Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:24 am
Hence my part on purchasing power
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Ron Pauls economic solution? A Southern Secessionist.
Page 13 of 13
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:24 amPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:24 amCredibility of the witness is a valid issue, reflects on Pau
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 8:14 amCerralvo Island wrote:Ron Paul calls DiLorenzo as a witness.
DiLorenzo has supported southern secession (wouldnt you liberal yaps like this? You could implement your liberal progressive pipe dreams and watch the country turn into a socialist shithole) and criticized Lincoln.
Therefore, Ron Paul is a racist, anti-Lincoln (thats a crime apparently), secessionist (and these opinions mean the testimony against the Fed is invalid).
QED
LETS GO NON SEQUITORS! LETS GO!
http://krugman-in-wonderland.blogspot.c ... o-and.html
Meh, you either don't know what a non sequitur is or you are deliberately misusing the term. Regardless, your recycled copy-and-paste is unimpressive (even ignoring your stupid inserted flamebaity comments), especially when it misses and distorts the point:
1. Ron Paul as Chairman of a Sub-Commitee calls DiLorenzo as his first witness (and chief one of two witnesses) regarding Monetary Policy.
2. DiLorenzo is an economics professor, but he is not known as or for being an expert on monetary policy. Instead, he is well-known for his Neo-Confederate and anarchistic views/activities. Although he is not an historian, DiLorenzo frequently identifies himself first and foremost as the author of 2 books (and many articles) attacking President Lincoln and defending the (alleged) "Southern view" of the Civil War. DiLorenzo writes copiously on neo-confederate topics and has called Abraham Lincoln a “dictator” and “mass murderer,” and referred to Adolf Hitler as a “Lincolnite.”
3. Reasonable people (including libertarians, members of Mises.com, and Ron Paul supporters) question the wisdom of Ron Paul's choice of a DiLorenzo as a chief witness.
4. DiLorenzo makes clear his lack of credibility by lying vehemently and repeatedly about his connections to the League of the South.
5. Rep. Paul did not rebut any criticism of DiLorenzo. In fact, he claims to have known nothing about DiLorenzo's involvement with the LOS or secession (which DiLorenzo admitted he supports).
6. As most Paul defenders have pointed ignored, the OP article specifically discussed the "merits" of statements by Rep. Paul, DiLorenzo, and Paul's other witness regarding monetary policy.
2. DiLorenzo is an economics professor, but he is not known as or for being an expert on monetary policy. Instead, he is well-known for his Neo-Confederate and anarchistic views/activities. Although he is not an historian, DiLorenzo frequently identifies himself first and foremost as the author of 2 books (and many articles) attacking President Lincoln and defending the (alleged) "Southern view" of the Civil War. DiLorenzo writes copiously on neo-confederate topics and has called Abraham Lincoln a “dictator” and “mass murderer,” and referred to Adolf Hitler as a “Lincolnite.”
3. Reasonable people (including libertarians, members of Mises.com, and Ron Paul supporters) question the wisdom of Ron Paul's choice of a DiLorenzo as a chief witness.
4. DiLorenzo makes clear his lack of credibility by lying vehemently and repeatedly about his connections to the League of the South.
5. Rep. Paul did not rebut any criticism of DiLorenzo. In fact, he claims to have known nothing about DiLorenzo's involvement with the LOS or secession (which DiLorenzo admitted he supports).
6. As most Paul defenders have pointed ignored, the OP article specifically discussed the "merits" of statements by Rep. Paul, DiLorenzo, and Paul's other witness regarding monetary policy.
In sum, Rep. Paul's choice of witnesses for his first official hearing as a committee Chairperson goes to his own competence and credibility.
P.S.
1. Although Rep. Paul's own racism and insensitivity towards race is well-documented, it isn't at issue here.
2. DiLorenzo's credibility is a valid issue -- in many different respects. For example, it is quite common in court cases across the U.S. for a judge to give the jury the "False in One, False in All" or instruction, which explains to the jury that, if it found that a witness had testified untruthfully in one instance, it could find his entire testimony to be untruthful. In other words, a jury could find that a witness who willfully falsifies one matter is not credible on any matter. If one is found lying, should he be trusted again? In ordinary terms one would not be inclined to take other statements of such as being above-board. See falsus in uno, falsus in ominbus.
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 8:23 amCerralvo Island wrote:Ron Paul calls DiLorenzo as a witness.
DiLorenzo has supported southern secession (wouldnt you liberal yaps like this? You could implement your liberal progressive pipe dreams and watch the country turn into a socialist shithole) and criticized Lincoln.
Therefore, Ron Paul is a racist, anti-Lincoln (thats a crime apparently), secessionist (and these opinions mean the testimony against the Fed is invalid).
QED
LETS GO NON SEQUITORS! LETS GO!
http://krugman-in-wonderland.blogspot.c ... o-and.html
http://krugman-in-wonderland.blogspot ? Wow...
That's just sad... sad and desperate.
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 8:27 amHydesland wrote:Cerralvo Island wrote:Ron Paul calls DiLorenzo as a witness.
DiLorenzo has supported southern secession (wouldnt you liberal yaps like this? You could implement your liberal progressive pipe dreams and watch the country turn into a socialist shithole) and criticized Lincoln.
Therefore, Ron Paul is a racist, anti-Lincoln (thats a crime apparently), secessionist (and these opinions mean the testimony against the Fed is invalid).
QED
LETS GO NON SEQUITORS! LETS GO!
http://krugman-in-wonderland.blogspot.c ... o-and.html
http://krugman-in-wonderland.blogspot ? Wow...
That's just sad... sad and desperate.
I'm really disappointed by the fact that when I clicked it, it was an actual link.
Seriously, the amount of time spent crucifying Krugman...
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 8:30 amThe Black Forrest wrote:So what exactly does having that quack DiLorenzo as a witness have to do with Monetary policy?
He literally has no clue as to what he is talking about, so he's perfect for representing Paul.
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:05 amRepublicke wrote:
I'm really disappointed by the fact that when I clicked it, it was an actual link.
Seriously, the amount of time spent crucifying Krugman...
Krugman is a shell of his former self and has become a joke.
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:06 amPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:12 amIt's not that I'm a Krugite (or however those who agree with him stylize themselves, Post/Neo-Keynesian?) I'm not intelligent/informed enough to make that call.
But I do find it immensely grating that many so-called "respectable" institutions and such feel that unrelenting ad hominems against him are somehow appropriate.
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:15 amYou know who loved fiat currency and central banks? Hitler, that's who. Huge fan of the whole thing.
And you know who liked the gold standard and hated central banks? Thomas Jefferson.
So go ahead and have your little independent Fed party. But don't come crying to me when it turns out all mein kampf instead of the declaration of independence.
And you know who liked the gold standard and hated central banks? Thomas Jefferson.
So go ahead and have your little independent Fed party. But don't come crying to me when it turns out all mein kampf instead of the declaration of independence.
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:17 amPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:20 amRepublicke wrote:Sibirsky wrote:
Krugman is a shell of his former self and has become a joke.
It's not that I'm a Krugite (or however those who agree with him stylize themselves, Post/Neo-Keynesian?) I'm not intelligent/informed enough to make that call.
But I do find it immensely grating that many so-called "respectable" institutions and such feel that unrelenting ad hominems against him are somehow appropriate.
He's beyond Keynesian. Or maybe he comes of that way because he's dumbed down his commentary.
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:22 amMarriner S Eccles wrote:You know who loved fiat currency and central banks? Hitler, that's who. Huge fan of the whole thing.
And you know who liked the gold standard and hated central banks? Thomas Jefferson.
So go ahead and have your little independent Fed party. But don't come crying to me when it turns out all mein kampf instead of the declaration of independence.
hahahahahahah
you know who used puppet nations? hitler!
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:38 amThe Cat-Tribe wrote:Cerralvo Island wrote:-snip-
Meh, you either don't know what a non sequitur is or you are deliberately misusing the term. Regardless, your recycled copy-and-paste is unimpressive (even ignoring your stupid inserted flamebaity comments), especially when it misses and distorts the point:1. Ron Paul as Chairman of a Sub-Commitee calls DiLorenzo as his first witness (and chief one of two witnesses) regarding Monetary Policy.
2. DiLorenzo is an economics professor, but he is not known as or for being an expert on monetary policy. Instead, he is well-known for his Neo-Confederate and anarchistic views/activities. Although he is not an historian, DiLorenzo frequently identifies himself first and foremost as the author of 2 books (and many articles) attacking President Lincoln and defending the (alleged) "Southern view" of the Civil War. DiLorenzo writes copiously on neo-confederate topics and has called Abraham Lincoln a “dictator” and “mass murderer,” and referred to Adolf Hitler as a “Lincolnite.”
3. Reasonable people (including libertarians, members of Mises.com, and Ron Paul supporters) question the wisdom of Ron Paul's choice of a DiLorenzo as a chief witness.
4. DiLorenzo makes clear his lack of credibility by lying vehemently and repeatedly about his connections to the League of the South.
5. Rep. Paul did not rebut any criticism of DiLorenzo. In fact, he claims to have known nothing about DiLorenzo's involvement with the LOS or secession (which DiLorenzo admitted he supports).
6. As most Paul defenders have pointed ignored, the OP article specifically discussed the "merits" of statements by Rep. Paul, DiLorenzo, and Paul's other witness regarding monetary policy.
In sum, Rep. Paul's choice of witnesses for his first official hearing as a committee Chairperson goes to his own competence and credibility.
P.S.
1. Although Rep. Paul's own racism and insensitivity towards race is well-documented, it isn't at issue here.
2. DiLorenzo's credibility is a valid issue -- in many different respects. For example, it is quite common in court cases across the U.S. for a judge to give the jury the "False in One, False in All" or instruction, which explains to the jury that, if it found that a witness had testified untruthfully in one instance, it could find his entire testimony to be untruthful. In other words, a jury could find that a witness who willfully falsifies one matter is not credible on any matter. If one is found lying, should he be trusted again? In ordinary terms one would not be inclined to take other statements of such as being above-board. See falsus in uno, falsus in ominbus.
You never fail to impress. So I'll start with the ol' "this^^ so much this^^"
Ron Paul called a neo-Confederate pro-secessionist to a hearing about monetary policy. Fine your entitled to those views and granted, yes, they don't even have to deal with monetary policy. However that really does strain his credibility as a reasonable person. And as TCT pointed out he lied. Plus the article pointed out the DiLorenzo wasn't exactly a credible source on monetary policy. He called the Great Depression short and thought the bank runs have the same effect if are not better than FDIC insured deposits during a crisis. He also skirted around questions of how returning to the Gold Standard would actually be beneficial. The man did Ron Paul's speaking for him because Ron Paul called him as a witness; it was Paul who wanted DiLorenzo to speak on his behalf and in favor of his policies.
Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:17 pmCameroi wrote:paper is paper and unstable sure, but so are precious metals, just at usually a slower rate, or stable only by comparison with paper.
The price of paper is actually more stable than the price of gold.
Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:56 pmIt's not the "price of paper" which gives paper money its value. It has to be backed by something, whether it be gold or just "consumer confidence". If you go the second route, where the dollar has value just because we say it has value, then the central bank can print out as much as they want, devaluing everyone's money and punishing savers. But to significantly increase the supply of gold-backed money, someone has to mine it.
Edit: If paper money was only worth what its printed on, then you'd be paying for everything with a huge wad of cash and a $20 bill would be the same as $1.
Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:02 pmBurtonea wrote:Xsyne wrote:The price of paper is actually more stable than the price of gold.
It's not the "price of paper" which gives paper money its value. It has to be backed by something, whether it be gold or just "consumer confidence". If you go the second route, where the dollar has value just because we say it has value, then the central bank can print out as much as they want, devaluing everyone's money and punishing savers. But to significantly increase the supply of gold-backed money, someone has to mine it.
Edit: If paper money was only worth what its printed on, then you'd be paying for everything with a huge wad of cash and a $20 bill would be the same as $1.
So you're in favor of limiting the money supply. Massively. We're talking 96% deflation upon the adoption of the gold standard.
Edit: By the way, the first route means that the dollar has value because we say it represents something that we say has value. It is functionally identical to fiat currency.
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:34 pmXsyne wrote:Burtonea wrote:It's not the "price of paper" which gives paper money its value. It has to be backed by something, whether it be gold or just "consumer confidence". If you go the second route, where the dollar has value just because we say it has value, then the central bank can print out as much as they want, devaluing everyone's money and punishing savers. But to significantly increase the supply of gold-backed money, someone has to mine it.
Edit: If paper money was only worth what its printed on, then you'd be paying for everything with a huge wad of cash and a $20 bill would be the same as $1.
So you're in favor of limiting the money supply. Massively. We're talking 96% deflation upon the adoption of the gold standard.
Edit: By the way, the first route means that the dollar has value because we say it represents something that we say has value. It is functionally identical to fiat currency.
Money supply would stay the same. Ron Paul like most Austrians want privately minted money to compete with the dollar.
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:36 pmMarriner S Eccles wrote:You know who loved fiat currency and central banks? Hitler, that's who. Huge fan of the whole thing.
And you know who liked the gold standard and hated central banks? Thomas Jefferson.
So go ahead and have your little independent Fed party. But don't come crying to me when it turns out all mein kampf instead of the declaration of independence.
