like and the other is the elite race?  Seems we are going that direction because of legislation trying to overrule nature.

 

 

 

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 21:00 | 958520 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

"Where do you live?"

Are you for real?  There is one,,, MAYBE,  person on this thread I would flat assed out myself to, and he's a big green son of a bitch who doesn't need or want shit from me....

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 21:50 | 958617 Hulk
Hulk's picture

I'll take you up on that offer one of these days Colonel...

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 22:02 | 958640 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

The hard part about finding people to spend hard times with is that the ones you want to be with dont need/want to be with you.  They are already self sufficient, planned and prepared people.  Are we all destined to a spending TEOTWAWKI with needy sons of bitches? 

I have several friends (married couples) who joke about when TSHTF that they're coming to my house.  Oh goody.  Add four more to the list of people I'm gonna have to shoot to keep them outta my shit.   I'm not now or never have been worried about finding labor; too bad the good friends of mine that already put up 3-400 jars a year, butcher their own shit, and think 1000 rounds of 5.56 is almost enough for Saturday afternoon have their own plans. 

Welcome to Coop's Short Bus Survival School 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 22:07 | 958648 Hulk
Hulk's picture

Our plans include taking in a few needy SOB's, but they will be required to pull their weight. Don't know what the unhealthy ones are going to do though, and so many are unhealthy.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 22:02 | 958636 Sam Clemons
Sam Clemons's picture

No. I'm not for real.  It takes more than one day of liking a person.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 20:46 | 958491 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Dude! We TOLD you he was a troll! :-)

He's a very high-level, skillfull, polite, well-educated troll... but a troll nevertheless.

I've enjoyed reading your posts. Despite all its failings, at least the US still has a sizeable population of people like you; here in the UK, 99% of the population are gelded statists.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 20:54 | 958503 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

Again, I would argue the Troll aspect.  As he paints a better and better picture of himself however, I am willing to label him "my enemy", and he would be well advised to stay away from me when TSHTF.

I will acknowledge all points of view as legitimate, UP AND UNTIL he labels my supreme efforts to protect my children as unacceptable hoarding.  Now my hackles are up, and slide racked.  But I'm a paranoid doomer so....

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 21:16 | 958551 Sisyphus
Sisyphus's picture

ColonelCooper, thank you for that wonderful debate. I think it was quite civil, instead of 16 rounds of name calling. I think you have laid out your points very lucidly and (s)he hers/his. What I am most interested in knowing is MCT telling us what he does for a living, which you have asked him/her in one of your earlier posts. I have a hunch I know this person. I have read his posts in other blogs, not as MCT, but using another moniker. But, again, I could be mistaken. I await his response.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 21:36 | 958589 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

He won't tell you, at least not the truth.  He may produce "educated minds", or "provocative theater", or "enlightening artwork", or "extravegant food", but despite his allusion, he doesn't produce Jack Shit. 

Nobody who struggles or pushes or bleeds to produce can feel the way MCT does.  He denounces birthrights and silver spoons, but only those who have been born to a life of relative ease can so easily want to take from those who sacrificed to earn.

After an afternoon of arguing with a self proclaimed uneducated redneck, he "claimed" to be a producer only after accusing me of wanting more say than the "people who built the country."  He had no clarification for who those people were, nor would he say what he did to "produce".  I have been more than honest about my profession for quite some time here.  I have done my share to keep this country running, and in a tangible way.  I believe that in the spirit of the debate that we were having, MCT felt he fell short in the "production" aspect of things, and made a foolish boast that went unanswered when challenged.  If he ACTUALLY did have a profession that was productive, we would have heard. 

We will never know the truth of what he does.

 

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 22:36 | 958689 The Profit Prophet
The Profit Prophet's picture

I'm about 62.5% sure that MCT is Paul Krugman.  I'm amazed that he has nothing better to do.  I suppose......after promoting and supporting a bastardized version of Keynesian stimulus that will ultimately be responsible for the complete collapse of the global financial system, it's probably wise to spend some time defending your idiocy on the best economic blog on the web.  It's unfortunate that he's unable to grasp the inherent evil in Progressivism.....yet he has no problem at all spouting at length the evil fruits that often accompany the unmitigated greed of far right wealth retention.  Rationalization is an evil bitch for both sides of the political spectrum!

 

T.E.I.N everyone!

   

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 22:55 | 958711 Sisyphus
Sisyphus's picture

62.5%. LOL.

No, I don't think it is Paul Krugman. I think it is techy246. He is from CR, and has been its member for quite a while. Do check the picture on his profile. It makes sense why he likes the Fed so much. One of things that gave him away was his excessive use of ellipses.

http://www.hoocoodanode.org/user/3364/recent_comments

http://www.discusseconomics.com/foreign-exchange/how-is-a-falling-us-dollar-related-to-the-us-economy/

http://www.discusseconomics.com/foreign-exchange/falling-dollar-and-slowing-us-economy/

http://www.discusseconomics.com/global-economics/why-arent-indias-or-chinas-economy-5-times-better-than-the-usa/

 

Mon, 02/14/2011 - 09:06 | 959280 The Profit Prophet
The Profit Prophet's picture

I only read the first two links....not even close to the same writing style, and there is no "smarter than thou" hubris present in the posts.  Intellectually the posts are no where near the same depth.

I still like my theory (& Rocky Raccoon's as well).  I know Krugman is on ZH, and he's far too conceited to remain silent, so the only question is who is he?

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 14:00 | 957792 stormsailor
stormsailor's picture

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ infinity.

 

and clawback from all the tbtf banks, worldwide.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 15:29 | 957927 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

But you don't resent government being a privately owned institution under the control of White Capital.

That's for damn sure.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 21:06 | 958531 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Yeah... cause if 'Capital' were more under the control of darker-hued people, that would make all the difference.

Rascist.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 12:53 | 957683 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Indeed Col. Cooper.

"Keep your friends close, and your 'enemies' closer." - Sun-Tzu

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 09:59 | 957447 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

Wow, Paul.  You forgot the "</sarcasm>" button. 

"... working American who thinks that rich hypocrites suffering from 'austerity' in their country clubs cannot possibly feel the real pain of being unemployed?"

Come on.  Can you really HONESTLY say that it isn't the ultimate country clubbers benefitting from the Fed. Policies right now?  Why do we bother with Primary Dealer bond flipping when we could just have Ben and Timmy do it between themselves?

"... college graduate who thinks that dramatically rising youth unemployment would escalate into a 'lost generation' under ronpaulian government inaction?"

Please explain which specific government action (other than direct Government hiring) is putting college graduates to work?  Stimulus infrastructure jobs that give Hardhats a couple of paychecks?

"... small business owner who thinks that gold standard magnified deflation perpetually redistributing wealth to those who hoard or inherit gold is unfair to those who chose the wrong parents and are trying to produce something real?"

This statement is not so incorrect as you state it, but aggravating because despite thousands of hours put into discussion on ZH about ways to back currency with tangibles rather than faith backed fiat, you always hit the same "deflation" button on the jukebox.

"... farmer who thinks that Ron Paul abolishing anti-monopoly laws and eliminating farming subsidies would make the agrobusiness versus small farms fight a very one-sided affair? Bye-bye small independent farms and hello big monopolies? Hello even higher food prices?"

Sadly, that battle was lost long ago.  Maybe the best chance now is if I didn't have Al Franken protecting me from fresh milk, and a little bit of tomato goo stuck to an heirloom seed. 

"... elderly who thinks that Ron Paul cutting (and eventually eliminating) Medicare and Social Security would push them into poverty and would expose them to death by curable but too expensive to treat illnesses?"

It's a bankrupted system, robbed blind of any assets it did have, is unsustainable, and needs to be eliminated down the road.  There are no people 40 and under who believe that they're actually going to draw from this broken pile of shit.  So phase it out.

".. bank account holder who thinks that Ron Paul eliminating the Fed and FDIC would expose them to much severe boom and bust cycles and would expose them to losing their life's savings to bank crashes?"

The FDIC is protection for the banks to prevent bank runs, disguised as a safety net for savers.  It too is bankrupt and needs to be scrapped and redesigned.

"... ordinary investor  who thinks that Ron Paul eliminating the ban on insider trading, fiduciary duty of banks and other government financial regulations would be a perpetual payday for Wall Street?"

Please find where Ron Paul has said that, IN context.  Simply translating that from a Libertarian platform of no regulation is a stretch. 

You post this like Ron Paul is running for King, not President; as though any and all policies he discusses are to be carved in stone, with no debate, change or oversight. 

I have to go.  Dr. Paul has invited me to his house for brunch, he is boiling an old woman and an infant in a pot, and I want to get there before they run out of kitten popovers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 10:44 | 957496 nmewn
nmewn's picture

LOL +++++

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 10:51 | 957505 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

See my reply below in case you are interested in discussing this.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 11:51 | 957590 nmewn
nmewn's picture

You're not worth my time...you and I have already plowed this ground long ago, where I pointed out that you are a statist...at best.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 11:29 | 957503 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

Come on.  Can you really HONESTLY say that it isn't the ultimate country clubbers benefitting from the Fed. Policies right now?

The Fed is trying hard to ease enough to introduce inflation/growth expectations. The Great Depression was the ultimate payday for gold hoarders - that is why everyone saved dollars instead of engaging in economic activities ... The Fed sat passively along the sidelines and did nothing. Is that what you think the Fed should be doing now?

Why do we bother with Primary Dealer bond flipping when we could just have Ben and Timmy do it between themselves?

Last I checked anyone could buy bonds from the Treasury and to sell bonds to the Fed. (That is what the 'Open Market' bit of POMO is about.)

If you think the Fed should have the power to transfer newly printed dollars straight to the US Government, you need to raise that point with Ron Paul ...

Please explain which specific government action (other than direct Government hiring) is putting college graduates to work?  Stimulus infrastructure jobs that give Hardhats a couple of paychecks?

  1. more spending on science and education (this was a component of the first stimulus program)
  2. the Fed's introduction of growth expectations appears to have stopped the plunge in the job market
  3. various forms of stimulus spending indirectly spurring growth

But more would be needed. How Ron Paul austerity would achieve that is hard to see.

This statement is not so incorrect as you state it, but aggravating because despite thousands of hours put into discussion on ZH about ways to back currency with tangibles rather than faith backed fiat, you always hit the same "deflation" button on the jukebox.

Well, you only need to think a bit about what the reintroduction of the gold standard would mean. Do you know what it would mean? Should I list the various harmful effects? Fiat money does one thing very well: it removes/weakens the 'store of wealth' aspect of money. That is good.

Sadly, that battle was lost long ago.  Maybe the best chance now is if I didn't have Al Franken protecting me from fresh milk, and a little bit of tomato goo stuck to an heirloom seed.

Ok, I admit that my point about farmers was a bit demagogue. Agriculture is the quintessential, natural economy of scale example, so the larger entities do farming, the better off they are. The 'small farm' meme is mostly an emotional attachment of Americans - and this 'dream of the Pioneers' is financed by the rest of society. It can certainly be regarded a form of freeloading.

It's a bankrupted system, robbed blind of any assets it did have, is unsustainable, and needs to be eliminated down the road.  There are no people 40 and under who believe that they're actually going to draw from this broken pile of shit.  So phase it out.

Works pretty well in Europe though, where income of the elderly is coupled to current economic performance of the country in essence. "We are in the same boat" concept in essence.

The FDIC is protection for the banks to prevent bank runs, disguised as a safety net for savers.  It too is bankrupt and needs to be scrapped and redesigned.

FDIC is literally saving tens of thousands of depositor citizens per year, from total bankruptcies. What other form would you propose?

Please find where Ron Paul has said that, IN context.

I have linked to it:

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/12/17/ron-paul-i-dont-think-we-need-...

It's really unambiguous ...

You post this like Ron Paul is running for King, not President; as though any and all policies he discusses are to be carved in stone, with no debate, change or oversight.

Well, in practice US Presidents are more powerful than many medieval kings so it very much matters who controls that particular sector of power.

I have to go.  Dr. Paul has invited me to his house for brunch, he is boiling an old woman and an infant in a pot, and I want to get there before they run out of kitten popovers.

Why do you think that I believe that Ron Paul is evil? He clearly is not evil, he is rather honest and he is consistent with his statements. He is more honest than the average politician.

My point is that he is simply dangerously wrong when it comes to economics, he misinterprets history and he is deluding himself about what effects his policies would have on America.

The GOP and big business are certainly cheer-leading him.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 11:37 | 957572 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You seem to forget that you can only get dollars by participating in the economy.  You also seem to be under the impression that you can jamb dollars into the ground and factories pop up.  You make no mention of the previously never before seen regulatory apparatus that appeared at this time, which was indeed constantly changing, to the extent that no-one felt safe investing what dollars they had in new capital projects.

lol, you think anyone can buy Treasuries straight from the Treasury.  Primary dealers buy the vast majority of Treasury issuance, and resell to the public (now they sell mostly to the Fed).  You clearly have no idea of how ANYTHING works.  Not sure why you think we should pay any attention to the rest of your drivel.

1. What, you want graduates to have MORE debt when they get out of college?  Talk about perverse incentives.  In case you can't follow my reasoning, when e spend more money on education, the schools respond by increasing tuition (because they can get the money from the students who can get it from student loans and grants).  This does NOT increase the quality of education, it only allows the colleges to build more and more new, expensive buildings.  My work is intimately associated with university research, and I can tell you that over the last several years, more and more people have been going to college becuase they can't find jobs.  That doesn't change when they get out--they just have a LOT more debt.  Further, much of the money from these new students has gone to administrative bloat.  What a president's office used to do, now we have a president's office and provost's office.  They DOUBLED the bureaucracy!  Now that's what I call progress.

2.  He said as the market continues to bleed jobs.  You have no grasp on reality.  I bet you don't even look past the headline unemployment number to see the record number of "discouraged" workers who have fallen off the rolls.  But then, people like you always ignore the victims of your systems.

3. What growth?  What the fuck are you talking about?  

Ron Paul has laid out plans for turning the country around.  They start with a withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, then from most or all other military bases outside the US.  This would save TRILLIONS.  Enough to legitimately fund universal healthcare, even.  But hey, you love killing brown people, so fuck that.

When you advocate for removing the wealth storage aspect of money, you advocate theft.  It's that simple.  Where do you think that accumulated purchasing power goes?  To the PRINTERS.

There are efficiencies to be gained by having small farms.  You don't need to ship produce nearly as far, for example.  But then hey, fuck the planet, right?  Oh God the cognitive dissonance!

The FDIC should be replaced with private insurance.  Private insurance companies would ensure that banks used responsible policies to prevent losses in order to avoid higher premiums.  Currently, our system where everyone pays the same creates and incentive to take the highest amount of risk possible.  But hey, any incentive is a good one, even if it is perverse, right?  Just shove that shit off on the taxpayers, and make sure your banker pals get their bonuses.

I have addressed regulation.  You only need regulation when you have free money sloshing around and government interventions necessitating more government interventions.  I addressed this in more detail in a post lower down.

You are terribly wrong if you think the party leadership and big business supports Ron Paul.  Look at his donor lists for Christ's sake.  You just make shit up.  Stop it.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:44 | 957767 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

The thing is, I do not get the impression from your post at all that you understood my points and that you responded to them directly.

Instead you just ranted on about a lot of vaguely relevant points that might or might not address the points I raised.

I'm not interested in random rants that miss each other's points a mile wide and high.

I'm interested in a pointed discussion about specifics, such as my discussion with ColonelCoope: I may disagree with him in every single point but he clearly understands my arguments and responds to them and challenges them. You do neither.

Sorry.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 15:14 | 957901 tmosley
tmosley's picture

My paragraphs match your paragraphs.  

You purposefully ignore my comments because they shatter your arguments.  You are awash in cognitive dissonance.

But hey, feel free to crawl along in ignorance until you die at your own hands, you Randian archetype.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 17:28 | 958149 akak
akak's picture

You are completely correct, tmosley --- this MCT is not just awash in cognitive dissonance, he is miles deep over his head in it.  His huge production of reasonably well-spoken yet contradictory and logically inconsistent trolling in this thread chills me to the bone, as it just demonstrates once again how commonly intelligence and reality-denial manage to come pre-packaged in our society today, presumably due to the typically poor education,  but excellent and well-honed statist indoctrination, prevalent in our public school system.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 18:52 | 958283 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

MCT has three possible outcomes:

He will be one of the early ones to die off, because he has lived his whole life counting on the safety net that is soon to disappear.

He is one of the "Illuminati", and simply toys with the likes of us because he future is "predetermined"

I will blow his fucking head off his shoulders when he tries to take the shit I've "hoarded".  I believe he underestimates the sincerity I put into this statement, even if it means my own painful death.  I will be ass fucked by Satan for eternity before I allow my "hoard" to be taken from the mouths of my children to be shared by the likes of him.

EDIT- NOte that despite how big of a prick I am, I tend to shy away from the violence shit.  This MotherFUCKER pissed me off with the "hoarding" bullshit.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 19:09 | 958316 tellsometruth
tellsometruth's picture

The GOP and big business are certainly cheer-leading him.

 

Incorrect...Only the Libertarian Wing and Small biz that recognize his true concern is main st.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 10:55 | 957495 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Yeah, that's great.  All of those people would rather be running on the hamster wheel of inflation their whole lives, oh, except for the elderly, who have had their savings and pensions inflated away, and had their 401K's annifilated by speculative bubbles.

Understand that RP doesn't think we need any financial regulation because he wants to strike at the heart of the problem.  The only reason we "need" regulation now is because of all of the imbalances we create by having the Fed and the government stomp though the economy like a Godzilla and Mechagodzilla tag-team.

Also, why are you trying to blame the Great Depression on laissez faire economics?  That has LONG been disproven to be the cause.  If you beleive in Bernanke, he admitted the Fed caused the Great Depression by not printing enough money.  If you don't beleive in that fairy tale.  If you think Ben is wrong, then why do you beleive him the rest of the time?  

If you want an example of how to deal with a Depression via laissez faire, look no further than the depression of 1920.  You've never heard of it, because it only lasted a few months.  The government and the Fed did NOTHING.  The initial crash that started it was worse than that of the Great Depression.

And I think it's HILARIOUS that you talk about how under a gold standard, gold "hoarders" get all the wealth, despite the fact that 100% of people's savings was in dollars/gold.  Did you just label every US citizen an "evil hoarder"?  I think you did.  

Such utterly non-critical thinking also fails when we get the currency type that you defend.  You would rather have the rich and well connected simply "print up" money when they want to buy a new yacht, or impose some new horror on the American public (how can we possibly pay for cavity search stops on every freeway in America?  Oh yes, print more money!).  You would rather FORCE everyone to beg for scraps from the printer's floor rather than being able to save on their own.

But then, you have exceedingly little capability for critical thought, so I don't really know what I should expect from you.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 11:31 | 957552 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

If you want an example of how to deal with a Depression via laissez faire, look no further than the depression of 1920.  You've never heard of it, because it only lasted a few months.  The government and the Fed did NOTHING.  The initial crash that started it was worse than that of the Great Depression.

Yeah, it was a bit like the mini flash crash preceding the May 6 2010 Flash Crash.

Nothing to see here, move on!

And 'doing nothing' certainly served well those 7+ million Americans who died during the Great Depression due to effects of malnutrition, right?

You position speaks for itself, it is cruel and heartless.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 11:55 | 957575 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You need to work on your reading comprehension, dipshit.  No-one died in the Depression of 1920, when no-one intervened.  7+ million died in the Great Depression, when both Hoover and Roosevelt interfered.

Hoover and Roosevelt murdered those people with their actions.  Get that through your thick skull.  Now, you would have Bush and Obama play the same roles, but this time rather than creating a Greater Depression, you would rather we have national failure!

Here, educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover#Policies

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 12:14 | 957623 55 men
55 men's picture

All I can say is....tmosley...You Rock!

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 14:29 | 957828 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

No-one died in the Depression of 1920, when no-one intervened.  7+ million died in the Great Depression, when both Hoover and Roosevelt interfered.

Liar.

Your first lie is that there was no intervention in the 1920 depression. In reality 1920 was the first recession that was stopped by the Fed:

Here's historic records of the monetary base:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?bgcolor=%23B3CD...

Fed policy response:

Rates were sharply reduced in the latter half of 1921. The New York Federal Reserve reduced rates in successive half-point moves over the July- November period from the 7% high to 4.5% on November 3 1921. The depression ended.

Source:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Depression_of_1920–21

Your second (and rather cruel) lie is to blame the 7 million deaths during the Great Depression on Roosevelt policies. How convenient ...

Republican President Hoover's laissez-faire administration was largely inactive during the Great Depression: 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932 was largely spent 'waiting for a recovery', which was 'just around the corner'.

Only once Roosevelt abolished the gold standard did deflation stop:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?bgcolor=%23B3CD...

and once he started 'New Deal' government spending did the economy recover and did unemployment go down:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SlVu0t0KqXI/AAAAAAAAFxo/rzSqiWrqGu...

You are a liar because I quoted these facts to you many times before - but you dishonestly keep pretending they do not exist.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 15:20 | 957911 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You lying sack of shit.  I blamed them on HOOVER'S interventionist policies, which Roosevelt continued and ENHANCED.

You are a liar, and i am done with you.  How can anyone carry on a converstaion with someone who flat out lies about what the other person JUST SAID?

Get out of here, you monstrous ass.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 16:44 | 958073 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

I blamed them on HOOVER'S interventionist policies, which Roosevelt continued and ENHANCED.

What you wrote directly contradicts your claim. Let me quote what I replied to:

7+ million died in the Great Depression, when both Hoover and Roosevelt interfered.

 

Hoover and Roosevelt murdered those people with their actions.

You contradict your own sick statements ...

And no, as I said Hoover did not 'intervene' in any serious fashion. GDP was going down and government spending was not increasing nearly enough to match the catastrophic loss of GDP and catch the deflationary spiral.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 21:51 | 958604 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Over and over and over...

Hoover was no laissez-faire president.

From wikipedia:

... Franklin D. Roosevelt blasted the Republican incumbent for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, raising tariffs and blocking trade, as well as placing millions on the dole of the government. Roosevelt attacked Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible."[50] Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism".[51]

Ironically, these policies pale beside the more drastic steps taken under Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration later as part of the New Deal. Hoover's opponents charge that his policies came too little, and too late, and did not work. Even as he asked Congress for legislation, he reiterated his view that while people must not suffer from hunger and cold, caring for them must be primarily a local and voluntary responsibility.

Even so, New Dealer Rexford Tugwell[52] later remarked that although no one would say so at the time, "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."

7+million died in the Great Depression, not despite Hoover and Roosevelt's interventions, but because of them. But why should that be a surprise?

Lee Ohanian from UCLA has argued that President 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.".[39] 

Hoover signed into law the Smoot-Hawley Tarriffs...

 In June 1930, over the objection of many economists, Congress approved and Hoover signed into law the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. The legislation raised tariffs on thousands of imported items. The intent of the Act was to encourage the purchase of American-made products by increasing the cost of imported goods, while raising revenue for the federal government and protecting farmers. However, economic depression now spread through much of the world, and other nations increased tariffs on American-made goods in retaliation, reducing international trade, and worsening the Depression.[42]

None of this is beyond your ability to understand. As you appear to have such a bee in your bonnet about this period, why don't you read Rothbard's America's Great Depression (http://mises.org/rothbard/agd/contents.asp)? Or if you don't have the time, Robert Murphy, Bob Higgs et al have plenty of free content you can read on the web.

You have nothing to lose but your ignorance... and any income you might be earning as a statist troll.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 22:13 | 958643 akak
akak's picture

Excellent response, BigJim.

I have read the many shallow anti-market, anti-liberty, pro-statist arguments expounded by MCT in this thread, and they are clearly reflective of a gullible, uncritical, unthinking acceptance of the pro-establishment, pro-elite, pro-State propaganda disseminated by the public school system and the mainstream media.  Judging from his eloquence and his excellent command of the English language, he is apparently too intelligent to not see the contradictions, disingenuousness and outright lies inherent in his arguments and specious "facts", and I conclude he is just another malicious free-inquiry-hating, free-thinking-hating troll.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 22:45 | 958697 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Thank you.

It's precisely because of his eloquence and his excellent command of the English language - and because I've seen him have these same statist arguments demolished by others in previous posts - that I think he actually does see the contradictions in his positions. He's not interested in the truth - just in the spread of his cancerous ideology.

Have you ever read M. Scott Peck's People of the Lie? I'm disinclined to go along with the more supernatural elements of that book, but otherwise I think Peck nails it. MCT reminds me of Tony Blair - slick, sophistical, patronising, mendacious, and talking about caring for "the people who built this country", while ruthlessly advocating policies that crush those same people.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 12:30 | 957644 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

"You position speaks for itself, it is cruel and heartless."

Life is cruel and heartless.  If you and millions like you would get over that emotional hurdle, the world would be a better place. 

There is such an irony in that leftists, (generally statists, but not trying to open another argument) are the biggest proponents of nature, except when it comes to human beings, then the conflicts explode: 

We need to house everybody, oh, but don't cut down any trees.  We need to feed the world, but don't you dare drill for more oil that produces crops and ships food.  We need jobs for everybody, but no way in hell are we going to provide any sort of climate that supports business and success.  We're all about green planet kumbayah, but we are going to keep billions of purposeless eater alive, rotting in cities, eating poisoned food... because we aren't cruel and heartless.

I believe it was you who used the "road to hell......good intentions" quote on me once.  Don't you see the hypocrasy in your positions?  You say that you can't fight the Fed., I say you can't fight Mother Nature.  You're a nice guy, I'm a prick.  Let's see who wins.  BTW Mr. Goodfeel, how many extra people did you feed last year, out of your net, and with your time? 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 12:53 | 957684 Hulk
Hulk's picture

Damn Colonel, you have spelled it out perfectly...

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 14:28 | 957832 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

Thank you, Hulk.  It never ceases to amaze me how many people try to blame me for inventing nature.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 16:46 | 958080 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

Life is cruel and heartless.

That's not my experience. My experience is that with a bit of luck life is what you make out of it.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 18:22 | 958244 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

Yet twenty minutes ago you called my arguments "sick", when all I was doing (as I always do) was pointing out the horrible realities of life.  Life is the biggest oxymoron imaginable:  Horrible and beautiful, terrifying and boring, exhilarating and depressing all at the same time, but ALWAYS, no matter what - ruthless and unforgiving of mistakes. 

You are correct in that luck plays a part in outcome; I would call it karma, and posit that effort and integrity can affect the outcome.   I am a lucky son of a bitch, and I've never claimed otherwise.  I've also worked harder than most people I know to get there (comfortable, no more), and resent your propensity to chalk it off to luck, or a birthright.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 15:32 | 957932 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Among those who think the solution to the world's problems is genocide, Republican Ron Birch is the guy.

To those who think there are alternatives to genocide, we'll look outside the two-party corporate duopoly, thanks.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 12:49 | 957674 Sam Clemons
Sam Clemons's picture

You seem to advocate centrally planned excessive credit creation and ignore its negative effects on human ingenuity and progress. You have a troubling low amount of respect for liberty and the human ability to solve problems.  You are also ignoring that there was a drought during the Great Depression.

Zimbabwe had central planning and excessive money creation.  How many people die from malnourishment there or in the former Soviet Union?

The Great Depression was the aftermath of excessively distorted labor, and pricing markets.  It was a deflationary bust from an unrealistic high.  Do not mistake deflation from continued progress in making things more productively (that makes goods more cheap for more people - that is a good thing right, Mr. Humanitarian?) with deflation caused by an asset bubble collapsing. Aren't you amazed that despite all the progress we've made with farming techniques that prices continue to rise?  Doesn't that trouble you and show the degree of monetary inflation we have?

You are right though.  People would have to go back to work and earn a living instead of living off of others via taxation/inflation.  That would be terrible.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:15 | 957719 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

'doing nothing' certainly served well those 7+ million Americans who died during the Great Depression due to effects of malnutrition, right?

 

Wait a minute. I'm a little slow, but TGD 1.0 is always held up as a shining example of gummint doing something. Nevermind that examples of govt action during this period death by starvation and malnutrition which also coincided with the Dust Bowl included; destroying livestock and crops, and forbiding farmers from planting crops.

 

You position speaks for itself, it is cruel and heartless.

 

See my earlier response about coercion, and sweeping our problems under the rug of government. Your plan is just as cruel and heartless....and we are still broke.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 11:01 | 957523 grekko
grekko's picture

Dude, you are a bit confused here.  Inflation and deflation are monetary phenominas.  Flood the market with money, and you have too much fiat chasing a fixxed amount of goods.  The price gets bid up.  Remove money from the market, and the opposite occurs.  If gold is money, then inflation is impossible, and so is deflation.  You just can't print up gold.  Prices, over time, come down, but this is due to technological and manufacturing enterpreneurs, as they find ways to lower the cost of production, and the savings go into the final cost of the products.  This is not deflation.  This is a net benefit to mankind.  The producers still make a profit, but the savings are transfered to the buyers.For over 150 years, when gold was money, the prices of goods and services dropped about 12%.  since fiat money started being printed, the dollar has lost between 95-98% of its purchasing power.

As for possible bank crashes, it is what will keep the banksters honest...the possibility of a bank run with no chance of a bailout. Banksters would take extra good care of our money if that were the case.

As for social security, as it stands, I've been paying into this ponzi scheme for over 30 years.  When my time comes to retire, it won't exist anymore, else, the money they send me every month won't buy me coffee at McDonalds due to inflation.  The SS system appeared to work when people were having 8 kids that would grow up and enter the work force.  Now with 2.3 kids per houshold, it is failing.  I cannot think of a better definition of a ponzi scheme.

Farmers:  With all the hunger in the world, why are we paying them not to grow food?  Answer that one.

Gold won't be horded.  it would be kept in banks, where it will be lent out for business expansion when the savings rate is high enough.  On this one, the interest rate will send the message of when businesses should start long term projects, and the market will set the rates.  Any recessions will happen locally, not nationally or globally.  Much smaller incidents easier to correct.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 11:30 | 957542 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

Inflation and deflation are monetary phenominas. Flood the market with money, and you have too much fiat chasing a fixxed amount of goods.

Headline inflation can be monetary but it is generally not:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/sysco-declares-force-majeure-raises-gro...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/soaring-food-prices/

To stay with your analogy, does the concept of "too many people chasing a shrinking amount of goods" tell you anything about why global food prices might be going up due to basic supply & demand pressures? :-)

Deflation is indeed a monetary phenomenon, most of the time (people valuing the accumulation of money over engaging in economic activities - with disastrous results) - and it can hit with a fixed money supply in a much more severe fashion than with a flexible money supply.

Also note that neither inflation nor deflation needs any 'money' per se: both can be caused by a commonly used commodity that acts as 'unit of pricing/exchange'. Here's a longish but very intuitive human example of how deflation and inflation works, from 1945, in POW camps:

http://www.albany.edu/~mirer/eco110/pow.html

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 11:52 | 957592 SpeakerFTD
SpeakerFTD's picture

This has been an interesting thread.   People have been accusing you of trolling, which I don't think is the case, but even if that were the case, I thank you for challenging all the Austrians (including me) to refine our arguments.  ZH can be a bit of an echo chamber sometimes, so it is actually quite healthy to have you and the HarryWangers of the world driving the rest of us batty with your arguments.

I disagree with a lot of your arguments, but I am just going to tackle a philosophical point from your above statement.

Deflation is indeed a monetary phenomenon, most of the time (people valuing the accumulation of money over engaging in economic activities - with disastrous results) - and it can hit with a fixed money supply in a much more severe fashion than with a flexible money supply.

I fundamentally have a problem with the argument on monetary deflation, because I think it ignores the issue of people's time (for example, even if I know the laptop for sale will be completely obsolete in 2 years, I still buy it now because I want to use it for those two years).   Virtually all traded goods benefit from this, so people will buy them now regardless of deflation.  

But that's the philosophical complaint I have.  My problem is that under your system YOU (or any other external authority) get to decide when/if it is time for me to save or spend.  Well, that's bullshit.  If you believe in the liberty of the individual, then that decision should be solely my own.   Do some businesses suffer because I would rather save this dollar then send it?  Yes, but so what.  It is my dollar, it is my property, and I am free to save or spend it as I want, and you should not have the ability to punish me because I don't decide to follow your dictates.    And believe it or not, the economy will self-correct.  If all of us crazy savers keep saving, then interest rates will fall, until somebody gets the wild idea to borrow some of that cheap money because they have a great idea for a business.  This business cycle is healthy, and the Fed has destroyed it.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 12:31 | 957648 Kayman
Kayman's picture

My 2 cents.  You cannot tie the USD to gold.

1. There is a paucity of gold in the U.S.

2. You will still be relying on "faith" that the government isn't lying to you about their gold reserves.

Oh... now for 3 cents.

A faith based currency is still the best.  Just change the law on capital punishment to hang Central Bankers that debase the currency, and faith will rapidly return.

What, exactly, is the downside to Bernankinstein after he is finished experimenting with filling the hole created by the Bankrupt Banking Class ?  Oh yeah, he gets to return to his tenured job at Princeton and teach courses on Money and Banking.

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 16:55 | 958091 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

One of the best summaries against the gold standard is this article:

http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/02/10/goldbugs-on-parade/

Worth a read, even if you are an Austrian. Ignore the 'Goldbug' slant.

Allowing money to 'store wealth' creates instability and unfairness on an epic level.

The ruling classes of the medieval Europe were just fine with the gold standard - it hard-coded their wealth and power for a very long time and kept most 'newcomers' impoverished forever.

We can do better.

Now, I fully accept that the current system could be improved. But going to a fixed money supply is infinitely worse than the current looting by banks ...

The best I could come up with is a weird money scheme that removes banking monopolies and still keeps a single central 'interest rate' parameter in place, for monetary control and to smooth out boom/bust.

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 18:28 | 958240 Unlawful Justice
Unlawful Justice's picture

 

More Critical T..... Score card.

6258 words count with 26 pages of text and (162) flag as junk.

All other commenters to MCT 2734 words count and 9 pages of text and (6) flag as junk.

My question is why would an Avatar i.e MCT spend so much time making false projections, conjecture, and speculations of such an order of magnitude?  As a member, MCT’s intent is to mislead and impress with linguistic gymnastics of the highest order. A paid by the word curator?  Posit, MCT intent is not to win the argument with the use of logic, reason and implementation of the facts, but to mislead, distort, deceive, inflate, circumvent, and obfuscate.  To artfully use doublespeak and turns lies into reality augmentations.  Posit, the end objective of MCT’s mission is to stir the pot with intent to confuse and subversively communicated that if you can’t counter the brunt of MCT's assiduous hermeneutics you are incompetent to form an opinion, and subjectively suggest remit doing so.   

 

 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 18:35 | 958264 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

I would agree with you except, he continues to argue with me when he knows he won't get anywhere, and I am a considerably less read, less learned debater.  I believe he is simply long winded because he is an academic and words are his only tool.  I honestly believe in his dedication to his convictions, I just think he is a Statist of the most dangerous sort. 

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 19:55 | 958391 GreenSideUp
GreenSideUp's picture

Nicely done!  

Sun, 02/13/2011 - 11:42 | 957577 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture
  • ... farmer who thinks that Ron Paul abolishing anti-monopoly laws and eliminating farming subsidies would make the agrobusiness versus small farms fight a very one-sided affair? Bye-bye small independent farms and hello big monopolies? Hello even higher food prices?
  • So the big agrobusiness does not manage to get its shares of subsidizes?

     They should change their lobbying policies and hire proficient lobbyists...

    Sun, 02/13/2011 - 12:20 | 957634 thetruth
    thetruth's picture

    without the FED, all the top banks would have failed.  therefore, it may actually be true in such an environment that we need fewer financial regulations

    Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:19 | 957725 tekhneek
    tekhneek's picture

    We have a stupid fucking minority-loving economically ignorant president running this country into the ground and you're nit picking at Ron Paul? Turn your efforts against Obama and see what "completes" our current run on sentence.

    Jackass.

    Sun, 02/13/2011 - 14:34 | 957839 Things that go bump
    Things that go bump's picture

    Critical Thought, I'm sorry, but do you understand the exponential function?  We are about to reap the whirlwind here boy.  The math is inescapable and math never lies.   Those who make it out the other end of the coming bottleneck are going to find it a hardscrabble life, "nasty, brutish and short," and nobody is going to be worrying about the items on that list of yours.  

     

    Sun, 02/13/2011 - 15:33 | 957937 Michael
    Michael's picture

    MCT is dis-info with vested interests. Please feed him solid arguments with credible links for his affliction.

    The increased eyeballs attracted to ZH lurking to learn from these debates need and appreciate the antidote.

    Very good counterarguments so far ZHers.

    Sun, 02/13/2011 - 15:42 | 957959 BernankeHasHemo...
    BernankeHasHemorrhoids's picture

    Everything that you describe is what is happening now as the result of Obama/Bernanke/Geithner fascism. Seig heil!

    Sun, 02/13/2011 - 23:46 | 958793 tarsubil
    tarsubil's picture

    I hope and pray all of you live long enough to reap what you sow.

    I hope duels make a come back too. My preferred weapon will be my bare hands.

    Sat, 02/12/2011 - 23:52 | 956987 Cursive
    Cursive's picture

    Agreed, we need another Old Hickory.

    My avatar is totally down with this.

    Sun, 02/13/2011 - 01:10 | 957114 snowball777
    snowball777's picture

    It's ironic that they put the man on one of our most popular denominations of fiatsco.

    Sun, 02/13/2011 - 01:46 | 957163 Sunshine n Lollipops
    Sunshine n Lollipops's picture

    I always assumed it was the banksters punking him.

    Sun, 02/13/2011 - 02:52 | 957230 dark pools of soros
    dark pools of soros's picture

    and hid Jefferson on the forgotten $2

    Sun, 02/13/2011 - 11:55 | 957597 SpeakerFTD
    SpeakerFTD's picture

    It was.  They get some academics to call him one of the worst presidents of all time, and then they put his face on bank-sponsored bill.   Sort of a Rothschildian version of I piss on your grave.

    Sun, 02/13/2011 - 12:26 | 957640 stormsailor
    stormsailor's picture

    ditto

     

    i would like to see an executive office that would absolutely enforce all laws.

     

    as well as support and defend the constitution.

     

    remove corporations rights as people.

     

    imho,  charting the effects of any economic phenomenon or trying to correct the problems we now face are futile until all of the various distortions are removed.  corruption,fraud,layers of regulation placed to enrich some at the expense of others.

    it will take decades to correct decades of abuse.

    Sun, 02/13/2011 - 01:43 | 957156 downwiththebanks
    downwiththebanks's picture

    AJ, the Injun Killer

    Sun, 02/13/2011 - 02:20 | 957207 Bananamerican
    Sun, 02/13/2011 - 08:51 | 957392 jimijon
    jimijon's picture

    And who isn't? The latest injians are pakis? afghanis? iraquis? 

    At least he took on the biggest enemy too.

    Sun, 02/13/2011 - 09:34 | 957424 downwiththebanks
    downwiththebanks's picture

    "Took on" = Ethnic Cleansing

    Sun, 02/13/2011 - 10:57 | 957515 dark pools of soros
    dark pools of soros's picture

    jews always run this up but never mention the bolsheviks cleansing the kulaks -

     

    fuck zionists

     

     

    Sun, 02/13/2011 - 13:27 | 957735 A Nanny Moose
    A Nanny Moose's picture

    The lesson being...Even those with the most noble of intentions are not immune to the trappings of power.

    Sun, 02/13/2011 - 15:37 | 957944 downwiththebanks
    downwiththebanks's picture

    No, the lesson being that Uncle Sam's project has been genocide from the start.  Jackson was put on the throne, at that time, because his ruthlessness was required.

    Only the name change.  Republican Ron Birch would just be a mummified version of the Obamanation.

    Sat, 02/12/2011 - 22:14 | 956821 Hulk
    Hulk's picture

    He would suffer the same fate as Lincoln long before he could damage the banks...

    Sat, 02/12/2011 - 22:46 | 956861 downwiththebanks
    downwiththebanks's picture

    Not if he gets them first.

    Problem is, he's a octogenarian turd too blinded by Whiteness to acknowledge that alCIAda didn't do 911.

    He knows to fall in line.  Just like his little boy.

    Sat, 02/12/2011 - 23:40 | 956960 Bastiat
    Bastiat's picture

    What does it have to do with whiteness?

    Sun, 02/13/2011 - 01:46 | 957164 downwiththebanks
    downwiththebanks's picture

    "It's got to be the Arabs," says the John Bircher.  

    "Now pardon me while I piss on the grave of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr." 

    Sun, 02/13/2011 - 10:59 | 957520 tmosley
    tmosley's picture

    Replace "whiteness" with "blackness" and see where the racism in this conversation lies.

    Go fuck yourself, racist.

    Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!