2012 May 21 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2008/09/10/us-rep-comes-up-with-plan-to-counter-devaluation-dollar/
0
0
  |   47 comments

Republican Representative Ted Poe introduced a bill on July 31 of this year that would, he hoped, stop the devaluation of the USD.

On Wednesday he described it for a bigger public.

‘The U.S. dollar affects every American citizen and every American business. Our economy is totally dependent upon the dollar. To have a stable economy, we must have a stable dollar,’ he wrote.

But how to stabilize the dollar? Much has been tried in history, not always to the benefit of the American people.

The current Congress seems unwilling to do anything lasting about the problem of the devaluation of the American valuta. Other congresses preceeding it in recent years were not very active on this front either; the USD has not been stable for quite some time, Poe recalled.

Additionally, simplistic, half-hearted solutions will not work. No, America needs to do something radical. Poe’s solution: do not let the amount of money in the economy ‘be limited by anything physical. It should be determined by the demand for money, which depends upon the transactions people want to do and how much money they want to hold.’

After all, Poe argued, ‘[w]hat matters about money is not its quantity but its value. In this, dollars are no different than foot rulers. No one cares how many foot rulers there are in the world. What matters is that each one is the length prescribed by the U.S. Bureau of Standards.’

His bill ‘directs the Federal Reserve to bring the price of gold down to $500/oz and then to keep it there. The Fed would do this by announcing that its Open Market Desk was prepared to sell government bonds and contract the monetary base until the price of gold falls to $500/oz.’

Coupling the dollar on gold would, Poe argued, cause the monetary base to ‘expand and contract automatically in response to market demand…’ As long as the Fed is willing to ‘sell as much as $45 billion worth of bonds to implement the new policy.’

As to the question ‘why gold,’ Poe answered that ‘the financial markets want, and the American people deserve, a dollar that is “as good as gold”.’ As for the $500/oz. number the Congressman explains: ‘the current market price of gold reflects the expectation (and fear) of future inflation. I believe that fixing the value of the dollar now in terms of gold at $500/oz will stop the current inflation without causing deflation. However, my bill also provides a powerful supply-side stimulus, in the form of first-year expensing of all capital investment, to ensure that economic growth accelerates at the same time that inflation is being stopped.’

The results will be felt by all Americans: the price of one gallon gasoline will fall from $3,50 to $2,50 instantly. ‘It will strengthen the dollar against foreign currencies. Most important, it will prevent Americans’ incomes and savings from being stolen by inflation,’ he explained.

His bill will ‘not put America on the gold standard,’ he wrote, but simply ‘always be worth the same as one five-hundredth of an ounce of gold.’ It would ‘be the same “legal tender” currency that we have now,’ Poe claimed, but then more stable.

Representative Poe, a former judge, is a member of Congress serving the 2nd district of Texas.

  1. Posted by Kevin H
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67391
    Kevin H hmm, interesting, basically he is just proposing that we impose a version of inflation targeting, and target 0%. It seems as if it works well for other countries, but I'm not sure using gold is really the best idea. Lets say there's an economic crisis in the US, and that leads to gold speculation. Once the price of gold rises, the fed would be required to raise interest rates to bring down the money supply to reduce the price of gold in USD. Raising interest rates is exactly what NOT to do in a weak economy. I guess Poe's argument would be that this policy would reduce the chance of gold speculation due to a weakening US economy. But if gold were to go up for some other reason, we would still have to respond by slowing our own economy down. So, interesting enough that I'd hear out the other side, but I think a looser fiscally.
  2. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67394
    Jason, Managing Editor
    His bill ‘directs the Federal Reserve to bring the price of gold down to $500/oz and then to keep it there. The Fed would do this by announcing that its Open Market Desk was prepared to sell government bonds and contract the monetary base until the price of gold falls to $500/oz.’
    What is it about Texas that causes bizarro world economic theories among their Congressional representatives? "Contract the monetary base" is code for a massive imposed DEFLATION.  And deflation is the way to nuke your economy as rapidly as possible.  Think of what happens when producers can receive less for their products than it cost them to manufacture them (because the money supply contracted in the meantime). They stop producing and disappear fast and quiet. Recession?  No.  Try, the biggest Depression ever conceived of even in the minds of apocalyptic science fiction writers.  This "idea" would make the Great Depression look like the 2001 mini-recession. A relatively mild deflationary cycle crippled the Japanese economy for much of the 1990s. This would be more severe by several orders of magnitude. A judge and an obstetrician claiming to tell us how to run our economy better than, you know, economists. Bizzaro world. P.S. Who in their right minds would ever buy the trillions in new government bonds he would direct the government to sell? And how would that not have a massively inflationary effect that would more than counteract any "contracting the monetary base"? Does he even know what a government bond is? In addition to being a really stupid idea, this proposal is just incoherent.
  3. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67497
    Jay_C I know nothing about if this would work or not (none of us here as far as I know have PHD's in Economics as far as I know).  However,  it doesn't take a PHD in economics to agree with his comment here..  "So, what has Congress been doing about the dollar? Nothing. Since 2001, Congress has stood idly by while the dollar has lost almost 70% of its value, whether measured against gold or retail gasoline. When a currency begins to lose value, the effects show up first in the price of gold, followed quickly by other commodities, such as oil. However, eventually the inflation works its way through the entire economy, raising prices across the board. In the process, the hard-earned savings of Americans are devalued—or, the way I look at it, stolen." This to me is the key....Congress has done nothing.  This guy (like Paul) is at least suggesting something.  To criticise him and Paul for that is like telling  a new person at work to not suggest ideas for the simple fact that they are new.  Some "ousiders" ideas work, some don't but do not criticise their attempts at fing something that is clearly broken. The knee jerk criticism of anything new without fully exploring it drives me nuts.  However, I understand...our comfort zones instinctively dislike change (because change is the opposite of comfort) so in knee-jerk style, it’s not unusual for us to reject new ideas within 3 seconds of hearing them (10 seconds if we’re polite). We say things — and hear them –all the time. Here’s a list of 12 “Idea Killers” that you want to try to stifle, at least initially, so that people open up to you. 1. We did that already. 2. It costs too much. 3. We don’t have the resources. 4. You’ll never get approval. 5. It’s not in the budget. 6. Boss will never go for it. 7. That’s not the way things are done around here. 8. Put it in writing. 9. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. 10. You can’t fight city hall. 11. I don’t think anybody here knows how to do that. 12. We don’t have the time.When someone else says one of these expressions,  I recognize it as a "comfort zone violation" and either ignore it or pause, ask them a question that’ll park their objection, and continue. To me, it’s smart not to stifle other people’s ideas — or let them dump ice water on yours.
  4. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67499
    Jason, Managing Editor I believe it is even more foolish to automatically praise and embrace a new idea just because it is new. Anyway, I didn't dismiss the idea because it was new. I dismissed it because history shows that deflation is an economic nuclear bomb. As seems to be the case whenever Paulist ideas get criticized, you seem incapable of seeing that there are often REASONS that people disagree with Paulist ideas and that it is not just a "knee-jerk" rejection. Indeed, that failure and the underlying arrogant assumption that no one could possibly disagree reasonably is what makes Paulistas so damn annoying. Criticizing a dumb idea should not be interpreted as suppressing all new ideas either.  What, do you think that we should give the good Congressman a gold star for effort and a cookie?  He's an adult who is proclaiming himself an expert on a policy area that he clearly knows nothing about.  He should be capable of dealing without curling into a ball and crying, no?  Well, then, let's dispense with all the whining about "stifling" anyone.
  5. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67500
    Jay_C I have a question for those that say "everything is fine with the way things are.  Exhibit A) What about spread between T-Bills and Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac? Both of these companies got the benefits of the increased rates.... with the guarantee of payment? It seems like Fannie and Freddy weren't too big to fail, as much as the creditors that were all too eager to help inflate our dollar were too big not to pay. To me that is a major problem and foretells the end of America as we know it unless we change something. China now controls enough of our debt and the value of our currency that we must do their bidding. If we stay on this track, game over folks.
  6. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67502
    Jason, Managing Editor
    I have a question for those that say "everything is fine with the way things are
    I will answer your question after you show me where I or anyone here actually said that.  Until you can show that, you are just punching a straw man. I concede that we face very serious problems in fiscal and monetary policy. My argument is not "do nothing". My argument is that the Paulist approaches do far more damage than they provide benefits. My additional observation is that Paulist supporters routinely do what you are attempting here -- try to avoid engaging with substantive criticisms of their hero's positions by claiming that doing anything at all is better than doing nothing. I would encourage you and Ron Paul to return to his ACTUAL area of expertise -- medicine -- for inspiration in how to be more responsible in your methods of debate and discussion of these very serious and complex issues. The Hippocratic Oath says, "First, do no harm." Paulist proposals would do massive harm for purely speculative benefit. Dumb moves.
  7. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67503
    Jay_C Jason, Who's praising anything?  I just want to hear anyone out with ideas.  Your choices aren't praise or deride.  There is a lot of wiggle room in between for civil discourse.  Sorry (in regards to my last post, the spread...the spread was based on risk, as with bonds and other liquid assets)
  8. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67506
    Jason, Managing Editor When policy proposals are offered, the only serious responses ARE support or rejection.  Just clapping for the performance of presenting new ideas seems very unserious to me, more appropriate to an elementary school play than a policy debate among adults. If there is a grease fire burning and someone is pouring water on it that is failing to put it out and someone else suggests pouring gasoline on it instead, I don't applaud their presentation of "new ideas" as if that in and of itself were a valuable contribution in some way. I condemn the stupidity of their proposal and reject it as more harmful than good. My response to Paulist "new ideas" about massive imposed deflation is exactly the same.
  9. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67507
    Jay_C Ok, but you are misinterpreting my statement (or I wasn't clear) ..More rhetorical really..wasn't pointing at anyone here. 
  10. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67509
    Jason, Managing Editor
    wasn’t pointing at anyone here.
    Then why post it here?  Just to change the subject?
  11. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67510
    Jay_C In the business world, analysis of ideas (weather they are self supporting or not quite self suporting), and through colaborative brainstorming spin off other options that we may have not considered. I think we need more of this mindset in government, and especially when it comes to important issues like this.  
  12. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67512
    Jason, Managing Editor That's funny, I though this was a story about a Congressman presenting a specific policy proposal for a vote in the Congress, not an academic spitballing ideas informally in a forum dedicated to fostering creative alternatives. If the purpose was to create a discussion, then they Congressman choice the wrong forum to attempt it in. Bills in Congress are policy proposals intended to become mandates, not discussion-starters intended to produce other ideas. And frankly, I have not encountered any Paulistas who are willing to engage with substantive criticisms of their views on monetary policy. Instead, like you, they instantly and automatically interpret ANY disagreement as unacceptable and intolerable. This tendency (consistent across hundreds of observations now) is why I perceive the Paulist movement as fundamentally authoritarian at its core -- they simply have no tolerance for dissent.
  13. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67514
    Jay_C I apologized, apologizing again.  Sorry, I made a mistake.  I'm not arguing that with you.   I misspoke.  However, I'm talking about supporting the process of creating better ideas (not just rejecting or supporting) get involved in the process.  It is lazy in my opinion to do otherwise.  I was also pointing out the fact that the status quo has done nothing since 2001.  Do you agree?
  14. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67515
    Jason, Managing Editor
    I was also pointing out the fact that the status quo has done nothing since 2001.  Do you agree?
    Irrelevant.  The fact that the status quo has done nothing does not make Paulist ideas good.  First, do no harm. Paulist proposals are not "better ideas" at all, they are WORSE even than the status quo, for reasons I have already explained regarding the effects of deflation on economies throughout history. Calling those who reject ideas FOR A REASON "lazy" seems to just be another way to avoid having to answer any criticisms no matter what.
  15. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67516
    Jay_C I instantly and automatically interpret ANY disagreement as unacceptable and intolerable? When did I do that?  I said: I know nothing about if this would work or not (none of us here as far as I know have PHD’s in Economics as far as I know).  However,  it doesn’t take a PHD in economics to agree with his comment here..  "So, what has Congress been doing about the dollar? Nothing. Since 2001, Congress has stood idly by while the dollar has lost almost 70% of its value, whether measured against gold or retail gasoline. When a currency begins to lose value, the effects show up first in the price of gold, followed quickly by other commodities, such as oil. However, eventually the inflation works its way through the entire economy, raising prices across the board. In the process, the hard-earned savings of Americans are devalued—or, the way I look at it, stolen."
  16. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67517
    Jason, Managing Editor
    I instantly and automatically interpret ANY disagreement as unacceptable and intolerable? When did I do that?
    When you equated my rejection of deflationary proposals with a rejection of all new ideas. And when you assumed that anyone who disagrees with Paulistas is "lazy". And when you assumed that anyone who disagrees with Paulistas must support the status quo.
  17. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67519
    Jay_C Never said  Paulist ideas were good
  18. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67521
    Jay_C No, your knee jerk rejection is my beef, you may be right, but convince me...How is collaboration worse that rejection?
  19. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67522
    Jason, Managing Editor Nope. You only say that anyone who actually criticizes them substantively is "stifling" or "lazy" or otherwise unacceptable. It is true that you never actually defend Paul's positions.  You stick to the much easier job of criticizing anyone who disagrees with Paul's positions for any reason.
  20. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67524
    Jason, Managing Editor
    your knee jerk rejection
    Since I gave specific reasons why deflationary proposals are bad, it is not a "knee-jerk reaction".  It is analysis.  Perhaps you could benefit from learning the difference rather than assuming that every act of disagreement is "knee-jerk". Then again, if your real purpose is just to throw dust in the air as a way of simultaneously avoiding and discrediting every act of disagreement with Paulistas, then you would not benefit in acknowledging that difference and you would probably be best off keeping on doing exactly what you have been doing. Collaboration is good in policy development, but a bill in congress is not a policy development tool, it is a policy MANDATING tool. Also, collaboration is not possible when all criticism is perceived as offensive. That is the fundamental problem of attempting any discussion with Paulistas. They don't collaborate. They demand. They bulldoze. They name-call. They spam. But discussion on SUBSTANCE is nearly impossible, as they almost always do exactly what you have been doing on this thread to avoid engaging the substance of dissent. Perhaps you could start on a better path by explaining why deflation is a good enough idea to serve as the basis for additional discussion in spite of the fact that it has been enormously destructive every time it has occurred in the past. Or is your advocacy limited to the claim that we should applaud the performance of "new ideas" regardless of their substantive content?
  21. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67531
    Jay_C Your taking this off topic and talking about paulistas, not me.  I'm talking about the subject at hand.  Also, you have "analyzed" this guys proposal for less than a day and you have already determined it is bad)  sorry, but to me that is knee jerk.  again, it very well may be a bad idea, worst on the planet. (read as I am not subscribing to Paul's ideas or anyone elses) Alsom we are not congress, this  are a place to  (I thought) was to share ideas.  So why can't we talk about other proposals, rather than deriding the one that was suggested?
  22. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67533
    Jay_C Actually, as I look at it, I guess what is bothering me so much all is the lack of civility, in my opinion when disagreeing someone else’s ideas about, in this case, the realm of monetary policy.  Especially when the people with the ideas are not here to defend themselves.  I'm not sure if the tone is just to get peoples dander up / to get more readership, or if you feel so strongly about another idea that is better?
  23. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67538
    Jay_C When you equated my rejection of deflationary proposals with a rejection of all new ideas. Ok, what new Ideas do you support? And when you assumed that anyone who disagrees with Paulistas is “lazy”. Again, not saying you can't disagree, after I read enough into this idea and this supporting rationale, I may as well.  I just dislike cut and dry case closed methods of disagreeing in this instance.  It limits discourse.  If you read what I said carefully, what is lazy is not supporting the process of discussing better ideas.  Where was Paul in what I said again?And when you assumed that anyone who disagrees with Paulistas must support the status quo. Please on't put words in my mouth.  Why do you get to read between the lines, but I can't?  You are assuming my intent. If anything I have said the complete opposite I have said repeatedly that I do not know enough to support any of these ideas.  However, I and everyone else here would probably like to talk about other ideas to re-energize the value of the dollar. 
  24. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67541
    Jay_C If there is a grease fire burning and someone is pouring water on it that is failing to put it out and someone else suggests pouring gasoline on it instead, I don’t applaud their presentation of “new ideas” as if that in and of itself were a valuable contribution in some way. Well in this case we know through experience that the idea of puting gas on a fire to put it out wouldn't work.    Monetary policy is not as simple as that (obviously, if the value of the dollar is what it is) The problem with your analogy is that we do not have enough info to make an informed decision and deriding it because of what is written in a 3rd party news article doesn't cut it to me.  I approach this with more questions rather than derirsion.  Have other economists or congressman  signed on to this suggestion?  What is the consensus of the House Financial Services Committe on this idea?  What  the short and long term ramifications?  etc, etc...
  25. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67546
    Jay_C Since you were linking what I wrote to some sort of Paul meme.  I went through the trouble (no trouble really, ust through a 2 minute search).  And was able to de-link Paul with this idea once and for all.  If I am such a Paulista, or if Paulistas are so hell bent on only hearing what they want to hear, and deriding all other ideas, would I possibly even consider an idea that is different that Paul's idea?  Again, I am not condoning either idea, just  looking for more info. http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/09/rep_ted_poe_is_right_about_the.html
  26. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67550
    Jason, Managing Editor We DO have enough information to know that deflation destroys economies by totally eliminating all incentives for continuing production, as I already explained (only to have you ignore it as you always ignore any substantial criticism in your rush to complain about how any critic is being too mean to the poor, marginalized, but morally pure Paulistas and/or their fellow travellers). The fact that you seem to find ALL criticism to be a "lack of civility" proves my point.  Criticism is PART OF discussion and if you are unwilling to tolerate it as PART OF the discussion, it is you rather than I who is trying to shut it down.  And going back over the pattern of interactions on any issue related to Ron Paul or others of similar views about monetary policy, I find that you ALWAYS object to ANY criticism, you NEVER engage the substance of the critic's argument, and that there ALWAYS seems to be some excuse for you to complain about their "method" of criticizing.  It's a game that you rig to preclude ALL criticism while pretending to leave open some undefined, abstract, purely hypothetical ground for it so that you can point fingers of blame for the resulting collapse in the debate. No sale.  Not any longer.  My argument has been made repeatedly:  Deflation destroys economies.  Therefore, deflationary proposals are NOT fruitful grounds either for policy enactment or even for discussing variations on those proposals.  Deal with that substance or drop it, but stop trying to shift the burden of rejoinder to the point that you never have to defend anything and the other guy always hast to answer to your rhetorical demands.
    Again, I am not condoning either idea, just looking for more info.
    Yeah, yeah, yeah. I get it alrady. You're not willing to defend anything, you just want to criticize anyone who does take a firm position that criticizes anything on the pro-deflation/gold standard side. It's a clear position on your part. Cowardly and hypocritical, but clear.
  27. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67554
    Jay_C I'll leave out the name calling..I didn't igore what you said.  You are correct that deflation destroys economies in your analysis through the lens of what the monetarpolicy is currently in place.  It goes without saying that he is suggesting an alternatve monetary policy. So you can't know the results.  Side note..If I called you a coward you would have kicked me off this site, right?  Should you apply the same standard to yourself? (personal attack?)  Think about it.
  28. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67557
    Jason, Managing Editor Criticism of behavior is not the same as name-calling. I did not call you a coward, I described your behavior (avoiding the substance of the discussion in order to complain about the fact that I dared to criticized deflation at all) as cowardly. So quit your whining.  You're not a victim here.  And FYI, the fastest way to get kicked is to try to debate the comments policy or play "gotcha" with it.  Keep it up and you'll find out quick. And the consequences of deflation are not variable according to the details of a national monetary policy.  ANY economy would collapse under deflationary pressures of the type proposed by return-to-the-gold-standard theorists.  The logic of supply and demand that lies at the core of the causal logic isn't something that can be changed by changing a monetary policy, especially one done in some vague way that you are unwilling or unable to specify. When you deflate the economy (especially to the massive degree proposed by Paul and other gold-standard theorists), you immediately impose a loss on ALL PRODUCERS in the ENTIRE ECONOMY. The new sale value of the products they produced using materials purchased under the old purchase value is lower than the cost of those purchases. Thus, the loss of value is both immediate and intrinsic -- there is no way to mitigate it even by waving a magical let's-pretend "new monetary policy" wand. The consequence is to collapse the economy as all economic exchange immediately SHUTS DOWN under a deflationary cycle. So unless you or other gold-standard advocates are prepared to completely repeal the most basic laws of economics, I will continue to hold that deflationary policies are immensely destructive. And merely hoping that "new ideas" will change that is nothing more than mysticism at best. It is not serious contribution to a discussion.
  29. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67567
    Jay_C You just don't get it.... I would be willing to listen and discuss the  "hyperinflationary idea X" method if some one could show me an idea that it would work for the long term, and generate a relatively stable dollar.  I wouldn't say "hogwash, inflationary tacktics will never work'  The problem is that I have not heard any other suggestions of this sort. At least these guys have suggegstions.
  30. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67568
    Jay_C And The label of the idea wouldnt matter, ( I just chose  "hyperinflationary idea X"   as a placeholder.  Just Idea x would suffice
  31. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67570
    Jason, Managing Editor You seem very wedded to this idea that somehow the offering of blatantly horrible ideas is a valuable contribution in and of itself.  To "have suggestions" is not always a good thing, at least not when the content of the suggestions shows a complete ignorance of the fundamental laws of how the real world operates.  If someone proposes that we solve global warming by gathering all the CO2 we can pack into big tanks and then shooting those on rockets into outer space, are we supposed to applaud that "at least they have suggestions" even though their suggestions would produce more atmospheric warming gasses than they would remove?  Of course not.  They would (and should) be dismisses as cranks who have no idea what they are talking about.  The same goes for anyone who suggests deflation as a cure for monetary instability. As for your attempt to pigeonhole all non-deflationary proposals into "hyperinflationary idea X", there seems no other way to read that but as fundamentally dishonest.  It is not, in fact, true to say that the only possible approaches are "deflation" and "hyperinflation".  There is, in fact, a vast range of ways to keep inflation very low (thus not "hyperinflationary") but to address the weakness of the dollar by getting our fiscal house in order (through entitlement reform).  This is, in fact, the mainstream criticism of the status that the Ron Paul types refuse to admit even exists in their zeal to try to force people into bizarre extreme options like returning to an 1890s version of the gold standard and various conspiratorial ramblings about the Federal Reserve, the Bilderbergs, and other "international monied interests". (Notably, Ron Paul himself is hypocritical regarding entitlement reform. He has chosen to remain loyal to a generational constituency that supports continued unsustainable transfer of wealth from young to old rather than to remain true to his supposed principle of fiscal parsimony. Indeed, this gross hypocrisy was a major part of what turned me hostile to Ron Paul in the first place -- he is, to be blunt, a liar at key points in his self-serving claims to be the only person willing to act seriously with regards to the looming fiscal crisis. But I guess spouting conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve is a much more serious approach than grappling with the very demonstrably real crisis in entitlement funding. In spite of their supposed omniscience and omnipresence, the Illuminati and Bilderbergs are no where near as dangerous to Ron Paul's political career as the AARP.) Bottom line:  Your claim that the only ones offering ideas are the extremists and cranks pushing the gold standard or the abolition of the Fed is flatly untrue.
  32. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67573
    Jay_C That’s funny, I though this was a story about a Congressman presenting a specific policy proposal for a vote in the Congress, not an academic spitballing ideas informally in a forum dedicated to fostering creative alternatives.  This bill was just introduced.  The next step is to have it "scheduled for debate".  To me that means congress decides, does the idea have legs or not.  And, perhaps other will suggest alternatives?  Hmm, sounds lie a place to possibly foster creative alternatives? Only after that is it voted on, If it makes it that far) then the senate votes, and if it made it any further then it goes to the presidents desk.
  33. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67575
    Jason, Managing Editor Are you really going to hide behind the process to claim that the Congressman wasn't really advocating the actual content of the bill and that he was only hoping to spark a debate among those who might actually know what they are talking about? LAME. And are you really going to hold that we should avoid criticizing the content of any bill until after committee markup, floor debate, and presidential signature or veto?
  34. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67576
    Jay_C Oh I agree, I wholeheartedly, getting our fiscal house in order (through entitlement reform).  Is a huge part of reigning in spending.  But this post was about monetary policy. Not fiscal responsibilty ideas.   And I'll say it again..the name of the idea doesn't matter  (you could call it chicken soup policy Z). 
  35. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67578
    Jay_C ...he was only hoping to spark a debate among those who might actually know what they are talking about? I think you are right, he thinks it is a good genuine idea.  (I don't know if I agree) But actually, What's wrong with a debate being sparked amongst those in the know?  At least he submitted a bill.  Ron Paul didn't even go that far with his gold standard idea as far as I know.
  36. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67579
    Jason, Managing Editor
    But this post was about monetary policy. Not fiscal responsibilty ideas.
    They are linked, no?  Doesn't the weakness of the dollar result in large part from the huge deficit, the huger debt, and the looming likelihood of meltdown deriving from out-of-control entitlement spending? Monetary weakness is caused by fiscal irresponsibility. Let's not obscure the real solution by imposing an artificial limit on the scope of the discussion. And the problem with sparking a debate that is premised on a stupid idea like pushing deflation is that such a debate has little likelihood of producing a sudden turn towards more practical ideas.  Instead, it has only the likelihood of producing more conspiratorial ramblings about "international bankers" and "monied interests" (actual Ron Paul quotes). I don't think encouraging cranks and morons to hold court on bizarre ideas is a method likely to produce much in the way of genuinely useful ideas. To my mind, the mere fact that this idiot causes people like you to withhold judgment and hold on to even the possibility that he is correct is proof positive that the net effect of cranks like this congressman is to increase overall confusion and ignorance and decrease the propensity towards a serious debate on the issue. There is limited space in the public's "attention space", especially for arcane topics like fiscal and monetary policy. And to whatever extent that that space is occupied by antediluvian know-nothings like Ron Paul and this other Congressman, the net result is to crowd out opportunities for people who actually know what they are talking about. My primary enemies are ignorance and confusion. And Ron Paul and his fellow travellers are some of the most prolific sources of both. I will continue to say so, regardless of whether their deluded fans like it or not.
  37. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67580
    Jay_C You are right, they are linked. But what of the government bailouts of non-givernmental companies? (Bear Stearns, fannie and freddie, and possibly Lehman bros.).  The govt. got involved, yes. But we as a country can't have it both ways and say we need to cut deficit spending (which we are right to say, we do need to do this..but at the same time sit idly by while the government  props up these private companies that are adding to the deficit spending.  (It is like a catch-22) .  When this is happening, Something appears to be wrong with the system. sparking a debate that is premised on a stupid idea like pushing deflation is that such a debate has little likelihood of producing a sudden turn towards more practical ideas. But aren't we all OK with the process in place to determine if a debate is sparked or not?  It is not up to you or me to determine that. He is just be playing by the rules of Congress. Let Congress shoot it down, and that will be that.  At least he did something about an issue he cares about (right or wrong).
  38. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67583
    Jay_C ...proof positive that the net effect of cranks like this congressman is to increase overall confusion and ignorance and decrease the propensity towards a serious debate on the issue. Who else is seriously debating these issues besides these 2?  That is my other struggling point. I want to hear ideas, please, point me there! (I guess if this makes it through to a congressional debate, at least a few more  people will be talking about the issue)
  39. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67603
    Jason, Managing Editor I do not think that the presentation of demonstrably idiotic proposals constitutes "seriously debating" anything.  Even in the highly unlikely event that such stupidity made its way to a congressional debate, those involved would only be debating idiotic fantasies, not seriously debating the issue. Inviting idiotic fantasies into the discussion only drives away serious people, it does not encourage let alone cause their participation.
  40. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67622
    Jay_C In the event something can be agreed upon it is "idiotic", you would be correct.  I can't stand with or against you on that.  I just know that is how the system works, and agin, he is at least putting an idea on the table and trying someting.  Furthermore, where are these other folks that are being "crowded out of opportunities to speak who actually know what they are talking about"?  Who else is seriously debating these issues besides these 2? And as for the subject we agree opon...the weakness of the dollar does result in large part from the huge deficit, the huger debt, and the looming likelihood of meltdown deriving from out-of-control entitlement spending.  I would think given this agreement that as a country we can’t have it both ways and say we need to cut deficit spending (which we are right to say) and at the same time sit by while the government  props up these private companies that are adding to the deficit spending.  It is a catch 22 is it not?
  41. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67705
    Jay_C Inviting idiotic fantasies into the discussion only drives away serious people, it does not encourage let alone cause their participation. Ideas or issues are not "invited" as discussions in Congress.. They prestented.  After debate(if they make it that far), they are voted on.  However, I will agree that some ideas are a waste of time.  For instance, when Congress decided to discuss Major League Baseball issues earlier this year.  That was a waste of taxpayers money and congresses time.  I would rather they talk about this guys idea than weather MLB players are using performance enhancing drugs or not.
  42. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67753
    Jay_C
    Olive branch time...Since we seem to get in heated discussions about certain subjects.  Rather than the tack we have been taking, why don’t we stick to intellectually honest methods?  I believe there are 2.  The first being that we should only be revealing errors or omissions in each others facts, and second, we should be revealing errors or omissions in your each others logic.  In my opinion. intellectually-dishonest methods such as: Unqualified “expert opinion”, name calling (of anyone the subject or the presenter of the info), Rejecting facts or logic as opinion, Changing the subject, Questioning the motives of others, Citing irrelevant facts or logic, False premise, Hearsay, Sloganeering, Motivation end justifies dishonest means, Cult of personality, Vagueness, Playing on widely held fantasies of the audience, Claiming privacy with regard to claims about self,  Stereotyping, Scapegoating, Arousing envy, and Redefining words tend to be employed by those that are being dishonest.
  43. Posted by Jason, Managing Editor
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67776
    Jason, Managing Editor Calling people dishonest and rejecting on face the relevance of expertise does NOT strike me as an "olive branch" at all.
  44. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67947
    Jay_C Sorry, but I said why don't "WE" stick to intellectually honest methods.... plural, more that just you, including me.. If one feels that they may have done something intellectually dishonest on the list of things that in my opinion are intellectually dishonest (myself included) , only that person can do anything about it.  I've probably been guilty of one or 2 of these at some point at this site myself.  You may not agree, but I have found this list to be a good guide (for me anyway) to have a real discussion, rather than a yell fest, that gets nowhere fast. If you wouldn't mind taking the time to respond to 40, and 41 I would like to hear your thoughts on these. Thanks!  
  45. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #67952
    Jay_C As far as the "unqualified expert opinion" item, if one gives or cites an apparently expert opinion which is not from a qualified expert; I think it just makes sense that an expert must prove his qualifications before he can give an opinion, that's all.  I may be wrongI don't think that is so drastic or uncalled for. 
  46. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #68016
    Jay_C Maybe I'm not understanding, but what do you mean by  "rejecting on face the relevance of expertise"? Are you saying I am rejecting the relevance of expertise?  Or that expertise on face is never relevant.  Just to clear up my stance on this. I reject unqualified ?expert opinion? 
  47. Posted by Charleston Voice
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #68354
    Charleston Voice Rep. Poe should get a physical inventory audit of any Treasury gold before he swaps away what's left for paper - - if any!