In this article, which announced a big win for those interested in asset backed money, the mainstream could not help itself and in all fairness was likely correct in including a paragraph from opponents of what would be called "The Gold Standard". This part entertained me and I was actually thankful for the easy target it provided. There's no better time to give voice to your opponents than when they are dead wrong and easily shown to be so. I took aim and was prompted to write an absurdly long comment. Instead of once again having it die in exile on some server I'm putting that comment here on my wee blog. Here's the Original Article from AP: Utah making gold and silver coins legal currency, pushing debate about national gold standard
He's my commentary:
My favorite part is this: "Opponents of the law warn such a policy shift nationwide could increase the prospect of inflation and could destabilize international markets by removing the government's flexibility to quickly adjust currency prices."
This charge is almost laughable except for the fact that so many people have bought it. Printing money, low interest rates, legalized 10% bank reserve rates and rampant borrowing increase the prospect of inflation. I would only agree with these oppositions in saying that giving Americans a vehicle to back their purchasing power with an asset backed money would probably hasten a massive inflationary trend as people will move to the currency which cannot be debased by arbitrary, bureaucratic and banker whims. This by no means would indicate that introduction of a gold backed option causes inflation. Gold is only the MRI which reveals the cancer underneath the surface of the dollar. No one ever blames the MRI for their cancer so it would also be foolish to blame a gold backed money for inflation. It only reveals the horror beneath. It does not create the horror of hyperinflation. They go on to say that introducing a valuable money could "destabilize international markets by removing the government's flexibility to quickly adjust currency prices." Ladies and gentlemen I submit to you our current world economy. The system which the opponents of gold backing are citing is the system we have had in one form or another for 100 years since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. It has in fact been the policy to erode the gold standard since at least 1913, an aim finally achieved completely in 1971. Opponents of Gold backing always say something like “We’d be going backward in financial development”. I'd happen to disagree. Ask the Spartans about inflation and money debasement, ask the Romans. Ask the Germans of the 1920s and above all ask our founders about the Continental Dollar, which inflated to ZERO along with all of the others. This is why in the constitution they mandated that "No State shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." The game of something for nothing and currency debasement is thousands of years old and its lesson is clear: Any time you give a person or group the ability to get something for nothing they will abuse it for their own benefit. In ALL cases where some body is given the prerogative of money printing or diminishing the gold content of coins or whatever means were used to debase through artificial injection of value the result has ALWAYS been the collapse of that currency to zero. These Keynesian ideas parade around as if they are the economic equivalent to fusion power but they date back to the days of wood fires in mud huts. They have new names and new terminology with formulas and heavily titled men backing them up but it is nothing more than legalized counterfeiting for the benefit of one class at the expense of another. At the benefit of the US and other world governments and their banking class who control issuing of currency at the expense of everyone else. It's true that artificial injection of credit and currency have stabilized some situations but these 'victories' for Keynesianism have dire consequences (i.e. dot com bubble and crash, housing bubble and crash) because they distort reality. They make it appear that the USA needs more houses, so massive resources and labor are redirected and they are built. What we are left with is now a housing surplus which the US population will not be able to absorb until 2020 and a skilled profession full of men who can no longer apply their hard earned knowledge to earn a living because there is no demand for it. These distortions of markets could not occur in a society where capital could not be artificially injected. It is plain to me that these opposition arguments are weak even to the casual observer.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
On Ron Paul's Positions of Freedom
Every so often I see a comment on a news article that just prompts me to write a dissertation. Afterward I often feel well that was a waste of effort on some comment stream that will disappear from site in couple hours so I post it here to make myself feel better. Here is the link to the original article Ron Paul Questions Mitt Romney
Here is the Comment to which I was responding:
Ron Paul knows that when you conduct a fund raising marathon, you only "get" commitments. No one actually gets all of the bank transfers that day. So what is the meaning of Ron Paul's "speech acts" here? He knows full well that this is how fund raising works. So why is he making it appear that Romney has done something out of the ordinary? It's a cheap shot. It speaks to the core of Ron Paul. Paul is desperate to get attention. He claims to be a man of HIGH integrity, yet his actions speak louder than his words.
Paul loves to make speeches about "freedom and tyranny." It makes us feel patriotic. But then he speaks in general and vague principles of "freedom" when having to address complex problems. Its much "easier" to say that you'd die for a cause rather than saying, "I'll stick around and solve complex problems."
Take for instance, health care reform. What is Paul's solution for the states to reduce health care costs? In Paul's state of Texas, there are millions of people who are uninsured. In fact, Texas is the WORST in the nation. Out of these millions of people, children are the hardest hit. Wow! Let freedom ring!
This is the real difference between Romney and Paul. Romney is willing to use the mandate to address personal responsibility. It is a mistake to suppose that simply becuase we have libertarian freedom, that we are all free from personal responsibility within a society. Yes, if you lived on an island, then you get to do whatever you want. but, when you join a modern and thriving society, these responsibilities change.
Romney is the only conservative willing to "ACT" on this reality. Romney is the one for personal responsibility.The other Republicans can only say they are for the "status quo." We don't want or need status quo candidates.
Ron Paul likes to propose radical changes, but they are untested and unmeasured. He wants to gamble with prostitution (in the day of high pornography use) and legalization of drugs with personal responsibility is at an all-time low. in short, Paul is for radical social experiments that will cause a lot of harm and damage - all for the sake of claiming that we are "more" free.
You're all for more freedom until you have to bone of your children for "legalized" drug overdose or a daughter who chose to "legally work" as a prostitute.
In short, Ron Paul has given up on the tough issues and proposes that we just become more free by abandoning laws to protect "modern" societies.
No Thanks Ron. Our country won't survive your experiments.
Here is My Response:
You make a lot of assumptions in your argument here. You are correct in saying "It is a mistake to suppose that simply becuase we have libertarian freedom, that we are all free from personal responsibility within a society." But you are projecting that onto Ron Paul's position and the libertarian position in general. This is simply false. Just because someone is not forced to give their money over to help others does not mean that person does not feel responsibility within a society. This is where collectivism differ from individualism. Individualists believe in the voluntary giving of one's own money, this is called charity (and the USA is the most charitable nation on earth). Collectivists believe in the giving of other people's money, taken by force, this is called welfare. So when you say that "Romney is willing to use the mandate to address personal responsibility." What you are really saying is Romney is willing to use the mandate to force people to compulsively hand over their money so it can be given to the group of his choosing". How does being forced to give your money equate to personal responsibility I wonder. If Robin Hood came to your door and put a gun in your face and said "give me your money, I want to give it to the poor people or the uninsured or the oil companies or to Pakistan or to Lockheed Martin to build the latest drone" how can you say that you give this money out of responsibility? Giving money out of responsibility is when someone who has been blessed by their intellect and their community in which that intellect thrived to have an excess of capital and a comfortable enough life that they feel indebted to that community which fostered it. Feeling responsibility is when one's own heart is touched by the needs of others and those funds are voluntarily given and utilized in accordance with the giver's wishes. What is responsibility when one bureaucrat's heart bleeds so he steals the capital of others to put toward that cause and then takes personal fulfillment and accepts the pravda for doing so. He has sacrificed nothing, he has not toiled and given of his labor. He is only a modern day Robin Hood who violates the rights of one group to provide for another and keeps the fame (and a portion of the stolen goods) for himself.
"Ron Paul likes to propose radical changes, but they are untested and unmeasured." regarding prostitution and legalization of drugs.
This another false statement. It has been tested and measured. It's called the 18th and 21st amendment. Alcohol, a drug (the most widely used and problematic one in our society, even today), was prohibited. This gave rise to an immense black market which gave birth to large illegal trafficking syndicates (sound familiar?). Corruption and illegal activity became so rampant that it was repealed and thus "legalized", now Alcohol is widely available and is a big business with quality standards and open competition. There are still problems with alcohol abuse, but there are voluntary, free organizations all over the nation to help people with the disease. Prostitution, where legal and out in the open, is where the prostitutes are screened for diseases weekly and there are institutions with rules to defend their prostitutes' rights etc. Prostitution is everywhere and will be everywhere no matter how hard you try. Most prostitution rings in most cities are run by tyrannical pimps who are the scum of the earth. Modern day brothels, where they are legal, have much better conditions for the prostitutes and customers. I'm not saying I'll ever go to one or condone its use but your arguments that they are untested and unmeasurable are ABSOLUTELY FALSE!
Furthermore: This argument which has been placed in your mind by FOX news is a psychological ploy to make liberty seem like some evil thing. Ron Paul's philosophy extends to the entire economy, no bureaucrats picking winners and loser. That, in turn, means that prostitution and drug must be de-prohibited, but that is only a totally fringe issue used to debase his philosophy by playing on people's emotions. When you heard a pundit say that about Ron Paul's position did you react emotionally to it? Probably, because that is was the media does. In never appeals to your higher reasoning only your emotional hot buttons. The fact is that large companies actively seek regulation on their respective industries. The large companies depend on their government regulators to restrict entry into a market and stifle, through expense of compliance, competition. Do you really think that with the million and billions these companies spend in congress that these regulations could not be in their favor? This is why Ron Paul wants to legalize the free market. From oil to prostitution. Equality under the law is supposed to be a calling card of our republic. But then why are these large companies so favorably treated, even bailed out with tax payer funds. Why is one man's specialty outlawed while another's is subsidized? Legalizing equality under the law is not radical! Promoting inequality under the law is radical and I'd venture to say against the very fabric of this Republic. The inequality is so interwoven to the cloth of the law now though that it may seem radical to rip it out. But it is no more radical than pulling the weeds from a choked flower bed thus allowing the flowers to flourish.
Here is the Comment to which I was responding:
Ron Paul knows that when you conduct a fund raising marathon, you only "get" commitments. No one actually gets all of the bank transfers that day. So what is the meaning of Ron Paul's "speech acts" here? He knows full well that this is how fund raising works. So why is he making it appear that Romney has done something out of the ordinary? It's a cheap shot. It speaks to the core of Ron Paul. Paul is desperate to get attention. He claims to be a man of HIGH integrity, yet his actions speak louder than his words.
Paul loves to make speeches about "freedom and tyranny." It makes us feel patriotic. But then he speaks in general and vague principles of "freedom" when having to address complex problems. Its much "easier" to say that you'd die for a cause rather than saying, "I'll stick around and solve complex problems."
Take for instance, health care reform. What is Paul's solution for the states to reduce health care costs? In Paul's state of Texas, there are millions of people who are uninsured. In fact, Texas is the WORST in the nation. Out of these millions of people, children are the hardest hit. Wow! Let freedom ring!
This is the real difference between Romney and Paul. Romney is willing to use the mandate to address personal responsibility. It is a mistake to suppose that simply becuase we have libertarian freedom, that we are all free from personal responsibility within a society. Yes, if you lived on an island, then you get to do whatever you want. but, when you join a modern and thriving society, these responsibilities change.
Romney is the only conservative willing to "ACT" on this reality. Romney is the one for personal responsibility.The other Republicans can only say they are for the "status quo." We don't want or need status quo candidates.
Ron Paul likes to propose radical changes, but they are untested and unmeasured. He wants to gamble with prostitution (in the day of high pornography use) and legalization of drugs with personal responsibility is at an all-time low. in short, Paul is for radical social experiments that will cause a lot of harm and damage - all for the sake of claiming that we are "more" free.
You're all for more freedom until you have to bone of your children for "legalized" drug overdose or a daughter who chose to "legally work" as a prostitute.
In short, Ron Paul has given up on the tough issues and proposes that we just become more free by abandoning laws to protect "modern" societies.
No Thanks Ron. Our country won't survive your experiments.
Here is My Response:
You make a lot of assumptions in your argument here. You are correct in saying "It is a mistake to suppose that simply becuase we have libertarian freedom, that we are all free from personal responsibility within a society." But you are projecting that onto Ron Paul's position and the libertarian position in general. This is simply false. Just because someone is not forced to give their money over to help others does not mean that person does not feel responsibility within a society. This is where collectivism differ from individualism. Individualists believe in the voluntary giving of one's own money, this is called charity (and the USA is the most charitable nation on earth). Collectivists believe in the giving of other people's money, taken by force, this is called welfare. So when you say that "Romney is willing to use the mandate to address personal responsibility." What you are really saying is Romney is willing to use the mandate to force people to compulsively hand over their money so it can be given to the group of his choosing". How does being forced to give your money equate to personal responsibility I wonder. If Robin Hood came to your door and put a gun in your face and said "give me your money, I want to give it to the poor people or the uninsured or the oil companies or to Pakistan or to Lockheed Martin to build the latest drone" how can you say that you give this money out of responsibility? Giving money out of responsibility is when someone who has been blessed by their intellect and their community in which that intellect thrived to have an excess of capital and a comfortable enough life that they feel indebted to that community which fostered it. Feeling responsibility is when one's own heart is touched by the needs of others and those funds are voluntarily given and utilized in accordance with the giver's wishes. What is responsibility when one bureaucrat's heart bleeds so he steals the capital of others to put toward that cause and then takes personal fulfillment and accepts the pravda for doing so. He has sacrificed nothing, he has not toiled and given of his labor. He is only a modern day Robin Hood who violates the rights of one group to provide for another and keeps the fame (and a portion of the stolen goods) for himself.
"Ron Paul likes to propose radical changes, but they are untested and unmeasured." regarding prostitution and legalization of drugs.
This another false statement. It has been tested and measured. It's called the 18th and 21st amendment. Alcohol, a drug (the most widely used and problematic one in our society, even today), was prohibited. This gave rise to an immense black market which gave birth to large illegal trafficking syndicates (sound familiar?). Corruption and illegal activity became so rampant that it was repealed and thus "legalized", now Alcohol is widely available and is a big business with quality standards and open competition. There are still problems with alcohol abuse, but there are voluntary, free organizations all over the nation to help people with the disease. Prostitution, where legal and out in the open, is where the prostitutes are screened for diseases weekly and there are institutions with rules to defend their prostitutes' rights etc. Prostitution is everywhere and will be everywhere no matter how hard you try. Most prostitution rings in most cities are run by tyrannical pimps who are the scum of the earth. Modern day brothels, where they are legal, have much better conditions for the prostitutes and customers. I'm not saying I'll ever go to one or condone its use but your arguments that they are untested and unmeasurable are ABSOLUTELY FALSE!
Furthermore: This argument which has been placed in your mind by FOX news is a psychological ploy to make liberty seem like some evil thing. Ron Paul's philosophy extends to the entire economy, no bureaucrats picking winners and loser. That, in turn, means that prostitution and drug must be de-prohibited, but that is only a totally fringe issue used to debase his philosophy by playing on people's emotions. When you heard a pundit say that about Ron Paul's position did you react emotionally to it? Probably, because that is was the media does. In never appeals to your higher reasoning only your emotional hot buttons. The fact is that large companies actively seek regulation on their respective industries. The large companies depend on their government regulators to restrict entry into a market and stifle, through expense of compliance, competition. Do you really think that with the million and billions these companies spend in congress that these regulations could not be in their favor? This is why Ron Paul wants to legalize the free market. From oil to prostitution. Equality under the law is supposed to be a calling card of our republic. But then why are these large companies so favorably treated, even bailed out with tax payer funds. Why is one man's specialty outlawed while another's is subsidized? Legalizing equality under the law is not radical! Promoting inequality under the law is radical and I'd venture to say against the very fabric of this Republic. The inequality is so interwoven to the cloth of the law now though that it may seem radical to rip it out. But it is no more radical than pulling the weeds from a choked flower bed thus allowing the flowers to flourish.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
My Predictions About The Death Of Bin Laden
When I first heard the news the first thing I thought was "Why Today?" As I watch the president's address he mentioned that he'd/they'd been following the lead since August and basically known for sure since last week where he [Bin Laden] was. I think that many readers here might agree that this day has not been a matter of if but when since maybe as far back as 2001... who knows? So I'm just going to go out on a limb as I have some predictions about this whole thing and the timing of it. It seems as the foreign markets open today that some of the predictions are beginning to take shape already but only time will tell. I think that the timing of the killing of Bin Laden will have many implications beyond the scope of any person or persons to see. That being said here are the first 4 that come to my mind: 1) the first of the Republican debates this week, 2) the silver short story, 3) the debt ceiling and 4) the end of QE2... well 5 things, my wedding on this coming Saturday :).
1) The dollar index was tanking last week and silver was like the engine that could trying to break away from $50 an ounce mark. Most reading this have probably read about the massive short positions out there and the length which the big boys are going to reestablish their shorts and crash silver. In case you have not, here's a short video which describes it pretty well and simply Click here for short video. The Asian markets have only been open for.... well about as long as rumors of the president’s announcement hit the airwaves this evening. In that time the dollar index has rallied and silver has crashed $5 an ounce. Today also happens to be the end of the 1st quarter (the 1st Monday after April 30th) which is traditionally the day which short positions and deliveries of precious metal come due. I predict a further pullback in silver on the heels of all of this. This is all music to my ears really. Everyone should raid their saving and stock up during this pull back IMHO. I don't know how much they'll get out of the pullback or how long it will last. It is clear though that in the end, silver will be unstoppable. They can only catch Bin Laden once after all.
2) It should be clear to everyone that this is going to DEEPLY affect the republican field during this election. In what ways I do no know. The good news is that this bump will not last Obama through to the election and his ruinous economic policies (with his Republican friends) will never cease to haunt him in the coming years. Luckily for those interested in Ron Paul this, I believe, will only help his chances. He never sought to claim the head of Bin Laden as many, now failed, Republicans have. Furthermore, the Ron Paul sites are already alive with comments about leaving the Middle East. We all know that that is not the agenda of the administration though but we also know is that this can only strengthen Dr. Paul's arguments of abandoning frivolous wars in the Middle East. Catching Bin Laden was a major objective in 'the war on terror'. With an increasingly war-weary public the rational for our military presence in the Middle East is dwindling. Common sense people, I believe, may find themselves agreeing more and more with Ron Paul's philosophies on foreign policy. At least one would hope so. Once again, we will have to see.
3) The debt ceiling will get raised with little debate now that the public is giddy and distracted. You'll hear about it, but it will be back page news. Either that or they'll say: "If we don't raise the debt ceiling Bin Laden will re-animate and lead the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse on an unstoppable jihad on the most free Americans." Or some variation of that, it will probably sound more like: "With the leaps we've made in the past weeks in securing America we cannot afford to lose that ground by de-funding our efforts to halt global terrorism at this critical moment in history. We are on the brink of victory in a war where it is impossible to declare victory.” (I ask General Petraeus about perpetual war in the Middle East in this video). Ok so they might leave out that last part.
4) Even if the debt ceiling is raised there may be no one who wants to buy our treasuries with The Fed's QE2 ending in June. S&P just lowered the credit rating of the USA so the USD and USA in general needs a boost to keep this bond bubble from popping. With QE1 & QE2 The Fed bought something like 800 billion in treasuries. Almost a Trillion more dollars printed into existence! I don't know what M3 is these days... I don't even thing they're publishing it anymore but basically that's a whole crap load of money which will, once it trickles down to the masses, dilute all dollar savings around world. The unsustainable fiscal policies of Quantitative Easing executed by The Fed and Treasury, explained well in this short video QE Explained in less than 7 mins, will require more actual money be invested in treasuries at some point. In order to do this they must ‘rally’ the USA and attract foreign investment. The signs we’re seeing now in the wee hours of early foreign markets show that this announcement may already be paying off in this respect.
5) Lastly, as if this past weekend's Royal wedding, which people have been looking forward to all year, didn't overshadow my wedding this coming weekend enough!... Now a decade of American longing has been fulfilled only 6 days prior to what is supposed to be my 'big day'. I'm sure given this that the media blackout of my wedding will only continue and deepen!
These are just a few predictions for this historic day in our country. Maybe I'll be right and can take credit or maybe I'll be wrong and learn my lesson about predictions. Either way it was fun to think about.
Sincerely,
Rich Clarke
1) The dollar index was tanking last week and silver was like the engine that could trying to break away from $50 an ounce mark. Most reading this have probably read about the massive short positions out there and the length which the big boys are going to reestablish their shorts and crash silver. In case you have not, here's a short video which describes it pretty well and simply Click here for short video. The Asian markets have only been open for.... well about as long as rumors of the president’s announcement hit the airwaves this evening. In that time the dollar index has rallied and silver has crashed $5 an ounce. Today also happens to be the end of the 1st quarter (the 1st Monday after April 30th) which is traditionally the day which short positions and deliveries of precious metal come due. I predict a further pullback in silver on the heels of all of this. This is all music to my ears really. Everyone should raid their saving and stock up during this pull back IMHO. I don't know how much they'll get out of the pullback or how long it will last. It is clear though that in the end, silver will be unstoppable. They can only catch Bin Laden once after all.
2) It should be clear to everyone that this is going to DEEPLY affect the republican field during this election. In what ways I do no know. The good news is that this bump will not last Obama through to the election and his ruinous economic policies (with his Republican friends) will never cease to haunt him in the coming years. Luckily for those interested in Ron Paul this, I believe, will only help his chances. He never sought to claim the head of Bin Laden as many, now failed, Republicans have. Furthermore, the Ron Paul sites are already alive with comments about leaving the Middle East. We all know that that is not the agenda of the administration though but we also know is that this can only strengthen Dr. Paul's arguments of abandoning frivolous wars in the Middle East. Catching Bin Laden was a major objective in 'the war on terror'. With an increasingly war-weary public the rational for our military presence in the Middle East is dwindling. Common sense people, I believe, may find themselves agreeing more and more with Ron Paul's philosophies on foreign policy. At least one would hope so. Once again, we will have to see.
3) The debt ceiling will get raised with little debate now that the public is giddy and distracted. You'll hear about it, but it will be back page news. Either that or they'll say: "If we don't raise the debt ceiling Bin Laden will re-animate and lead the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse on an unstoppable jihad on the most free Americans." Or some variation of that, it will probably sound more like: "With the leaps we've made in the past weeks in securing America we cannot afford to lose that ground by de-funding our efforts to halt global terrorism at this critical moment in history. We are on the brink of victory in a war where it is impossible to declare victory.” (I ask General Petraeus about perpetual war in the Middle East in this video). Ok so they might leave out that last part.
4) Even if the debt ceiling is raised there may be no one who wants to buy our treasuries with The Fed's QE2 ending in June. S&P just lowered the credit rating of the USA so the USD and USA in general needs a boost to keep this bond bubble from popping. With QE1 & QE2 The Fed bought something like 800 billion in treasuries. Almost a Trillion more dollars printed into existence! I don't know what M3 is these days... I don't even thing they're publishing it anymore but basically that's a whole crap load of money which will, once it trickles down to the masses, dilute all dollar savings around world. The unsustainable fiscal policies of Quantitative Easing executed by The Fed and Treasury, explained well in this short video QE Explained in less than 7 mins, will require more actual money be invested in treasuries at some point. In order to do this they must ‘rally’ the USA and attract foreign investment. The signs we’re seeing now in the wee hours of early foreign markets show that this announcement may already be paying off in this respect.
5) Lastly, as if this past weekend's Royal wedding, which people have been looking forward to all year, didn't overshadow my wedding this coming weekend enough!... Now a decade of American longing has been fulfilled only 6 days prior to what is supposed to be my 'big day'. I'm sure given this that the media blackout of my wedding will only continue and deepen!
These are just a few predictions for this historic day in our country. Maybe I'll be right and can take credit or maybe I'll be wrong and learn my lesson about predictions. Either way it was fun to think about.
Sincerely,
Rich Clarke
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)