Neo-con led GOP is driving true conservatives away

Thought this article by Ira Hansen (no relations to Chris Hansen), is food for thought for third-party conservatives and GOP’ers thinking of bolting from the Republican Party….

Democrat Harry Reid has declared the war in Iraq “lost.” Republican President Bush declared “Victory in Iraq” in 2003. The neo-conservatives are demanding going to war with Iran our next step. Afghanistan remains in turmoil.

Most Americans side with Reid. Polls show at least 60 percent of the U.S. population wants to unilaterally leave Iraq, victory or no victory. Yet all three Republican frontrunners, Giuliani, McCain and Romney, support, if anything, an escalation in our war efforts there. Even more bizarre, all three are in favor of expanding the war to Iran.

I am a conservative Republican. I have opposed the war in Iraq since the beginning, and still regard it as a huge mistake. Yet my party, supposedly the home of conservatives, seems hell-bent on driving true conservatives (not the pseudo “neo-conservative”) out.

The rest of this article can be read here...

And it does mention Ron Paul at the end.

45 Responses to “Neo-con led GOP is driving true conservatives away”

  1. George Phillies Says:

    I sent him a comment urging Ira Hansen and sympathetic Goldwater Republicans to join the Libertarian Party, just as I did with Steven Greenhut (article above). I claim no credit for any posiitve outcomes, but there is a great opportunity knocking here.

  2. globalist_elitist Says:

    I would like to say that while I am 100% opposed to Ron Paul’s delusional beliefs about the Fed and the practicality or desirability of completing abolishing the income tax, I would support him as the LP nominee. It really hurts me to say that. I think thet Ron Paul, as a credible candidate, would be a good first step in rebuilding the LP into a legitimate party. I would hope that future LP nominees would have more of a Larry Kudlow economic/fiscal/monetary philosophy, combined with Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy and civil liberties, and a more enlightened view on reproductive and gay rights. But when comparing him to the current crop of candidates for the LP nomination, it is impossible to not want him to continue his GOP campaign within the LP.

  3. Trent Hill Says:

    GE,

    You came around. Welcome to the Ron Paul Team.

  4. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 7th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
    I would like to say that while I am 100% opposed to Ron Paul’s delusional beliefs about the Fed and the practicality or desirability of completing abolishing the income tax, I would support him as the LP nominee. It really hurts me to say that. I think thet Ron Paul, as a credible candidate, would be a good first step in rebuilding the LP into a legitimate party.”

    Why do you keep acting like Ron Paul is the only Libertarian that wants to shut down the Federal Reserve and IRS? Aren’t you aware of the fact that EVERY Libertarian (or at least every REAL Libertarian) wants to do these things? I can’t think of any LP candidates who have ever been nominated for any office that did not support getting rid of the Federal Reserve and IRS.

  5. globalist_elitist Says:

    Andy is not god of libertarianism and does not get to decide who is a “real” libertarian and who is not. I know plenty of people who consider themselves Libertarians who would not do away with the Federal Reserve. What’s more, if the LP changed its message to “sounder fiscal policy and lower taxes” there would be a whole lot more people who would begin considering themselves libertarians. Guess what: We’ve been trying it your way for 35 years, and it hasn’t worked.

  6. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 7th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
    Andy is not god of libertarianism and does not get to decide who is a “real” libertarian and who is not. I know plenty of people who consider themselves Libertarians who would not do away with the Federal Reserve.”

    I can’t think of any Libertarian candidates for office that have not supported getting rid of the Federal Reserve and IRS. I know that Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik were both in favor of getting rid of these things. I can’t think of any LP candidates for Congress or Senate who were not in favor of getting rid of these things. I’ve attended a bunch of LP meetings and I don’t ever recall encountering one person who was not in favor of getting rid of these things.

    There are some topics that are debated in Libertarian Party cirles such as abortion, immigration, the war in Iraq, patents, minarchy vs. anarchy, what’s the best way to cut government, etc…. I’ve been in the LP since 1996 and I’ve never heard of any LP members supporting keeping the Federal Reserve and IRS. Getting rid of the Federal Reserve and IRS are flagship Libertarian Party issues, much like calling off the drug war and protecting gun rights.

  7. globalist_elitist Says:

    George Phillies.

  8. Trent Hill Says:

    HAHAHAH. He’s got you there Andy.

  9. George Phillies Says:

    There was also this Milton Friedman fellow, recently deceased, who faulted the Fed for not having intervened adequately vigorously in 1931-1932, and who felt that rule-based control of the supply of money might be better than human intervention.

  10. Eric Dondero Says:

    And in reverse, Anti-War Islamo-Fascist apologists are driving many Libertarians out of the Libertarian Party into the GOP.

    I can’t tell you how many emails I’ve received from LPers leaving the Party cause they sense a weakness on Defense. Cuts both ways, so to speak.

  11. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 7th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
    George Phillies.”

    First of all, George Phillies is not the official candidate, he’s merely a candidate for the nomination. Second of all, anyone who supports “The Creature from Jekyll Island” is not a real libertarian and should not be the nominee. This is a deal breaker issue.

    “George Phillies Says:

    May 8th, 2007 at 12:02 am
    There was also this Milton Friedman fellow, recently deceased, who faulted the Fed for not having intervened adequately vigorously in 1931-1932, and who felt that rule-based control of the supply of money might be better than human intervention.”

    I’ve never been big on Milton Friedman. Murray Rothbard was better.

  12. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    May 8th, 2007 at 12:49 am
    And in reverse, Anti-War Islamo-Fascist apologists are driving many Libertarians out of the Libertarian Party into the GOP.

    I can’t tell you how many emails I’ve received from LPers leaving the Party cause they sense a weakness on Defense. Cuts both ways, so to speak.”

    Good, I’m glad that these people are leaving. They are nothing more than dead weight that are holding the party back. The pro-war of aggression folks are not real libertarians, so losing them is no big loss. The war is either right or wrong, there is no grey area with this one. It is not debatable because the facts have already been laid out and the anti-war side has already been proven to be right. There is no compelling libertarian arguement in support of this war. If one supports this war of aggression they are disqualified from being real libertarians.

  13. Andy Says:

    “Trent Hill Says:

    May 7th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
    HAHAHAH. He’s got you there Andy.”

    If the Libertarian Party ever nominates a pro-Federal Reserve System candidate that would probably drive me to vote Constitution Party, either that or not vote.

  14. Trent Hill Says:

    They are disqualified?

    Really….like a drug test? (ZING!)

    Andy, I hate to tell you this. But the War in Iraq is not a litmus test for Libertatrianism. I hate it too, but it just isnt.

  15. globalist_elitist Says:

    Anyone who thinks that Murray Rothbard is “better” than Milton Friedman… Wow. I can’t even come up with a proper insult.

    George Phillies was an LP candidate for Congress. You said you didn’t even know of any candidates for Congress. There’s one. I’m sure there are dozens more.

    Dondero - I don’t believe in a weak defense. I believe in a strong one. In one that is not engaged in political wars that serve no legitimate defense purposes; i.e. Iraq. We have created the threat that we originally sought to eliminate. We have not done a proper job in Afghanistan. And finally, part of “defense” is having a radically different foreign policy in which we don’t have soldiers based all over the world, poking a finger in our enemy’s eyes.

    I can see how a libertarian might think that a pull-out from Iraq would be a bad idea. I’m starting to head this way as well. We’ve created the threat. We’ve created a new haven for terrorists that Sadaam’s Iraq never was. But I cannot understand how anyone can claim to be a “libertarian” or even “pro-defense” and say that the initial invasion of Iraq was in any way a good idea.

  16. globalist_elitist Says:

    Andy is like Ayn Rand; a fascist for liberty. He makes the rules. Anyone who disagrees with him doesn’t exist.

  17. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 8th, 2007 at 1:39 am
    Andy is like Ayn Rand; a fascist for liberty. He makes the rules. Anyone who disagrees with him doesn’t exist.”

    I’m actually not that big on Ayn Rand either.

    I don’t say that anyone who disagrees with me is not a libertarian. I’m not a “throw the baby out with the bathwater” or “all or nothing” kind of person. I think that there is room for debate on several issues such as minarchy vs. anarchy, abortion, immigration, what’s the best way to reduce government, etc… If a person can make a compelling arguement I’m open to hearing it.

    Case in point, I don’t consider abortion to be a definitional libertarian issue because one can make a compelling libertarian arguement on either side of this issue.

    There are no legitimate libertarian arguements to support the Federal Reserve System or the war in Iraq. I’ve seen all of the arguements and I do not consider anyone who supports either of these things to be real libertarians.

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 8th, 2007 at 1:38 am
    Anyone who thinks that Murray Rothbard is “better” than Milton Friedman… Wow. I can’t even come up with a proper insult.”

    Milton Friedman was not hardcore. Whether it was intentional or not, he was the one who suggested with holding taxes from people’s pay checks. Milton also advocated school vouchers. School vouchers give the government a means to controlling private schools by getting them hooked on government funding. School vouchers also go along with the false notion that people are some how obligated to have money extorted from them to pay for “education” (should be called indoctrination) and that the money should pass through the hands of government.

  18. Andy Says:

    “George Phillies was an LP candidate for Congress. You said you didn’t even know of any candidates for Congress. There’s one. I’m sure there are dozens more.”

    Was George Phillies ever actually on the ballot as a Libertarian Party candidate for Congress? I remember hearing something about him trying to get on the ballot for Congress but not getting enough valid signatures. I just did a quick search on election results and I did not find any listing for George Phillies as a Libertarian candidate for Congress appearing on a ballot. Perhaps I didn’t look long enough, but so far I haven’t found it.

    If there have been any Libertarian candidates who supported the Federal Reserve System and who made it on the ballot I’d call them LINO’s, Libertarians In Name Only. Same goes with “Libertarians” who support the war in Iraq.

  19. globalist_elitist Says:

    1. Adam Smith also advocated public education.

    2. I support the Fed because it is part of the pro-growth financial infrastructure that gives everyone more liberty by allowing them to reach their full potential.

    3. You only allow disagreement on issues where YOUR position is against the Libertarian grain. You are anti-choice and anti-immigration, both of which are against the party line, so you conveniently allow for disagreement on those issues.

    I’m not saying people who want to abolish the Fed aren’t libertarians. I’m saying that they’re fucking idiots living in a fantasy world, completely divorced from the reality that abolishing the Fed would make us all poorer, or simply not caring.

  20. Andy Says:

    “Trent Hill Says:

    May 8th, 2007 at 1:15 am
    They are disqualified?

    Really….like a drug test? (ZING!)

    Andy, I hate to tell you this. But the War in Iraq is not a litmus test for Libertatrianism. I hate it too, but it just isnt.”

    I would say that the war in Iraq IS a litmus test as to whether or not one is really a libertarian. The only excuse that I could see to support it would be one of ignorance, but even that excuse is not good anymore due to all of the evidence that has come out that the whole thing was based on lies from the start. There is no libertarian justification for it no matter how far one wants to twist reality. If you support the war in Iraq you are NOT a libertarian. You may have some libertarian leanings on some other issues, but supporting the war in Iraq disqualifies one from being a real libertarian.

  21. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 8th, 2007 at 3:22 am
    1. Adam Smith also advocated public education.”

    Then Adam Smith was not a libertarian, at least not on this issue. Perhaps he didn’t realize what a monstrosity the public “education” system was going to become.

    “2. I support the Fed because it is part of the pro-growth financial infrastructure that gives everyone more liberty by allowing them to reach their full potential.”

    LOL! The Fed is NOT pro-growth. The Fed robs the general public through inflation and allows for the huge growth in government that has occurred since its inception. It is a total fraud. The only people who benifit from it are corrupt politicians and bankers and other corporate fat cats who feed off of the system.

    Anyone who supports the Federal Reserve is NOT a Libertarian. If I were at LP National I’d send you your membership dues back. You don’t belong in the party.

    “3. You only allow disagreement on issues where YOUR position is against the Libertarian grain. You are anti-choice and anti-immigration, both of which are against the party line, so you conveniently allow for disagreement on those issues.”

    I have NEVER stated where I stand on abortion. I have only stated that abortion is not a definitional Libertarian issue. I NEVER said my position so you just assumed this and/or made it up.

    I am also NOT anti-immigration. That is a LIE. I’m pro-immigrant. I’m just anti-invader. Remember the old question on the World’s Smallest Political Quiz was about “PEACEFUL PEOPLE CROSSING BORDERS.” Unlike some naive fools, I am capable of distinguishing between a PEACEFUL person and a NON-PEACEFUL person. La Raza and MS-13 gang members are NOT peaceful people. People who come in and “ride” the welfare system are NOT peaceful people. People who come in and lobby for more government or for the US government to support their “homeland” are NOT peaceful people.

  22. globalist_elitist Says:

    You are delusional. You think the growth we’ve experienced since 1913 is inflationary? Ever heard of “non-infaltionary growth”? It is measurable. But you don’t need to look at any data - just look around your house.

    An economic system is a set of rules that encourages production and consumption. Are we not producing and consuming? Are we not innovating? Money is irrelavent; what matters is what can be bought with the money. Inflation, in moderation, is a good thing. If you can earn a return on your money by just holding it under your bed, then the incentive to invest is taken away. The incentive to spend is lessened. And thus, there is no growth.

    Look, dude: You do not understand economics. I’m sorry, but you don’t. When Adam Smith doesn’t pass muster with you, that’s all anyone should need to see.

  23. rj Says:

    “Money is irrelavent; what matters is what can be bought with the money. Inflation, in moderation, is a good thing. If you can earn a return on your money by just holding it under your bed, then the incentive to invest is taken away. The incentive to spend is lessened. And thus, there is no growth.”

    You just described the ideal situation for America as the commercial where the guy says he owns a big house, brand new SUV, belongs to the golf club, has a John Deere tractor for a tiny yard, and then says to the camera “How do I do it? I’m in debt up to my eyeballs. I can barely pay my finance charges. Someone please help me.”

    We’re going to have a recession within the coming year, and consumption has little to do with it. Why?

    -The housing crisis where people paid so much for houses with the expectation they were going to sell in two years and has completely unraveled (see http://www.thehousingbubbleblog.com ).

    -The unraveling of the yen carry trade where an artificially low interest rate by the Bank of Japan led to people borrowing money in yen and then investing it in American money and then they would make money off the difference in interest rates. The aforementioned housing crisis, general recession, the Fed’s printing frenzy via Helicopter Ben, and the politicking by both parties is going to force the Fed to lower interest rates to their detriment, and despite their best efforts the Bank of Japan will have to raise interest rates cause it’s what their economy is telling them to do, so that cash influx will disappear. (see http://www.financialsense.com ).

    The lowering of the value of the dollar means that other currencies are rising against ours. Longterm, this is better for domestic production. Short-term, this means the price of all our imports will go up.

    The country has had negative savings growth this past two years. That means our citizenry spent more money than it made. Alongside the aforementioned housing crisis You say look at noninflationary growth by looking around the house, tell me what’s better for a country’s long-term growth, me with a bunch of junk around my house and struggling payment-to-payment each month and the very real possibility that I won’t meet the house payment (again, go read http://www.thehousingbubbleblog.com ), or me with a bit less stuff and I am financially solvent?

  24. rj Says:

    don’t know why part of my comment was striked out…

  25. globalist_elitist Says:

    RJ: Bernanke has done nothing but raise rates. How is this a “printing frenzy”?

    I agree that there may be a recession sometime this year or next. I agree that the housing bubble was aided along by the Fed.

    Ultimately, it is an issue of personal responsibilty. If you are in debt, that’s your problem #1,your creditors’ problem #2. You both share responsibility. If you can’t make your house payment, who wins? Not the bank, who probablyl lent you more money than the house is now worth. Foreclosing is an expensive process, and many people in these bubble areas have negative equity. What is more likely to happen is that you will renegotiate the loan with your lender. “Short sales” - which is where the bank forgives your negative equity to help facilitate a sale - are also on the rise.

    I’ll take business cycles over long-term stagnation any day.

  26. rj Says:

    Check out John Williams’ Shadow Stats site and his reconstructed M3 for what has happened since Bernanke became Fed chief. Also check out his real inflation index versus CPI.

    As for Bernanke:

    “But there are other ways to counter deflation, Mr Bernanke explained with rather too much flourish as fresh Fed governor in 2003.

    “The US government has a technology called a printing press that allows it to produce as many US dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost,” he said.

    Ultimately, the Fed can flood the system by buying any kind of asset, or even dropping bank notes from helicopters, he said. The speech earned him the epithet “Helicopter Ben” and perhaps a fatal notoriety as a inflationist, however unfairly.”

  27. globalist_elitist Says:

    Deflation is what kills economies. Increasing the money supply to offset DEFLATION is good policy. It could have helped save us from the Great Depression, which was caused by CP-like fiscal/monetary/trade/immigration policy. Bernanke is talking about supplying the market with enough liquidity to stave off deflation: What the hell does that have to do with right now? We do not have deflation currently. The odds of it happening to any great degree are slim. And when it does, the Fed can and should increase the money supply to avoid economic catastrophe.

  28. George Phillies Says:

    The serious difficulty faced by Mr. Bernanke is that we are getting price changes due to shifting demand curves for oil and corn, among other things, and those shifting demand curves mimic inflation—except that they cannot be “fixed” with monentary policy. Indeed, using monentary policy against them risks creating anotehr severe recession or worse.

  29. globalist_elitist Says:

    I don’t agree that the rise in commodity prices is not inflation-related, or that it cannot be “fixed” through monetary policy. They are “inflation related” to the extent that they could not rise in price if liquidity were choked off, and the “fix” could BE recession. Volcker intentionally caused a recession in the early 80s in order to fix the poor fiscal policies of the best several presidents (LBJ through Carter) and the weak-kneed monetary policies of the Fed.

    The good news is that the current environment is not even close to how bad it was in the 80s, and drastic monetary-policy measures are unlikely to be needed. I predict Ben Bernanke will go down in history as the greatest Fed Chairman ever. Right now, he’s picking up after a lot of Greenspan’s messes.

  30. Devious David Says:

    GE, I applaud your support of Ron Paul!

    In the meantime, lay down the crackpipe, man! You have no clue on economics. The current environment is drastically worse than the 80’s. Our strength in manufacturing is part of what saved us there. That base is gone now, exported to China. Volker’s recession helped to purge some of the excesses, no doubt. But every recession is a result of the boom-bust business cycle. I thought that having a Soviet-style anti-market central bank was supposed to make for sound and stable prices. Why are prices getting higher and higher since 1913?

    When you talk of drastic policy measures, I must concede that I partially agree. The policy measures that are PUBLICLY disclosed will not be drastic, or in the minimum, they won’t be considered or accepted as such by the mainstream media and people like you. However, those digital printing presses will be running. The Fed will have to hire new people everyday, because the people who have to hold down the 0 key will be breaking their fingers.

    Why is the Dow Jones Industrials, when priced in oil, gasoline, copper, silver, gold, uranium, milk and corn, rather than dollars lower now than it was at it’s prior high in 2000?

    The only “good” news for the dollar is that world money supplies are growing rapidly. One scenario is that perhaps China will remove the peg to the dollar and then we’ll see what happens. There is going to be a hyperinflation when those dollars are repatriated. Of course, it’s hard to tell what the catalysts will be, but there is going to be a monetary crisis.

    I’d also like to point out that the Austrians have never been wrong. Even the 1929 Great Depression was predicted in great detail. The fed does not exist for any purpose but to make money for it’s owners at everyone else’s grave expense. It’s a sham of unimaginable proportions and until something is done about it, we will absolutely NOT have liberty in the USA. It makes all of our goals utterly IMPOSSIBLE.

    And finally, every single time that a fiat currency has been tried in history, it has failed - and for good reason. Why is it that “this time is different”?

  31. globalist_elitist Says:

    When priced in commodities, the Dow is lower now than in 2000 because in 2000 it was overbought. Bubbles can happen. They did before the Fed. They did when there was a gold standard. Check out the Tulip Bulb Mania from way back when.

    Price stability does not mean zero inflation. I’ve stated above why moderate, semi-predictable inflation is necessary for maximum economic growth. I’m not going to repeat myself again and again.

    Inflation is 2-3 percent now. In the early 80s, it was as high as 18 percent. And part of the reason was the protectionist policies of the government at the time.

    Fiat currencies have never worked before for two reasons: 1) They were managed more directly by governments than FRNs are; and 2) They were managed by countries not nearly as powerful, advanced, and globally integrated as the U.S.

    FRNs are backed by something. They are backed by the government’s guns. This is a legitimate purpose for a government - to enforce contracts. FRNs are worthless beyond what can be bought for them; goods, services, and debt settlement. They are only as strong as the credibility of the government that backs them, and to your dismay, our government is extremely credible in this regard.

    The yuan is not pegged to the U.S. dollar. Your information is out of date. If the yuan were allowed to float entirely freely, it would appreciate against the dollar, which would make Chinese imports more expensive and U.S. exports chepaer. I THOUGHT THAT’S WHAT YOU LIBERALS WANTED in the first place?

    You novices confuse the appreciation/depreciation between currencies for inflation. They are not the same thing.

  32. Devious David Says:

    I agree. About 2-3 inflation is probably about right - which is ironically about what a gold standard would maintain by necessity. The economy could not grow any faster.

    Inflation is dramatically greater than 2-3%. It’s more like 10-14%. Worldwide. If inflation was once 18%, then you must agree by default that the Fed did not then have a handle on it. Prices were aggressively rising as a result of the inflation. The fed in that particular case was an abject failure with respect to stability.

    In response to reason 1), You seem to be admitting that the Fed is a private entity and not government. This is true. But contrary to your admonitions before. 2) The real and perceived power, advancement and integration of prior experiments has nothing to do with the inability of the FRN to escape economic law. Governments cannot circumvent economic law, nor can a bank.

    FRNs are backed by the governments guns. I can’t really disagree with that. But there is no value produced by government. It is only the destruction and antithesis of value. As I said, no government can circumvent economic law. It can lie, cheat and steal in order to stave off the inevitable day of reckoning, but ultimately economic law will come home to roost.

    The yuan is quasi-fixed. Boo-hoo. What happened as soon as it was allowed to float a little? Yes, it appreciated! I am not confusing appreciation for inflation. Inflation is creation of money. As you correctly posit, the yuan would appreciate making Chinese imports more expensive. There will be less incentive to accept the losses on the dollar. But, the real kicker will be when the dollars that the Chinese hold are repatriated. That would destroy the dollar as all the Asian holders of dollars make a hasty exit for the door. It would hurt the dollar immensely. And Ben Bernankes response will be to print even more of them!

    And I’m not a liberal.

  33. Andy Says:

    “FRNs are backed by the governments guns. I can’t really disagree with that. But there is no value produced by government. It is only the destruction and antithesis of value. As I said, no government can circumvent economic law. It can lie, cheat and steal in order to stave off the inevitable day of reckoning, but ultimately economic law will come home to roost.”

    You just hit the nail on the head.

  34. globalist_elitist Says:

    1. There is value produced by government. Do you place no value on the protection of your rights? On national defense? On a functioning court system? These things contribute greatly to our lives. Yes, there are many more instances in which the government oversteps its bounds and interferes to our detriment, but to say it “produces no value” is entirely incorrect.

    2. The value/lack thereof “produced” by government has nothing to do with what we’re discussing. The fact is that our system encourages production, investment, and consumption. FRNs are just the stones by which we keep score. They have th “real value” equivalent to the stuf that is produced, and do you want to know why? Because the government says they do. Just like the government says there’s an income tax. Ask Irwin Shiff if they are joking.

    3. I do not believe in voodoo inflation calculations. Inflation is 2-3 percent. There is no basis for your calculations. Inflation is not the expansion of the money supply when met with productivity gains. CPI/ PCE deflator, etc., are reliable measures of inflation on planet Earth. You know, that place where if you don’t pay the income tax you go to jail, and where Osama bin laden is actually a bad guy? Yeah, that place.

    4. Inflation was out of control in the 70s and 80s due to extremely bad fiscal policy matched with not-aggressive-enough monetary policy. Primarily, it was Congress/the executive branch’s fault. Central bankers are not infalliable and they did not contain the problem well enough. This is also the period in which the dollar was separated from gold, which would naturally cause some serious inflation. Volcker got it under control. Central bankers now know what they’re doing a lot better than they did before. Is it impossible that they will totally screw up again? Of course not. But the likelihood is diminished. The powerful, moneyed interests in this country do not want the Fed to screw up, and that’s why it won’t.

    5. The Fed is an arms-length governmental body. That’s the way it should be. The greater the independence of a central bank, the more long-term its policy decisions. Socialist systems have central banks controlled directly by the government, and that does not work. Our Constituttion would allow such a thing, but thank god, we don’t have it.

    6. China is not going to let the yuan flow freely. It is already under pressure from our misguided, CP-minded congressmen from both major parties to do so. If it did, it would crush China’s economy more so than our own. And if it did, why would Bernanke “print more” FRNs? If anything, the Fed would tighten. Regardless, that isn’t going to happen. China depends on us. The reason it holds so many of our dollars is that its domestic banks have to in order for their citizens to respect their currency. A shitload of FRNs in the Chinese bank is like a shitload of gold being in an 1850s European bank. The Chinese economy cannot prosper without a relatively strong U.S. dollar.

    7. I called you a “liberal” to get under your skin.

  35. Devious David Says:

    1. You make perfect sense here, but look at it from the standpoint of opportunity cost. The government is a failure at protecting my rights. Rather, it violates them more than any other group or individual. My rights face a greater threat from my government then anything else. Our court system is disfunctional. The criminal justice system is designed to fail and convict people, blah blah blah. We’re right back at government being the greatest threat to my rights and safety. But anyway… look at the opportunity cost. There is a net destruction of value, not a net creation.

    2. Our system encourages consumption. That’s why we have Mexicans do the work and Chinese make all the goods. The government says a lot of things that aren’t true. It’s initiation of force on Mr. Schiff, et al is the only thing that it is capable of doing. That’s what it is. A monopoly on force. There is no real instrinsic value to FRNs. They can be created in infinite amount with no effort, risk or investment required to create them.

    3. Go to the gas pump, grocery store, restaurant etc and try to tell me inflation is 2-3 percent. All the aforementioned commodities are up by a lot more than 2-3 percent annualized. The GDP numbers are also phony. Learn about hedonic adjustments. They are a means of understating inflation that began when Carter was President and they keep adding more adjustments as time goes on. The definition of inflation is an expansion of the supply of money. End of definition. When that happens, it takes more dollars to buy goods, not because it takes any more effort to produce the good, but because the dollars are worth less. A salt shaker is always equal to a salt shaker and barring any new manufacturing technique, requires the same effort today as it will next year. However next year it will require more dollars to buy that salt shaker because the dollar has lost purchasing power. That is the reason why I offered the example of pricing the DJI in milk, copper etc. An ounce of gold is always worth one ounce of gold. A pound of copper is always worth a pound of copper.

    4. And Congress is very fiscally responsible now. Look at the war in Iraq and prescription drug benefit and bridges to nowhere. Social Security? “Not a problem”. Just print more money to cover the obligation and hedonically adjust inflation downward to further decrease the benefit. I am glad you agree that closing the gold window and making the dollar a true fiat currency is inflationary! The powerful, moneyed interests really don’t want things to spiral out of control for sure! I wonder and theorize how many of them know what’s happening and how many don’t. But, being a powerful, moneyed interest is not enough to circumvent economic law. This may be one reason why the North American Union with the Amero currency is being pushed so hard. I know that the dollars status as reserve currency is threatened by the Iraning oil bourse. That should seal Iran’s fate, I am tempted to hypothesize. Sorry to babble and digress.

    5. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors is an arm-length governmental body. The Federal Reserve System is a private entity, owned and controlled by it’s shareholders, which are the member banks. I agree that there should be hands off the currency and banking system, but the banking system must be free. Dissolve the legal tender laws and let the market decide - there’s no need (in fact, I oppose) a government sanctioned currency of any kind, including gold. Gold would win out though, that’s what the market would decide upon.

    6. China doesn’t want the yuan to float, for sure. They would love nothing more than business as usual to continue indefinitely. However, they will have no choice in the matter. These things cannot be managed indefinitely. The business cycle will assert itself and purge the malinvestments and wrong decisions. The same fundamental problems with central banking in the USA are the same ones in China. Haven’t you been listening to their finance minister? The guy is getting hawkish, at least in rhetoric.

    Ben Bernanke and most any other central banker’s response to any problem at this late a stage of the inflation bubble is/will be to make for easy money in an attempt to stimulate productivity. The Fed is in a VERY tight corner right now. I’m, actually impressed that they are holding it together as well as they are.

    The reason China has so many dollars is because they need to buy oil for one. Another is that they have been getting a good deal at it with the trade surplus they have. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with “respect” for the yuan.

    7. blah.

  36. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 9th, 2007 at 1:33 am
    1. There is value produced by government. Do you place no value on the protection of your rights?”

    Too bad that the government doesn’t actually do this.

  37. globalist_elitist Says:

    Andy - Sure it does. Through the court system. It could be better. But to say the government doesn’t protect anyone’s rights EVER is going too far.

    1. That’s not what “opportunity cost” means, but whatever. You’re arguing that the net effect of OUR government is negative. That’s debatable. I still might think, for example, that the benefits of local police, national defense, roads, the court system, and even public schools - with all of their negatives - still yield a net positive. It is not something that can be known.

    2. I never said that there was an intrinsic value of FRNs. You are clearly smarter than the average poster here, but when you say that FRNs “can be created in infinite amount with no effort, risk or investment,” that is patently false. The expansion of the money supply, when not met with equal expansion of the goods and services produced, causes FRNs to lose their value. Clearly, that implies “risk.”

    3. Go to dell.com, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, or Barnes & Noble and tell me that inflation isn’t LESS than 2-3%. That’s why we have CPI. Some things are going up in price and others are coming down. Global trade has deflationary pressures, not inflationary ones.

    4. Congress is woefully irresponsible now - but not as bad as it once was. And better yet, the Fed is more responsible. The focus of the LP and of legitimate fiscal conservatives should be: 1) Lower taxes, 2) Reduced spending. Fantasies of abolishing the IRS and the Fed are a waste of time. Worrying about the “Amero” conspiracy is an even bigger waste.

    5. I have no response to this. The Fed is an independent central bank. I’m not interested in arguing what that means.

    6. I disagree.

    7. You are a liberal and a communist and a child molester.

  38. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 9th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
    Andy - Sure it does. Through the court system. It could be better. But to say the government doesn’t protect anyone’s rights EVER is going too far.”

    In reality, the government violates people’s rights FAR more than it protects them.

  39. Devious David Says:

    1. I am not defining opportunity cost, I am producing or rather alluding to an example of it. The opportunity cost of having The State impose the police upon us under the rubric of “protecting our rights” is the destruction of our rights. Whereas private security forces, in particular within the context of private property, do not infringe upon or deny us our rights. However, yes, The State’s police do occasionally protect our rights. So, there is a positive gain to be had by having The State impose the police upon us, however it is a net loss, when the totality of the situation is factored in. And the alternative comes at less cost with greater results (morally and practically).

    2. Thank you. I don’t know I agree, we’re just talking about what I like to talk about. Your definition of risk is muddled. I was not being clear though - I meant risk of capital. Dollar risk is an inherent factor within the world economy. As per whether or not inflation itself constitutes a specific risk, I guess at least in an abstract way it does. It’s certainly a pernicious aspect of fiat currency. And of course, I guess in certain instruments it could be directly translated into a quantitatively measured amount of risk.

    3. Dell doesn’t count. They are a tech company and we both know that computers/technology are deflating. Purchasing power is rising in that sector and we will both agree that those goods are imported from Southeast Asia too - people whose monetary policy is aimed at maintaining a peg such that the dollar remains stronger than their native currencies (for the time being). Likewise for the stuff that Best Buy sells. Big screen HDTVs are a great example. That sector is less regulated and interfered with too. If only we could get rid of anti-dumping laws!

    That said, you don’t go buy a new computer nor big screen tv every other day. You buy gasoline, milk, corn, wheat etc.

    Barnes & Noble, I am unsure. Although at my last visit to the brick and mortar, I did notice that the price on hardbacks seems to be getting higher. Anecdotal and highly unscientific. Worse, I don’t know that it exceeds 2-3%.

    Did I mention that the stuff we buy everyday and spend more money (per week, month, year) on is blowing the roof off of 2-3% Look around you. Even the girl at Dollar Tree the other day recognized this - without my prompting.

    Global trade is great. It does bring prices down. I am concerned with some aspects of it, primarily how energy comes into that equation and whether it is sustainable in an environment where energy supplies are tight and looming crises take place.

    4. The government is bigger, more expensive and more instrusive than it ever has been. End of debate. Entitlement meltdowns are looming closer than ever and nothing is being done. Wars are being waged in Iraq and Afganistan while one in Iran is “on the table”. Do I need to sing you a Beach Boys tune? Something is going to happen over all this. These type of things cannot continue to escalate or even maintain indefinitely.

    The Fed is more responsible? They are all a criminal class to me, engaged in criminal activities. Was Charles Manson more responsible than John Gacy? Perhaps. I dunno. I am not sure it’s worth arguing over!

    Lower taxes in conjunction with lower spending would be great. But so would letting the market destroy the Fed. Assuming that the market would do such a thing. If the Fed is so great, that would naturally prevent any real competition of any kind from springing forth, if you are correct. There wouldn’t be any substantive gold monetary systems in such a case. Abolish legal tender laws. Even you should be for it. More importantly, the things we want to achieve are rendered impossible (in any substantive way) by the existence of the Fed.

    The NAA/Amero is not a theory. I read official documentation about it prior to the 2004 election and tried to tell people about it. All anyone wanted to do was suck Bush’s balls anyway. I don’t remember what all I read back then, but some of it was from whitehouse.gov, I beleive. At any rate, this is a matter of public record. 5) Not at all unlike the history and nature of the Fed.

    6) Among many, many other things, some information I use to support this speculation would be Ben’s “helicopter” speech.

    7) I know you are, but what am I? :)

  40. globalist_elitist Says:

    Andy- Compared to what, though? You have no basis for comparison. You don’t know what it would be like under anarchy. Maybe it would be kinder, gentler. Or maybe you would see exactly how much your rights are actually protected by the government each and every day (i.e. your right not to be murdered or raped, etc.)

    1. See above.

    2. I stand by my assertion that the Fed has an interest in sound monetary policy. After all, as you guys like to point out, it is technically owned by its member banks. Its member banks are hurt by inflation. They are hurt by long-range inflation expectations and the ensuing invertion of the yield curve. And if the dollar ever totally takes a shit, will these bankers be happy about it? Of course not. They’ll be destroyed. So to say that the Fed can “print” FRNs with impunity is false.

    3. You say Dell and BestBuy don’t count. Fine. I say that food and gasoline don’t count. It isn’t fair to ex out the things that weaken your case. So let’s look at CPI, ex-nothing. By that measure, inflation is around 2 to 3 percent. 1 to 2 percent would be better. -1 percent would be killer, and I’d rather err on the side of a little too much inflation than ANY deflation.

    4. The government is bigger and more intrustive, but its growth is not as rapid as it was under LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. The growth, not the overall size, is the cause of inflaton. Plus, taxes are MUCH LOWER than then, which is producing more revenue, and thus lessening the deficit as a share of GDP. Not good enough! I want lower taxes and drastically reduced spending. I want inviolate civil liberties. Isn’t this good enough for me to be considered a libertarian?

    5-7. You’ve made your case. I’m just not buying it. I’ve made mine, and you’re not coming around. Nice chat.

  41. Guy Montag Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    May 8th, 2007 at 12:49 am
    And in reverse, Anti-War Islamo-Fascist apologists are driving many Libertarians out of the Libertarian Party into the GOP.

    I can’t tell you how many emails I’ve received from LPers leaving the Party cause they sense a weakness on Defense. Cuts both ways, so to speak.”

    How can one be weak on defense when we have been on the offensive, both directly and through our client states, for last 100 yrs??

    To oppose unconstitutional, unjsut war is to apologize for someone?

    Finally, facism is the mingling of corporatist state and strong centralized govt-what Bush ahs done well. How are Muslims, most that live in poor nations, facists? The only ones that could remotley qualify are those oil sheiks that Bush is tied to.

    Keep bombing the world and expect enemies and vengeance. It did not work for us, it won’t work for you.

    Pleeze, stop watching that family on the wall called Faux News. It has wrotted your brains.

  42. Guy Montag Says:

    Private bank-Fed and its handful of cronies-control the economy and charge interests rates for something Congress can do for little cost and no debt..and this is a good thing?

    Too bad, we must have all been mired in stagnation from 1776 to 1913. many architects of NWO founded Fed, including Warburg.

    It proves the point, that most will like slavery and defend it.

    Samuel Adams

    “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our country men.”

  43. globalist_elitist Says:

    You don’t understand how the banking system works. Who does the Fed “charge interest rates” to? Not me. Not you. It charges interest to its member banks, who then charge interest to me and you. But here’s the good news: Instead of being a whiny little left-wing loser, you can take $50 and buy a share of Citigroup. Now you own the bank. Now you can say that the Fed “charges you interest rates,” but since you will indirectly own the Fed, so what?

    Wealth = liberty. One cannot love one more than the other.

  44. Trent Hill Says:

    Um,No. Wealth does NOT equal liberty.

  45. globalist_elitist Says:

    Sure it does.

Leave a Reply