A Nation of Thieves!

[Galaxy]

Here are some excerpts from an article written by Walter Williams concerning a new book.

To date, welfare programs have reduced America's GDP by about $4 trillion. In a new book, Edgar K. Browning details how it happened — and why we shouldn't use the government to steal from one another.


Edgar K. Browning, professor of economics at Texas A&M University, has a new book aptly titled Stealing from Each Other (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0313348227/?tag=theatlasphere-20).

Its subtitle, “How the Welfare State Robs Americans of Money and Spirit,” goes to the heart of what the book is about. The rise of equalitarian ideology has driven Americans to steal from one another.

Browning explains that certain kinds of equality have been a cherished value in America. Equality under the law and, within reason, equality of opportunity is consistent with a free society.

Equality of results is an anathema to a free society and within it lie the seeds of tyranny.

Browning’s concluding chapter tells us what the welfare state costs us. He acknowledges the non-economic costs such as infringements on liberty and strains on the political process, but focuses on the quantitative economic costs.

The disincentive effects of Social Security have reduced the GDP by 10 percent, the federal income tax (as opposed to a proportional tax) by 9 percent and past deficits by 3.5 percent for a total of 22.5 percent.
He guesses that welfare programs have reduced GDP by 2.5 percent. The overall effect of redistributionist policies has created incentives that have reduced GDP by a total of 25 percent. Without those, our GDP would be close to $18 trillion instead of $14 trillion.

So what’s Browning’s solution? First, he reminds us of the biblical admonition “Thou shalt not steal.”
Government income redistribution programs produce the same result as theft. In fact, that’s what a thief does; he redistributes income. The difference between government and thievery is mostly a matter of legality.
Browning’s solution is captured in the title of his last chapter, “Just Say No,” where he proposes, “The federal government shall not adopt any policies that transfer income (resources) from some Americans to other Americans.”

He agrees with James Madison, the father of our Constitution, who said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/080811-williams-welfare-state.phpBrowning is correct!

[Sundance]

Just curious........... where do you get your eye
catching headliners?? The Weekly World News
by chance??;)

Try adding corporate welfare to those figures and
the Iraq conflict (which is essentially welfare for
the military complex).

[Bodo]

and
the Iraq conflict (which is essentially welfare for
the military complex).

You can do better than that.

[iddee]

Remember, Galaxy, nothing is bad if you can find something else as bad or worse from the other side. It's the democrat's way. Two wrongs may not make a right, but another wrong will excuse a wrong in the eyes of some.

[Eaglerock]

nothing is bad if you can find something else as bad or worse from the other side. It's the Republican's way. Two wrongs make a right their eyes. *BG*

[dragonfly]

It's too bad Walter Williams isn't president with a whole new congress. I would vote for him in a second.

[JohnK and Sheri]

Galaxy
I am wondering if you consider Social Security welfare? Do you think we as a nation should do away with SS?
Sheri

[MapMan]

What is perceived as equality in many peoples eyes translates to them as entitlement. That is the crux of the problem - what I've worked for should belong to me, and while I am willing to support those unfortunate souls who truly need assistance, there are others who dip their fingers into the welfare pie -- even if they are capable of self-subsistence.

MM

[Galaxy]

Galaxy
I am wondering if you consider Social Security welfare? Do you think we as a nation should do away with SS?
Sheri No, but I would privatize it with strict controls over how the money is invested and when it can be withdrawn. GWB's partial privatization would have been a good start. But, the Demagogues killed it because they want to control your money.

If you really want to know how much better off you would be with privatized SS see: http://beesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=315292&postcount=37

The current SS, on average, returns only 2% per year and once you die you cannot pass on to your family what is left.

The government uses your money to partially finance the budget deficit.

The current Social Security law is is one of the primary ripoffs of American citizens. If Democrats get their way, health care may challenge for the top ripoff.

[George Fergusson]

It's too bad Walter Williams isn't president with a whole new congress. I would vote for him in a second.

I wouldn't. He's just another 2-bit economist with a vested interest in maintaining our corrupt financial system. Or have you forgotten what you read about in The Revolution, A Manifesto?

By the way, most economists work for the government and the rest teach at universities that depend on government funding so it's important to remember that they're really no better than politicians.

Kill the Fed.

[George Fergusson]

To date, welfare programs have reduced America's GDP by about $4 trillion.

Chicken feed compared to the cumulative cost of inflation.

Kill the Fed.

[Galaxy]

George, can you name one modern country that does not have a central bank, peg their currency to the currency of a country that has a central bank, or use the currency of a country that has a central bank?

[John F]

... I would privatize it with strict controls over how the money is invested and when it can be withdrawn.

Followed by:

... But, the Demagogues killed it because they want to control your money.

Do you mean like strict controls over how the money is invested and when it can be withdrawn?

Does this also mean you are a demagogue?

[John F]

George, can you name one modern country that does not have a central bank, peg their currency to the currency of a country that has a central bank, or use the currency of a country that has a central bank?

Non-sequitur
Appeal to numbers
Appeal to ridicule

What's your point?

[George Fergusson]

George, can you name one modern country that does not have a central bank, peg their currency to the currency of a country that has a central bank, or use the currency of a country that has a central bank?

Exactly! And just in time too!

[Galaxy]

Non-sequitur
Appeal to numbers
Appeal to ridicule

What's your point?Well, the point is obvious.

So, I will ask you JohnF (or any of the Fed killers), can you name one modern country that does not have a central bank, peg their currency to the currency of a country that has a central bank, or use the currency of a country that has a central bank?

[Galaxy]

Followed by:



Do you mean like strict controls over how the money is invested and when it can be withdrawn?

Does this also mean you are a demagogue?We do not live in Libertarian la la land. There must be some controls if you are not willing to see folks starve in their old age and I do not believe our society is willing to do that.

The primary error that Libertarians make is rejecting the good in pursuit of their idealized "perfection", which of course is not perfection at all.

[George Fergusson]

Well, the point is obvious.

Yes, your point is obvious. Your point is that because central banks are "the norm" and along with their fiat currency are universally accepted around the world, that they are a good idea. I don't know what kind of logical fallacy that line of reasoning represents, not being particularly well versed in such things, but I know it tastes bad. It's a faulty argument and you and anyone with half a clue can see it's a faulty argument.

The fact of the matter is, central banks are popular because they provide the ideal means for debasing a country's currency which, if you're a crooked banker or politician, is exactly what you want to do. Combined with fractional reserve banking and a legal tender law, central banks make manipulating interest rates, money supplies, and law makers so easy, a caveman could do it! It then becomes a matter of maintaining the wealth confiscation rate (er.. inflation rate) at a low enough level so as not to cause the natives to lose confidence in their money, such as is happening Zimbabwe and a few other unfortunate countries right now.

The beauty of it is that if OUR central banking system goes down, the rest of the world's central banks will get sucked down into the abyss along with all the world's major currencies. In fact, I think if any major central banking system were to fail, the results would pretty much be a total, world-wide, global meltdown. At least that is my seat of my pants assessment of what would happen based on my limited understanding of the way things work. Perhaps John F sees a different scenario unfolding.

Assuming I'm right, you still think a system so vulnerable to collapse is a good system?

Kill the Fed!

[Galaxy]

Yes, your point is obvious. Your point is that because central banks are "the norm" and along with their fiat currency are universally accepted around the world, that they are a good idea. In fact, it's a little more than "the norm" It's 100%.

As to the foolish idea of a gold standard and no central bank, we have been there and done that and indeed it was proved foolish.

Maybe those that are Paleo Libertarian will accept arguments from the Paleo (pre-Fed) days. Here is an article from the New York Times of November 23, 1907. A CENTRAL BANK OUR GREAT NEED No Financial Stability Is Possible Without It (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9D04E3D61F30E233A25750C2A9679D946697D6CF&oref=slogin)

In fact, I think if any major central banking system were to fail, the results would pretty much be a total, world-wide, global meltdown. George, please don't hold your breath while waiting for this meltdown. You will not survive!

[John F]

Well, the point is obvious.

Yes, to make a fallicious arguement.

So, I will ask you JohnF

And I've responded.

[Galaxy]

Yes, to make a fallicious arguement.



And I've responded.I'm tempted to ask you to explain why it is fallacious, but I really don't care to kick a dead dog. May the gold standard and no Fed ideas RIP.

I could ask, does anyone know of a reputable current economist who advocates eliminating the Fed and going to a gold standard? But as I have said, the world learns from it's mistakes and moves on, but evidently Paleo Libertarians do not.

Now, that does not mean that I do not respect Paleo Libertarians. Their ideas, as do all ideas, keep us thinking. But, the thinking that goes into "the gold standard and no Fed" is largely wasted effort. The question was settled many years ago.

[John F]

I'm tempted to ask you to explain why it is fallacious,

Then let's say you did:

George, can you name one modern country that does not have a central bank, peg their currency to the currency of a country that has a central bank, or use the currency of a country that has a central bank?

It is a non-sequitur fallacy because it does not follow the argument. Up to that point you and George were discussing the impact of what has been labeled governmental theft by this thread. George pointed out that this number you have given pales in comparison to inflation and then cried "Kill the Fed!" Your question does not follow.

It is an appeal-to-numbers fallacy in that it suggests that the idea of central banking and/or inflation is right because everybody does it.

It is an appeal-to-ridicule fallacy because it suggests that the idea of central banking and/or inflation is right because George cannot name a modern country.

Your argument is fallicious and therefore has no logical point.

I could ask, does anyone know of a reputable current economist who advocates eliminating the Fed and going to a gold standard?

Then let's assume you did.

Yes.

The question was settled many years ago.

Well, there it is then. So, let's move on: What question? And how was it settled?

[George Fergusson]

Your argument is fallicious and therefore has no logical point.

I love it when you talk like that.

[dragonfly]

I love it when you talk like that.

:D :D

[Sundance]

I am fairly fiscally conservative. And it boils my butt to
see the wasteful spending by the military. Constantly
upgrading weapons as if it were still the cold war. Even
between branches there is an illogical arms race. Time
to stop the madness.

As to "welfare" programs. I am whole heartedly behind a
complete system reform. Top to bottom. A good example
is the food stamp program. Now days it is run by credit
card looking thingys. It would seem to be to be a very
easy thing to program the system to disallow ridiculous
items like:

*Soda Pop
*All packaged snacks
*Deli items
*Candy of all kinds
*TV dinners and the like
*Instant potatoes and the like
*etc

Social Security needs a hard core reform as well. Not so
much the retirement section (and a big NO to privatizing).
But the disability BS. Far too many are on the program
for reasons that just blow my mind.

And corporate welfare??? Just stop it.

[Galaxy]

I am fairly fiscally conservative. Good, we need more of that.
Social Security needs a hard core reform as well. Not so
much the retirement section (and a big NO to privatizing). Even if the privatization is optional, i.e. each citizen can decide whether to privatize a portion of his/her contributions? If your answer is yes, I would say that idea is very close to the Paleo-Libertarian idea that we should all be forced to adopt the gold standard, a very un-libertarian idea.

[John F]

Paleo-Libertarian idea that we should all be forced to adopt the gold standard

There is no libertarian [paleo or otherwise] idea to force anyone to use any sort of money.

The premise is false and does not support your conclusion.

[Galaxy]

There is no libertarian [paleo or otherwise] idea to force anyone to use any sort of money.

The premise is false and does not support your conclusion.Excuse me JohnF, I thought you advocate the gold standard for the USA. So, you are OK with fiat currency for the USA?

[JPK1NH]

I am fairly fiscally conservative. And it boils my butt to
see the wasteful spending by the military. Constantly
upgrading weapons as if it were still the cold war. Even
between branches there is an illogical arms race. Time
to stop the madness.


Huh?

Standard issue rifle is the M4 which is a modern variant of the M16 that was introduces more than 4 decades ago.

Standard Bomber used by the Air Force is the B52 which has been in service for almost 6 decades.

M1 Abrams Tank has been in service for over 3 decades.

The list of weapon systems and support equipment that has been in service for many decades is lengthy and is proof of well spent money.

Military Spending excluding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are at a modern historical low point compared to GDP.

Remember that your ability to speak your opinion freely without fear of retribution is a direct result of the same military being ready to fight to protect that right and our way of life.

[John F]

Excuse me JohnF, I thought you advocate the gold standard for the USA. So, you are OK with fiat currency for the USA?

I would support and do advocate a gold standard for the U.S.A. Hard currency has many features that make it hard or impossible to commit the sorts of theft that are easy with fiat currency.

No, I am not OK with the current fiat currency of the U.S.A. Money by fiat is prone to theft. Given an option, I wouldn't choose it.

[Galaxy]

There are advantages and disadvantages of both the gold standard and the currency system we currently have. But our system has overwhelming advantages over a gold standard. Plus, under our system you can freely use gold to store your value if you so wish, which seems to me a libertarian idea.

Furthermore, I much prefer the libertarian (small l) idea that markets should decide the value of our currency (as it is now) rather than tie it's value to a commodity like gold, which after all is just like any other commodity, except it is pretty. I do not want my currency's value to be dependent on how much gold is mined (or not mined) or how well India is doing economically. India is a culture that values gold jewelry and will buy large amounts of it when they have the resources to do so.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this point.

[George Fergusson]

There are advantages and disadvantages of both the gold standard and the currency system we currently have. But our system has overwhelming advantages over a gold standard.

Pretend you have to convince me. What are some of these "overwhelming advantages" of our current system?

[Sundance]

Remember that your ability to speak your opinion freely without fear of retribution is a direct result of the same military being ready to fight to protect that right and our way of life.

That is simply pure and unadulterated baloney! There are dozens
of nations that have small or no military expenditures that enjoy
the freedoms we do.

Freedom is not proportional to military might in any way. In
fact the opposite is usually the case.

[JPK1NH]

That is simply pure and unadulterated baloney! There are dozens
of nations that have small or no military expenditures that enjoy
the freedoms we do.

how about you start with a short list of 10 that are as free as we are that are not implicitly protected by the US or treaties with the US.

Freedom is not proportional to military might in any way. In
fact the opposite is usually the case.

Freedom does not exist without the means of protecting via force when necessary and the means of doing so do not exist without proper preparedness.

Harsh words will not prevent the Islamofascists Terrorists from flying more planes into building, smuggling Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons into the US and using them to create terror and murder our citizens.

The US for many years was largely protected by the geographical separation from most of the dominant world powers. The world and technology have changed such that physical separation is no longer much of a deterrent.

You can fight terrorism overseas or you can wait for it to come here. I for one would prefer we not be reactionary and keep the fight overseas.

[John F]

There are advantages and disadvantages of both the gold standard and the currency system we currently have.

Yeah? What are they?

But our system has overwhelming advantages over a gold standard.

overwhelm me.

Plus, under our system you can freely use gold to store your value if you so wish, which seems to me a libertarian idea.

[Emphasis is mine]

Then you don't understand money or libertarian ideas.

Furthermore, I much prefer the libertarian (small l) idea that markets should decide the value of our currency

See! The market should decide what is money not what is the value of money. Remember, money is how we measure value in a trade. Money is the stick.

like gold, which after all is just like any other commodity, except it is pretty.

Right. But you have to be able to imagine another use of whichever commodity is chosen. Imagine if that commodity was also used as money. This is called monitizing the commodity. Then the commodity is like all other commodities except it is also money.


I do not want my currency's value to be dependent on how much gold is mined (or not mined)

Instead you choose how many notes are printed (or not printed)? Or more precisely, how much credit the government can push on its people?

or how well India is doing economically. India is a culture that values gold jewelry and will buy large amounts of it when they have the resources to do so.

This is unimportant, but if you would rather, choose silver or platinum.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this point.

I do not believe you understand the issue so I cannot accept such a conclusion. We, that is you and I, should be able to pit premise against premise and whittle out a set of axiomatic premises where we can identify the philosophical difference. At that point we should be able to see two sets of plausible axioms such that we can both see where the logic diverges.

[Galaxy]

Pretend you have to convince me. What are some of these "overwhelming advantages" of our current system?Start with the fact that the depth of the Great Depression was caused by the gold standard which alone is sufficient reason to give it up.

But, if that is not enough look here (http://www.answers.com/topic/financial-panics). Count them! Nine financial panics while we were on the gold standard! None, since we abandoned the gold standard in 1933!

And, if that is still not enough, please read what Brad DeLong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Bradford_DeLong), says here:

Why Not the Gold Standard? (http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Politics/whynotthegoldstandard.html)
Likely Consequences of Re-Establishment of a Gold Standard: (http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Politics/whynotthegoldstandard.html)

Anyone who believes the gold standard hokum should read this closely.

Brad DeLong is a distinguished Professor of Economics at UC Berkley and is a liberal/neo-liberal Democrat. He served in the Clinton administration.

[George Fergusson]

While we wait for Galaxy to compile his list of reasons why he thinks central banks and fiat currency kick economic butt, here's what Ron Paul has to say about it, in his typical short, concise, and to the point manner:

Why the Founders Rejected a Central Bank

by Rep. Ron Paul

The Latin term “fiat” roughly translates to “there shall be”. When we refer to fiat money, we are referring to money that exists because the government declares it into existence. It is not based on production or earnings, and not backed by any commodity. It is solely based on trusting the government.

Fiat money is exchanged in the economy as long as there is faith in the government that issues it.

Some are blaming the recent shakeup in the markets to “whining” or financial fear-mongering, which misses the whole point. History has shown that fiat money, or “faith-based currency” always fails, because when governments claim this power, they always behave irresponsibly.

When government has the ability to create and spend all the money it wants, priorities shift, and the concept of budgeting, as most Americans know it, loses all meaning. Hand a teenager a credit card, and tell him there is no limit and no accountability for what he spends, and the effect would be the same. You see, this problem is not unique to our government.

It is a predictable outcome based on human nature, and we’ve seen variations of what we are experiencing now happen over and over throughout history. I didn’t have a crystal ball or a fortune teller when I predicted this 3, 7, or even 30 years ago. Actions have logical consequences. The government becomes the reckless teenager with the credit card, and in the end, the taxpaying citizens get the bill. What happens after that is never pretty.

This is why our founding fathers considered, but decidedly rejected the creation of a national central bank. They understood that governments, even the best of governments, cannot control spending. Even the current administration, which promised strict fiscal responsibility, has had to increase the national debt limit by 65 percent to keep up with its spending sprees.

Every dollar created and spent by government makes the dollars in your pocket worth less and less. Eventually any currency controlled by government will be debased to worthlessness, and will wipe out the savings of the citizens who put faith in that currency.

Hard currencies, on the other hand, force governments to remain in check, strictly limited to the revenues they can raise from the country’s economic health. This is also an incentive for government to stay out of the way of productivity. The hyper-regulation in today’s economy demonstrates that this is no longer the case. What does it matter if the economy is crippled and the tax-base eroded, if government can create whatever dollars they need to keep the special interests happy?

We have been building economic castles on the sand, and the tide is coming in. The answer is not to bring in more sand, but to move to more solid foundation.

So yes, it is true that many are complaining about our economic trouble, but our economic trouble is not caused by their complaining. Many are being forced to wake up to the predictable troubles associated with faith-based currency. As more people notice the hardships, more will lose faith.

We are long overdue for a course correction and I can only hope that this awakening translates to a solid approach to currency reform.

Ron Paul is a republican member of congress from Texas.

[Galaxy]

George, evidently I beat you to the post. Does that mean I can write a response quicker than you can cut and paste from a quack? ;)

Ron Paul and the Paleo Libertarians have been crying wolf soooo long that very few believe them.

He is worse than the global warming fear mongers who blame everything that happens in weather on global warming. Ron Paul blames all our economic blips and the Iraq War on fiat currency. What next, fiat currency causes miscarriages? Since he is a OB/GYN doctor, some will believe him. I suppose, being a OB/GYN doctor makes him an expert in monetary economics also!

[Keith Jarrett]

Try adding corporate welfare to those figures ).

Can you explain here Sundance?

[George Fergusson]

Start with the fact that the depth of the Great Depression was caused by the gold standard which alone is sufficient reason to give it up

Sorry Galaxy, you gave me all kinds of reasons why a gold standard is a bad idea. You were supposed to overwhelm us with reasons why our current system is so great. Really. You said "our system has overwhelming advantages over a gold standard". So don't tell us what's bad about gold, tell us what those overwhelming advantages of a central bank and fiat currency are. Please.

And by the way, as for the depth of the Great Depression being caused by the gold standard, I know and you know that was not the case at all. We were on the gold standard at the time. It was not the cause. What should have been a short recession was turned into a much longer, much deeper depression due to the actions of the Federal Reserve.

Kill the Fed.

[Galaxy]

Sorry Galaxy, you gave me all kinds of reasons why a gold standard is a bad idea. You were supposed to overwhelm us with reasons why our current system is so great. Really. You said "our system has overwhelming advantages over a gold standard". So don't tell us what's bad about gold, tell us what those overwhelming advantages of a central bank and fiat currency are. Please. I do not believe you read the linked Brad DeLong piece. It's all there. Just read it.

And by the way, as for the depth of the Great Depression being caused by the gold standard, I know and you know that was not the case at all. We were on the gold standard at the time. It was not the cause. What should have been a short recession was turned into a much longer, much deeper depression due to the actions of the Federal Reserve.

Kill the Fed.Again, read the Brad DeLong piece. I would post the piece here for your convenience. But then you would accuse me of posting something that could be linked to. But, just for you George :), I will quote here what he says about the gold standard.

The gold standard and the Great Depression. The current judgment of economic historians (see, for example, Barry J. Eichengreen, Golden Fetters) is that attachment to the gold standard played a major part in keeping governments from fighting the Great Depression, and was a major factor turning the recession of 1929-1931 into the Great Depression of 1931-1941.

Countries that were not on the gold standard in 1929--or that quickly abandoned the gold standard--by and large escaped the Great Depression
Countries that abandoned the gold standard in 1930 and 1931 suffered from the Great Depression, but escaped its worst ravages.
Countries that held to the gold standard through 1933 (like the United States) or 1936 (like France) suffered the worst from the Great Depression

Commitment to the gold standard prevented Federal Reserve action to expand the money supply in 1930 and 1931--and forced President Hoover into destructive attempts at budget-balancing in order to avoid a gold standard-generated run on the dollar.
Commitment to the gold standard left countries vulnerable to "runs" on their currencies--Mexico in January of 1995 writ very, very large. Such a run, and even the fear that there might be a future run, boosted unemployment and amplified business cycles during the gold standard era.
The standard interpretation of the Depression, dating back to Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz's Monetary History of the United States, is that the Federal Reserve could have but for some mysterious reason did not boost the money supply to cure the Depression; but Friedman and Schwartz do not stress the role played by the gold standard in tieing the Federal Reserve's hands--the "golden fetters" of Eichengreen.
Friedman was and is aware of the role played by the gold standard--hence his long time advocacy of floating exchange rates, the antithesis of the gold standard.

[George Fergusson]

I do not believe you read the linked Brad DeLong piece. It's all there. Just read it.

Oh I read it. Not the first time actually, I think you posted the link last spring in that thread Barry started after the Bear Stearns bailout. And it didn't answer my questions, not that I had any.

So anyways, after repeatedly asking you to list the overwhelming advantages of central banks and fiat currency, all you can do is post the lunatic rantings of a 2-bit economist. He's a quack. But you knew I'd say that :)

Hey. You called Ron Paul a quack, I can call Brad DeLong a quack.

You leave me no choice now Galaxy. I'm going to let John F beat you up.

[Galaxy]

"Friedman was and is aware of the role played by the gold standard (in the Great Depression) --hence his long time advocacy of floating exchange rates, the antithesis of the gold standard."

"Floating exchange rates" is letting markets establish the value of a currency. Libertarians are very inconsistent when they advocate free markets and then deny that free markets should determine the value of currencies by tying their value to gold.

In fact , the value of our currency under a gold standard would be largely determined by the rate at which gold is mined. Russia, China, and South Africa are among the top 6 mining producers of gold in the world. Do you really want to turn the value of our currency over to this group?

If oil independence is important, surely currency value independence is .

[Galaxy]

So anyways, after repeatedly asking you to list the overwhelming advantages of central banks and fiat currency, all you can do is post the lunatic rantings of a 2-bit economist. He's a quack. Well, that must mean that most modern economist are quacks, since they agree with DeLong.

Hey. You called Ron Paul a quack, I can call Brad DeLong a quack.Technically, you may not. A quack is a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess. DeLong is the economist, while Paul is a OB/GYN doc. Where is his training in monetary economics? I suppose you would go to an economist for OB/GYN advice!

You leave me no choice now Galaxy. I'm going to let John F beat you up.Bring it on! ;)
On second thought, I guess not, since I agreed in a previous post to disagree on this topic with JohnF. There are much more important things to discuss than the gold standard since the question has already been settled by the research of modern economists.

[George Fergusson]

There are much more important things to discuss than the gold standard since the question has already been settled by the research of modern economists.

Agreed, especially since YOU brought up the gold standard in a successful attempt to redirect the line of discussion. Ok. Back to the topic of the thread. I believe I said:

Chicken feed compared to the cumulative cost of inflation.

to which you replied:

George, can you name one modern country that does not have a central bank, peg their currency to the currency of a country that has a central bank, or use the currency of a country that has a central bank?

Three things are obvious from this exchange:

First, you associate inflation with central banking, which of course is quite correct.

Second, you didn't question or dispute my statement that the financial "cost" of inflation far exceeds the "welfare costs" you cited in your original post. Therefore I must conclude you agree with me.

Third, you believe that the cost of inflation to American consumers and it's impact on our economy is "worth it", that the benefits of central banking and a fiat currency outweigh the disadvantages.

Can we agree on these conclusions and move on?

[tecumseh]

the 'esteemed' professor writes:
He guesses

tecumseh replies: well I am absolutely convinced. I mean it is this well educated person's best guess... so I reckon it would just have to work for me... right?

the idea does have value even though (see above comment) the finger pointing and quantifying seems specualtive at best. a better take might be 'zero sum game' by lester thurrow (authors name likely spelled wrong, but at one time he was dean of the school of economics at mit).

ps... one needs to make certain their politics is absolutely correct before one needs to apply for any position at texas a&m school of business. you need not be qualified (didn't you ever wonder why phil graham would have taught here?), but you must be politically correct. that's the rules...

[Galaxy]

ps... one needs to make certain their politics is absolutely correct before one needs to apply for any position at texas a&m school of business. you need not be qualified (didn't you ever wonder why phil graham would have taught here?), but you must be politically correct. that's the rules...I suspect that if one could do an independent analysis of the politics of the A&M business faculty, one would find that they tilt pretty heavily to the left. Such a situation is pretty standard in academia today, including business schools. See the research study below:
Social Scientists Lean to the Left, Study Says


The latest study is based on surveys conducted in 2003 of members of various disciplinary associations. On the question of political affiliation, the survey found the following breakdown of Democrats to Republicans:

Anthropologists and sociologists — 21.1:1
Political and legal philosophers — 9.1:1
Historians — 8.5:1
Political scientists — 5.6:1
Economists — 2.9:1
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/12/21/politics
Wow, among academic economists Democrats out-number Republicans by a margin of almost 3 to 1, higher than I expected. Yet, academic economists, almost without exception, support free markets.

Hooray, this renews my faith in the honesty of Democrats! Well, not Democrat politicians, just academic economist Democrats and their academic research process.

Now, if we could just get Democrat politicians to heed the research results of Democrat academic economists. But, that is asking Democrat politicians to be honest, perhaps a bridge too far.

Of course, if one is as far left as some appear to be, I'm sure those left-leaning profs appear to be on the right.

[John F]

But, just for you George :), I will quote here what he says about the gold standard.

All of the information you include commit the fallacy "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

Your expert has not done his homework either. I know more about the great depression than he does and I have a very limited exposure.

I did write an essay very much like his when I was in HighSchool though, so I know where he is coming from.

We can agree to disagree on the credential of this expert Galaxy.
Oh, and the reason the great depression was so protracted as well.

[John F]

Libertarians are very inconsistent when they advocate free markets and then deny that free markets should determine the value of currencies by tying their value to gold.

See how I know you don't know what you are talking about. I've explained this already in this very thread.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

And what was that you were saying about learning from our mistakes? It appears you have not as you keep making this mistake.

[John F]

Well, that must mean that most modern economist are quacks, since they agree with DeLong.

I accept your definition.


Technically, you may not. A quack is a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess. DeLong is the economist, while Paul is a OB/GYN doc. Where is his training in monetary economics? I suppose you would go to an economist for OB/GYN advice!

Then you won't be hurt when I call you a quack. Or are you an economist? (If so, then I imagine a modern economist.)

the question has already been settled by the research of modern economists.

Research? There is something other then opinion essays? I like to read research. Hook us up! I don't know what to think of research from modern economists though.

[John F]

Start with the fact that the depth of the Great Depression was caused by the gold standard which alone is sufficient reason to give it up.

This is false. I have the research to prove it.

But, if that is not enough look here (http://www.answers.com/topic/financial-panics).

Did you read your own link? Did you give each example an honest open-minded researcher's chance of explaining why they happened? Start at the top, the first is caused by an absense of trade. Not related to the money. The second is caused by the first central bank and it's policy of fractional reserve.

Were you being honest?

Anyone who believes the gold standard hokum should read this closely.


Hokum - hmmm. I don't recall this sort of word being useful in real intellectual debate. It seems a form of "poisoning the well" to me.

[John F]

Ron Paul and the Paleo Libertarians have been crying wolf soooo long that very few believe them.

This is not true and shows that you are not paying attention.

He is worse than ... !

Certainly this is poisoning the well. (And a bunch more.)

But we'll have to agree to disagree on these counts.

[EDIT]

Oh yeah. And you told me that you attack ideas and not people. It seems that this case makes what you told me a false premise.

[John F]

Let's tack here, Galaxy, under the pretense that knowlege can be exchanged.

Assuming a free market, people will chose a form of money that ranks __ for counterfeitability.

0 - so easy to counterfeit that kindergarteners do it as coursework.
10 - impossible to counterfeit

Give me your rank and reason.

[Galaxy]

JohnF, I believe you have a first-rate mind and very good writing skills. Why do you waste all that talent on advocating an arcane, irrelavent, and out-dated concept like the gold standard and no central bank?

[Galaxy]

Agreed, especially since YOU brought up the gold standard in a successful attempt to redirect the line of discussion. Ok. Back to the topic of the thread. I believe I said:No, it wasn't an attempt to redirect, but it seems to have turned out that way. I made the post in response to your Kill the Fed comment, which on reflection, I doubt if you are serious about that.

First, you associate inflation with central banking, which of course is quite correct.Yes. But, inflation and deflation can and did occur under the gold standard.

Second, you didn't question or dispute my statement that the financial "cost" of inflation far exceeds the "welfare costs" you cited in your original post. Therefore I must conclude you agree with me.No, because the benefits of inflation exceed the costs of inflation. Mild inflation (1 to 2% per year) is not necessarily bad. It sure helps keep the unemployment rate down. I'll bet there are a lot of real estate and construction folks that would like to see some mild inflation in the housing market now!

Third, you believe that the cost of inflation to American consumers and it's impact on our economy is "worth it", that the benefits of central banking and a fiat currency outweigh the disadvantages.Yes

Can we agree on these conclusions and move on?Yes, this is a subject that we have beaten to death. And, in the real world, it is a settled issue.

[Barry Digman]

Today's word is "patronize".



pa·tron·ize –verb (used with object), -ized, -iz·ing.

1. to give (a store, restaurant, hotel, etc.) one's regular patronage; trade with.

2. to behave in an offensively condescending manner toward: a professor who patronizes his students.

3. to act as a patron toward (an artist, institution, etc.); support.

Also, especially British, pa·tron·ise.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patronizing

[Barry]

And the answer is . . . #2!

[John F]

JohnF, I believe you have a first-rate mind and very good writing skills. Why do you waste all that talent on advocating an arcane, irrelavent, and out-dated concept like the gold standard and no central bank?

Excellent question.

Clearly it is because I do not believe the concept to be arcane, irrelavent, or out-dated. I am in serious need of information. The information I have is flawed and you seem to be withholding.

Help me.

Let's start with my question ranking counterfeit exposure. What say ye?

[George Fergusson]

Social Security needs a hard core reform as well. Not so much the retirement section (and a big NO to privatizing).


Sundance. I just finished reading a speech given by Richard W. Fisher called "Storms on the Horizon" to the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco, California on May 28, 2008. Richard Fisher is president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. It's long, but you have to read it. I never thought I'd say that a fed banker would have anything to say worth listening to, but here I am saying it.

If you think Social Security is a problem, think again. I can't even begin to know where/what to start quoting so I'll just give you the link.

http://www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2008/fs080528.cfm

[Galaxy]

Interesting article George. I agree, Democrats enjoy spending more.

Politicians love unfunded mandates and programs. But eventually it catches up with them.

The question I would ask though is, how does universal "free" health care as proposed by the Democrats solve the unfunded Medicare disaster waiting to happen?

[George Fergusson]

Interesting article George. I agree, Democrats enjoy spending more.

Great anecdote about something important to remember- that spending money, especially money they don't have, is something politicians do best.

The question I would ask though is, how does universal "free" health care as proposed by the Democrats solve the unfunded Medicare disaster waiting to happen?

Well you know me Galaxy, I believe worldwide financial Armageddon is just around the corner and that our unfunded Social Security and Medicare disasters will just be forgotten in the ensuing fracas as the world's economies collapse into a steaming pile of broken humanity. People won't be worrying about who's going to pay their medical bills and buy their drugs, they're going to be worrying about what they're going to eat that day, and where they're going to sleep. Out of the ashes of that disaster will come a more sustainable manner of living, made somewhat simpler by the simple fact that so many people will have died off.

Oh, I'm sorry, today's Sunday, I shouldn't be so gloomy and doomy on Sunday :)

On the off chance that the financial Armageddon scenario doesn't materialize, maybe it would be a good idea if the Medicare crisis were better publicized? Right now it's a pretty well kept- or well ignored- secret. The basic elements have been known by various people for a few years, but all anyone has talked about is Social Security.