Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 10
Posted: 1/24/2011 2:00:06 PM EDT
Excerpted:


We're getting very close to the point where we could have states default on their debts for the first time. What should happen then?
They should go bankrupt. I'm looking forward to it.

There are three possibilities –– bankruptcy or bailouts or ruinous taxations. Of the three, bankruptcy is the one that makes the most sense because it's the one that conveys the most accurate knowledge –– which is that they've run out of money and couldn't cover all the promises they made. That fact should be revealed to all for future reference. The other thing about bankruptcy is that it's the only thing I know of that can get rid of these ruinous public sector union contracts with these extravagant pensions. Those pensions are so popular because the politicians can promise the pension now and get votes now without losing the votes of taxpayers now, because they don't set aside enough money to cover the pensions. Then they simply kick the can down the road and leave it to somebody else to figure out what to do when the money runs out.

There's also this bit on ending the Fed:


Now, in recent years we started to hear more people calling to get rid of the Federal Reserve. Good idea, bad idea? What are your thoughts?

Good idea.





Good idea? What do you think we should replace it with? What do you think we should do?

Well, it's like when you remove a cancer, what do you replace it with? I understand the wonderful theories about the great things the Federal Reserve can and should do. That's totally different from what the Federal Reserve has done and is likely to do in the future. It's painful to read Woodrow Wilson's glowing words when the Federal Reserve was set up, about the things it was supposed to do –– like keep the money supply from either contracting suddenly or having runaway inflation or having bank failures and so forth.

All those things empirically have become worse after there was a Federal Reserve System. So, there's no question that there are good things the Federal Reserve could do just as there are good things that the government could do. But people who say that never seem to want to look at the record and say, "Never mind what they could do; what have they actually done and what are they likely to do, given the incentives?" The incentives are there for both the Fed and for the political branches to interfere with the economy, to the detriment of the economy.


http://rightwingnews.com/2011/01/interviewing-thomas-sowell-on-basic-economics/

found via Reason.com
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:03:29 PM EDT
Someone ought to tell Dr Sowell that under current law states cannot discharge their obligations in bankruptcy.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:05:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2011 2:43:16 PM EDT by Deej86]
self edit.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:06:25 PM EDT
I can't understand why anyone would spend their time reading Dr Sowell when we have so many more accomplished minds on economics posting on this very Board.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:07:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rgkeller:
Someone ought to tell Dr Sowell that under current law states cannot discharge their obligations in bankruptcy.


They will just change the law.




Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:12:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CletusRoundbelly:
Originally Posted By rgkeller:
Someone ought to tell Dr Sowell that under current law states cannot discharge their obligations in bankruptcy.


They will just change the law.


The GOP House ought to pass that change in the law so that the Dems have to vote it down in the Senate (or Obama has to veto it). Then they can hammer them over their plan and tie any future Bail Outs around their necks..
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:15:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Deej86:
I like the cut of this guy's jib.


Yeah... I was thinking about the "Jib" thing too.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:17:37 PM EDT
There will be no bankruptcies, only Bail-Outs.

Once again, the ants will end up paying the grasshoppers' tabs in-full.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:21:44 PM EDT
Well, so much for "thomas sowell"

Anti federal-reserve nut, wishes ill on our republic.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:25:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
I can't understand why anyone would spend their time reading Dr Sowell when we have so many more accomplished minds on economics posting on this very Board.


I lol'd. SRSLY. Saliva on the monitor.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:29:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LW303:
Well, so much for "thomas sowell"

Anti federal-reserve nut, wishes ill on our republic.


Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:29:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2011 2:31:30 PM EDT by Dave_A]
Put another one in the column.

Advocating replacing the FED with... More government...

Also, the notion that things have gotten 'worse' ever since 1913, is positively insane.

All those things empirically have become worse after there was a Federal Reserve System.


This is pure, absolute bull - and history shows it.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:29:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2011 2:32:09 PM EDT by paris-dakar]
^
^
^
^


Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
I can't understand why anyone would spend their time reading Dr Sowell when we have so many more accomplished minds on economics posting on this very Board.


I lol'd. SRSLY. Saliva on the monitor.


Sometimes I HERP before I DERP.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:33:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Put another one in the column.

Advocating replacing the FED with... More government...

Also, the notion that things have gotten 'worse' ever since 1913, is positively insane.

All those things empirically have become worse after there was aFederal Reserve System.


This is pure, absolute bull - and history shows it.

You would need to read a few of his books to understand his POV on the subject.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:35:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LW303:
Well, so much for "thomas sowell"

Anti federal-reserve nut, wishes ill on our republic.


Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:36:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Put another one in the column.

Advocating replacing the FED with... More government...

Also, the notion that things have gotten 'worse' ever since 1913, is positively insane.

All those things empirically have become worse after there was aFederal Reserve System.


This is pure, absolute bull - and history shows it.
Next are you going to claim he is a socialist and hates capitalism?



Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:37:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lowjack545:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Put another one in the column.

Advocating replacing the FED with... More government...

Also, the notion that things have gotten 'worse' ever since 1913, is positively insane.

All those things empirically have become worse after there was aFederal Reserve System.


This is pure, absolute bull - and history shows it.
Next are you going to claim he is a socialist and hates capitalism?




In for that one.

One thing he is NOT, is a wall banging party hack partisan like most people's favorites here.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:38:05 PM EDT
You know. I was not at all shocked that Dave_A disagreed with Dr. Sowell. Then I chuckled.

Pmc
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:38:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2011 2:40:29 PM EDT by CATARGADELENDAEST]
The federal government once forbid the states to issue currency. When, I do not recall. Still, if the states can make monetary obligations without regard to their ability to pay due to some future bailout, there is no reason for the states to stop overpromising so greatly beyond their means.

One day a wheelbarrel of greenbacks won't be able to purchase much of the stuff with which to wipe your dirty cornhole.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:41:50 PM EDT
The speed with which the two most state-sucking trolls on ARFCOM have entered this thread is blinding.

Or maybe their blindness is speedy. One of those, I'm sure.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:45:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By wunbadweel:
The speed with which the two most state-sucking trolls on ARFCOM have entered this thread is blinding.

Or maybe their blindness is speedy. One of those, I'm sure.


I knew as soon as Dr Sowell criticized the Fed it would be .

Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:45:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CATARGADELENDAEST:
The federal government once forbid the states to issue currency. When, I do not recall. Still, if the states can make monetary obligations without regard to their ability to pay due to some future bailout, there is no reason for the states to stop overpromising so greatly beyond their means.

One day a wheelbarrel of greenbacks won't be able to purchase much of the stuff with which to wipe your dirty cornhole.

It's in the Constitution.

Art 1 Sec 10: 'No state shall... coin money; emit bills of credit'
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:46:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LW303:
Well, so much for "thomas sowell"

Anti federal-reserve nut, wishes ill on our republic.


Well - so much for you. I’m sure that the general consensus is that you couldn’t carry Dr. Sowell’s intellectual jock strap. If you could – you would offer alternatives and solutions as opposed to ad hominem attacks. Shallow mind public servant has.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:46:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2011 2:47:28 PM EDT by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Lowjack545:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Put another one in the column.

Advocating replacing the FED with... More government...

Also, the notion that things have gotten 'worse' ever since 1913, is positively insane.

All those things empirically have become worse after there was aFederal Reserve System.


This is pure, absolute bull - and history shows it.
Next are you going to claim he is a socialist and hates capitalism?




Only if he endorses Keynesian spending as a replacement for the Fed (so called 'Debt Free' dollar schemes, with Congress spending money into existence).

Otherwise, he's just a misguided libertarian.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:48:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By schizrade:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Put another one in the column.

Advocating replacing the FED with... More government...

Also, the notion that things have gotten 'worse' ever since 1913, is positively insane.

All those things empirically have become worse after there was aFederal Reserve System.


This is pure, absolute bull - and history shows it.

You would need to read a few of his books to understand his POV on the subject.

'Point of view' is irrelevant in that statement.

There are only 2 'points of view':

Either the US economy has become better since 1913, or it has become worse.

Anyone who says 'worse' is completely detached from reality.

Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:49:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By wunbadweel:
The speed with which the two most state-sucking trolls on ARFCOM have entered this thread is blinding.

Or maybe their blindness is speedy. One of those, I'm sure.

Any topics with a title that include libertartian or austrian school of economic ideas brings them out like moth to a flame.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:52:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By CATARGADELENDAEST:
The federal government once forbid the states to issue currency. When, I do not recall. Still, if the states can make monetary obligations without regard to their ability to pay due to some future bailout, there is no reason for the states to stop overpromising so greatly beyond their means.

One day a wheelbarrel of greenbacks won't be able to purchase much of the stuff with which to wipe your dirty cornhole.

It's in the Constitution.

Art 1 Sec 10: 'No state shall... coin money; emit bills of credit'

expand on that...


"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.




another one of you favorites...
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:54:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CletusRoundbelly:
Originally Posted By rgkeller:
Someone ought to tell Dr Sowell that under current law states cannot discharge their obligations in bankruptcy.


They will just change the law.



They don't need bankruptcy. They're sovereigns. No one can make them pay up.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:57:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Lowjack545:

Originally Posted By wunbadweel:
The speed with which the two most state-sucking trolls on ARFCOM have entered this thread is blinding.

Or maybe their blindness is speedy. One of those, I'm sure.

Any topics with a title that include libertartian or austrian school of economic ideas brings them out like moth to a flame.


And with every bit as much direction, intelligence and valued contribution, too.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:00:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Oakley:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By CATARGADELENDAEST:
The federal government once forbid the states to issue currency. When, I do not recall. Still, if the states can make monetary obligations without regard to their ability to pay due to some future bailout, there is no reason for the states to stop overpromising so greatly beyond their means.

One day a wheelbarrel of greenbacks won't be able to purchase much of the stuff with which to wipe your dirty cornhole.

It's in the Constitution.

Art 1 Sec 10: 'No state shall... coin money; emit bills of credit'

expand on that...


"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.




another one of you favorites...

Nothing in Art 1 Sec 10 applies to the US Government or any organization acting under it's direction.

The states are in perfect compliance with the provision in red today, as NOT ONE OF THEM has made anything legal tender at all...

Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:01:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2011 3:23:12 PM EDT by CCW]
Not sure if serious. This news will be an interesting topic for those retired and about to retire teachers, professors, policemen, firemen, medics, Highway Dept workers, Coroners, Judges, DA's, Governors, etc. Who takes the haircut first?

[ETA] I was going to add the state national guard, but apparently they get most of their money for salaries, and retirements from the federal government:

from NBCLosAngles Oct 2010:

The federal agency in charge of funding for the National Guard has started to examine its procedures for detecting fraud after a report revealed allegations of misuse of $100 million.

The National Guard Bureau is responsible for federal funds given to state Guard organizations.

The California Army National Guard gave millions of dollars to soldiers who didn't qualify for the money, according to federal auditor documents and interviews cited in an article published Sunday by the Sacramento Bee.

Federal auditors looking into the disbursement of funds suspected Master Sgt. Toni Jaffe of using loan repayments and cash bonuses to draw recruits, even though some may not have qualified for the money. Also, the program allocated tens of thousands more dollars than allowed, the newspaper reported.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:02:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CletusRoundbelly:
Originally Posted By rgkeller:
Someone ought to tell Dr Sowell that under current law states cannot discharge their obligations in bankruptcy.


They will just change the law.






If you ain't got the money.........That means that you ain't got the money.

Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:02:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Put another one in the column.



Originally Posted By LW303:
Well, so much for "thomas sowell"

Anti federal-reserve nut, wishes ill on our republic.





You two, combined, couldn't muster up enough brain cells to manage to scratch Dr. Sowell's crotch.

Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:04:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SOTG-SM:
Originally Posted By LW303:
Well, so much for "thomas sowell"

Anti federal-reserve nut, wishes ill on our republic.


Well - so much for you. I’m sure that the general consensus is that you couldn’t carry Dr. Sowell’s intellectual jock strap. If you could – you would offer alternatives and solutions as opposed to ad hominem attacks. Shallow mind public servant has.

I'll offer the best alternative, since I know LWjms won't....

The alternative, is to keep the Fed, and if anything make it completely private - essentially returning it to the model James Madison endorsed, when he signed the charter for the 2nd Bank of the United States.

I am more than capable of defending this position, if you wish to debate it.

Without the use of ad-homs.

However, I find that most of the anti-Fed folks here can't articulate a position of their own - based on their own knowledge rather than cut-and-paste blog garbage, references to 'Shadowstats', and YouBoob content - to save their life....

That's not an ad-hom, that's a challenge...

Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:04:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LW303:
Well, so much for "thomas sowell"

Anti federal-reserve nut, wishes ill on our republic.


Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:04:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Oakley:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By CATARGADELENDAEST:
The federal government once forbid the states to issue currency. When, I do not recall. Still, if the states can make monetary obligations without regard to their ability to pay due to some future bailout, there is no reason for the states to stop overpromising so greatly beyond their means.

One day a wheelbarrel of greenbacks won't be able to purchase much of the stuff with which to wipe your dirty cornhole.

It's in the Constitution.

Art 1 Sec 10: 'No state shall... coin money; emit bills of credit'

expand on that...


"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.




another one of you favorites...

Nothing in Art 1 Sec 10 applies to the US Government or any organization acting under it's direction.

The states are in perfect compliance with the provision in red today, as NOT ONE OF THEM has made anything legal tender at all...



However, it is indisputable that "coin money" does not and was not intended to authorize the circulation of fiat money, with which the Framers were intimately and disastrously familiar. AIS10 probably authorizes the states to reject FRNs when tendered in payment of taxes or other debts to the state.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:07:27 PM EDT
I can hardly imagine what would of happened had Obama and the Congress had control over the Federal Reserve functions over the past couple of years. The people of the United States would have been in a world of hurt.

Before I would jump on the abolish the Fed band wagon, I would like to hear a detailed plan regarding its replacement.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:07:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Lowjack545:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Put another one in the column.

Advocating replacing the FED with... More government...

Also, the notion that things have gotten 'worse' ever since 1913, is positively insane.

All those things empirically have become worse after there was aFederal Reserve System.


This is pure, absolute bull - and history shows it.
Next are you going to claim he is a socialist and hates capitalism?




Only if he endorses Keynesian spending as a replacement for the Fed (so called 'Debt Free' dollar schemes, with Congress spending money into existence).

Otherwise, he's just a misguided libertarian.

You don't even know who he is, or what his philosophy is?


Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:09:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Oakley:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By CATARGADELENDAEST:
The federal government once forbid the states to issue currency. When, I do not recall. Still, if the states can make monetary obligations without regard to their ability to pay due to some future bailout, there is no reason for the states to stop overpromising so greatly beyond their means.

One day a wheelbarrel of greenbacks won't be able to purchase much of the stuff with which to wipe your dirty cornhole.

It's in the Constitution.

Art 1 Sec 10: 'No state shall... coin money; emit bills of credit'

expand on that...


"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.




another one of you favorites...

Nothing in Art 1 Sec 10 applies to the US Government or any organization acting under it's direction.

The states are in perfect compliance with the provision in red today, as NOT ONE OF THEM has made anything legal tender at all...



However, it is indisputable that "coin money" does not and was not intended to authorize the circulation of fiat money, with which the Framers were intimately and disastrously familiar. AIS10 probably authorizes the states to reject FRNs when tendered in payment of taxes or other debts to the state.

The Loughner Theory of money?

Really?
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:13:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2011 3:16:47 PM EDT by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Oakley:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By CATARGADELENDAEST:
The federal government once forbid the states to issue currency. When, I do not recall. Still, if the states can make monetary obligations without regard to their ability to pay due to some future bailout, there is no reason for the states to stop overpromising so greatly beyond their means.

One day a wheelbarrel of greenbacks won't be able to purchase much of the stuff with which to wipe your dirty cornhole.

It's in the Constitution.

Art 1 Sec 10: 'No state shall... coin money; emit bills of credit'

expand on that...


"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.




another one of you favorites...

Nothing in Art 1 Sec 10 applies to the US Government or any organization acting under it's direction.

The states are in perfect compliance with the provision in red today, as NOT ONE OF THEM has made anything legal tender at all...



However, it is indisputable that "coin money" does not and was not intended to authorize the circulation of fiat money, with which the Framers were intimately and disastrously familiar. AIS10 probably authorizes the states to reject FRNs when tendered in payment of taxes or other debts to the state.

Sorry, that's absolutely wrong.

First the US government's power to 'coin money' does NOT include any specific material from which the money is to be coined - even with the most strict possible definition of 'coin' (requiring the use of metal) they could coin it from iron or copper or lead. Or plastic discs, today...

Second. the Necessary and Proper Clause of Art 1 Sec 8 allows the US government to circulate so-called 'fiat' money as legal tender - as an action 'Necessary and Proper' to the regulation of the value of money as authorized in Article 1 Sec 8. It is this VERY SAME clause, that provides the Constitutional authority for central banking in the US.

And Article 6 forbids the states from rejecting federal legal tender laws, due to supremacy.

The ONLY thing that Art 1 Sec 10 does, with regards to money, is ABSOLUTELY FORBID any state from operating ANY sort of a monetary system.

The prohibition on state-coined money completely demolishes your 'state legal tender' scenario.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:14:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
'Point of view' is irrelevant in that statement.

There are only 2 'points of view':

Either the US economy has become better since 1913, or it has become worse.

Anyone who says 'worse' is completely detached from reality.



He wasn't saying the US economy has become worse. The issue isn't the economy as a whole, but specific things the fed is responsible for.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:16:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DonS:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
'Point of view' is irrelevant in that statement.

There are only 2 'points of view':

Either the US economy has become better since 1913, or it has become worse.

Anyone who says 'worse' is completely detached from reality.



He wasn't saying the US economy has become worse. The issue isn't the economy as a whole, but specific things the fed is responsible for.

Again that would require reading Sowells books to get his POV on the subject, but anything more than the Constitution and Glenn Becks latest drivvel is too much for GD.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:17:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LW303:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Oakley:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By CATARGADELENDAEST:
The federal government once forbid the states to issue currency. When, I do not recall. Still, if the states can make monetary obligations without regard to their ability to pay due to some future bailout, there is no reason for the states to stop overpromising so greatly beyond their means.

One day a wheelbarrel of greenbacks won't be able to purchase much of the stuff with which to wipe your dirty cornhole.

It's in the Constitution.

Art 1 Sec 10: 'No state shall... coin money; emit bills of credit'

expand on that...


"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.




another one of you favorites...

Nothing in Art 1 Sec 10 applies to the US Government or any organization acting under it's direction.

The states are in perfect compliance with the provision in red today, as NOT ONE OF THEM has made anything legal tender at all...



However, it is indisputable that "coin money" does not and was not intended to authorize the circulation of fiat money, with which the Framers were intimately and disastrously familiar. AIS10 probably authorizes the states to reject FRNs when tendered in payment of taxes or other debts to the state.

The Loughner Theory of money?

Really?
Wow, way to tie in that nutjob to this.

And I really do not have a horse in any camp.

Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:17:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By SOTG-SM:
Originally Posted By LW303:
Well, so much for "thomas sowell"

Anti federal-reserve nut, wishes ill on our republic.


Well - so much for you. I’m sure that the general consensus is that you couldn’t carry Dr. Sowell’s intellectual jock strap. If you could – you would offer alternatives and solutions as opposed to ad hominem attacks. Shallow mind public servant has.

I'll offer the best alternative, since I know LWjms won't....

The alternative, is to keep the Fed, and if anything make it completely private - essentially returning it to the model James Madison endorsed, when he signed the charter for the 2nd Bank of the United States.

I am more than capable of defending this position, if you wish to debate it.

Without the use of ad-homs.

However, I find that most of the anti-Fed folks here can't articulate a position of their own - based on their own knowledge rather than cut-and-paste blog garbage, references to 'Shadowstats', and YouBoob content - to save their life....

That's not an ad-hom, that's a challenge...






Thanks Dave - I'll listen. The argument for the Fed to be totally private is compelling in light of the current administration and the congressional leadership of Pelosi and Reid. Conversely, though things "may" be better than 1913 - I still don't like paying almost 60% of my income in taxes. Such confiscatory taxation takes away my liberty - plain and simple.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:17:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2011 3:19:50 PM EDT by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By DonS:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
'Point of view' is irrelevant in that statement.

There are only 2 'points of view':

Either the US economy has become better since 1913, or it has become worse.

Anyone who says 'worse' is completely detached from reality.



He wasn't saying the US economy has become worse. The issue isn't the economy as a whole, but specific things the fed is responsible for.

And in every case, the situation is far better now than it was in 1913.

This is an indisputable fact.

We have had less frequent recessions, and they have become less severe - especially since the 70s, when we finally kicked the gold habit....

There has been NO deflation since we got off the gold standard....

Even with the 80s S&L shit, and the current recession, the banking system has been far more stable...

And so on...
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:18:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2011 3:18:24 PM EDT by MP0117]
Originally Posted By LW303:
Well, so much for "thomas sowell"

Anti federal-reserve nut, wishes ill on our republic.


LOL!

Sowell rocks.

He wishes no ill upon the Republic.

You, sir, always seem to confuse the government with the Republic. They are not the same thing.

Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:20:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MP0117:
Originally Posted By LW303:
Well, so much for "thomas sowell"

Anti federal-reserve nut, wishes ill on our republic.


LOL!

Sowell rocks.

He wishes no ill upon the Republic.

You, sir, always seem to confuse the government with the Republic. They are not the same thing.


They absolutely are.

The government is established by the Constitution, and if it falls the Republic falls with it.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:22:07 PM EDT
Sowell is a patriot and brilliant to boot.

That puts him two points above his moonbat detractors here.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:22:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LW303:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Oakley:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By CATARGADELENDAEST:
The federal government once forbid the states to issue currency. When, I do not recall. Still, if the states can make monetary obligations without regard to their ability to pay due to some future bailout, there is no reason for the states to stop overpromising so greatly beyond their means.

One day a wheelbarrel of greenbacks won't be able to purchase much of the stuff with which to wipe your dirty cornhole.

It's in the Constitution.

Art 1 Sec 10: 'No state shall... coin money; emit bills of credit'

expand on that...


"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.




another one of you favorites...

Nothing in Art 1 Sec 10 applies to the US Government or any organization acting under it's direction.

The states are in perfect compliance with the provision in red today, as NOT ONE OF THEM has made anything legal tender at all...



However, it is indisputable that "coin money" does not and was not intended to authorize the circulation of fiat money, with which the Framers were intimately and disastrously familiar. AIS10 probably authorizes the states to reject FRNs when tendered in payment of taxes or other debts to the state.

The Loughner Theory of money?

Really?


What does the Constitution say about money ?
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:23:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
And in every case, the situation is far better now than it was in 1913.

This is an indisputable fact.

We have had less frequent recessions, and they have become less severe - especially since the 70s, when we finally kicked the gold habit....

There has been NO deflation since we got off the gold standard....

Even with the 80s S&L shit, and the current recession, the banking system has been far more stable...

And so on...


The Great Depression occured after 1913.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:24:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DonS:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
And in every case, the situation is far better now than it was in 1913.

This is an indisputable fact.

We have had less frequent recessions, and they have become less severe - especially since the 70s, when we finally kicked the gold habit....

There has been NO deflation since we got off the gold standard....

Even with the 80s S&L shit, and the current recession, the banking system has been far more stable...

And so on...


The Great Depression occured after 1913.

Don't stop the jizz fest.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 10
Top Top