[mwalimu02]

blackshoe, on 2011-August-18, 10:32, said:

Found this video amusing. And here's an article on the same topic. While I agree that Paul is unlikely to win the GOP nomination, why do the media think they have the right to decide for whom we should vote? The media's job is to report what's going on, not to selectively edit reality to fit their own agenda.

I totally agree, funny video BTW!

[mike777]

1) Of course the media has the right to decide who we should vote for. Just like we all do.

2) Of course the media has the right to selectively edit reality to fit their own agenda. Just like we all do.

Just because you are media does not mean you dont have rights or you lose rights.

I totally disagree with you guys about rights.

[Winstonm]

I once saw David Copperfield make an entire 747 disappear on t.v. and was impressed, but this is a jaw-dropper!

Gingrich Makes Entire Nation Disappear!

Quote

In an interview released today by The Jewish Channel (TJC), Republican Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich sought to court the pro-Israel vote by claiming that not only do the Palestinians not deserve a state, but that they are an “invented people” made up simply to make things tough on Israel

I wonder if he has an "N" scar on his forehead?

[luke warm]

do you have a link for that quote? that's not exactly what he said

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2011-December-13, 04:49, said:

do you have a link for that quote? that's not exactly what he said

Quote

"Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we've have invented the Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and are historically part of the Arab community, and they had the chance to go many places. These people are terrorists. They teach terrorism in their schools. They have textbooks that say, if there are 13 Jews and nine Jews are killed, how many Jews are left? We pay for those textbooks through our aid money. It's fundamentally time for somebody to have the guts to stand up and say, enough lying about the Middle East."

[Winstonm]

GOP Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is proposing a massive tax cut aimed at the highest earning American households. Gingrich’s plan would add about $1 trillion to the federal deficit in a single year.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on 2011-December-13, 20:30, said:

GOP Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is proposing a massive tax cut aimed at the highest earning American households. Gingrich’s plan would add about $1 trillion to the federal deficit in a single year.

Even worse than the Paul Ryan Free Lunch Plan.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on 2011-December-13, 20:30, said:

GOP Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is proposing a massive tax cut aimed at the highest earning American households. Gingrich’s plan would add about $1 trillion to the federal deficit in a single year.

hmmm, not bad... that's less than the approx 3 year, $4T increase under obama, eh? of course, it goes without saying that bush/cheney (under whose watch the deficit rose $4.9T in EIGHT years) was the reason

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2011-December-14, 07:26, said:

hmmm, not bad... that's less than the approx $4T under obama, eh? of course, it goes without saying that bush/cheney was the reason

Who said you can't teach an idiot new tricks?
Jimmy may have actually learned something...
Be still my beating heart.

[JLOGIC]

ONE TIME RON PAUL! I will even register to vote if that is a possibility.

[cherdano]

JLOGIC, on 2011-December-14, 13:28, said:

ONE TIME RON PAUL! I will even register to vote if that is a possibility.

Hmph. While in some ways Ron Paul is the only sane candidate, his insanities are just too mind-boggling. I mean, a president's power is limited and he can't prevent a recession. Implementing Ron Paul's ideas would certainly cause one, however.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2011-December-14, 07:28, said:

Who said you can't teach an idiot new tricks?

not me... i've seen you learn lots of new tricks

[blackshoe]

cherdano, on 2011-December-14, 14:42, said:

Hmph. While in some ways Ron Paul is the only sane candidate, his insanities are just too mind-boggling. I mean, a president's power is limited and he can't prevent a recession. Implementing Ron Paul's ideas would certainly cause one, however.

Are you 100% certain of that? Why?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2011-December-14, 16:25, said:

not me... i've seen you learn lots of new tricks

Jimmy, jimmy, jimmy

When someone insinuates that you are an idiot "no you are" isn't a particularly effective response.
Nor is a posting history which is (essentially) restricted to one line posts using one or two syllable words.

In all seriousness, when was the last time that you even tried to make a positive contribution to a thread?
Why do you bother to visit a stick around on a site where you do nothing but post pissy little comments?

Is your life really so empty that this passed for entertainment or masquerades as a social life?

[kenberg]

Not exactly on the presidential race but I am stewing about the probable non-event of the government shutdown on Friday.
My view:
Not only is the government not to be shut down on Friday but we are never again to reach a Wednesday where it is unclear whether the government might be shut down on Friday. Every member of the House and the Senate should make a short speech apologizing to the nation, acknowledge that they are clearly not up to the demands of their job, and announce that they will not be running for re-election. All this macho let's see who blinks first stuff is getting really old.

[Cthulhu D]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-14, 16:36, said:

Are you 100% certain of that? Why?

Unless you buy into the Austrian school of economics, which most analysis does not, his proposal to ban fractional reserve banking is either unworkable or insane. For example - he's proposing the government would ban you from borrowing $10 from one friend, then lending $10 to another - which is not workable and certainly in conflict with the rest of his stated ideals. However, if he did implement this, the resultant credit crunch would be of unimaginable proportions. It's almost impossible to ascertain what the impact of this would be, but it would likely require withdrawing in excess of $1 trillion from the economy, and likely much more than that (up to $6 trillion). The deflationary impact and credit crunch would be vast. It would almost certainly cause a recession, but it's hard to say for certain because no-one has considered doing anything this big ever.

However, the funniest part of his record is that he published a news letter entitled "Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" which shows a considered lack of judgement at best. Also publishing something under your name where it is suggested that you'll never be able to catch a purse snatcher because 'black men are so fleet of foot' is equally poorly judged whether you wrote it or not. Same for publishing a headline under your name: 'Animal's take over the D.C. Zoo.' This is an extremely poorly judged choice of words when talking about predominately black urban unrest in the D.C. area.

As an Australian I'm all in favour of ron paul getting elected and the no doubt hilarious consequences.

[blackshoe]

Cthulhu D, on 2011-December-14, 20:49, said:

For example - he's proposing the government would ban you from borrowing $10 from one friend, then lending $10 to another - which is not workable and certainly in conflict with the rest of his stated ideals.

I stopped reading right there, because I don't believe this for one second.

[Cthulhu D]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-14, 21:17, said:

I stopped reading right there, because I don't believe this for one second.

Okay, but that is how fractional reserve banking works - the bank takes a deposit from person A, then lends the money to person B. Then Person B buys some beer from Person A, who then deposits the money with the bank. Now the bank has another $10 which it lends out. Of course it's the same $10 they actually took on deposit orginally, but according to Ron Paul "$10 has been created" and this is bad.

If you're going to ban Fractional reserve banking (what ron paul wants to do), you have to crack down on people doing exactly that. Otherwise the banks will just restructure as a partnership or whatever and continue as before. The US gives a corporation many of the same legal rights as a person. The fact you don't belive it doesn't make it any less true.

[Winstonm]

Cthulhu D, on 2011-December-14, 21:39, said:

Okay, but that is how fractional reserve banking works - the bank takes a deposit from person A, then lends the money to person B. Then Person B buys some beer from Person A, who then deposits the money with the bank. Now the bank has another $10 which it lends out. Of course it's the same $10 they actually took on deposit orginally, but according to Ron Paul "$10 has been created" and this is bad.

If you're going to ban Fractional reserve banking (what ron paul wants to do), you have to crack down on people doing exactly that. Otherwise the banks will just restructure as a partnership or whatever and continue as before. The US gives a corporation many of the same legal rights as a person. The fact you don't belive it doesn't make it any less true.

Technically, this isn't quite right. On a very simplistic model, the bank takes a $10 deposit from person A and then can use that $10 reserve to lend persons b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i, and j $10 each, reserving only a fraction of the money lent.

They can do this because not all of the reserve deposits will ever be pulled out all at once (a bank run) and therefore they can charge interest which allows them to pay interest instead of charging you to keep your money in the bank.

The problems with banking are not related to fractional reserve lending, which is a plus to depositors. The problems have been the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which allowed depositor banks to merge with investment banks to make too big to fail enterprises that gambled with investments but still held deposits that were FDIC insured, and then the Fed allowing some of those to gamble recklessly by removing the 12-1 leverage limit on their investments, creating situations were places like Bear-Stearns and Lehman Brothers were leveraged 30-1 or 40-1, and allowing derivatives to be traded without regulation and oversight, allowing AIG to take on counterparty risk while failing to maintain adequate loss reserves (which would happen in the insurance business, which is essentially what AIG was selling with its credit default swaps.)

The fractional reserve argument is a strawman the gold bugs produce. Gold is nothing more than a shiny metal. Money is a representation of labor, either intellectual or physical.

The two are often confused, especially by some pseudo-Austrians.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-14, 21:17, said:

I stopped reading right there,

BTW, I am still waiting for a response on the following:

Quote

Why should the regulatory state step in and prevent banks from engaging in fractional reserve lending?

Surely you, as an independent investor, have the ability to discern between banks that engage in fractional reserve lending and those who don't. Moreover, you can certainly choose not to invest your hard earned dollars in banks that engage in this type of risky behavior.

In what way does this type of government interference in the free market further liberty?

Or, alternatively, perhaps there isn't anything wrong with government intervention so long as you're intervening in the "right" sort of way.

Intervening to deal with externalities like pollution = bad
Intervening in favor of crank Austrian theories about business cycles = good