# This One's for The Obama Loyalists, Pay Attention. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 19, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784 "2010-08-19T20:08:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/481 "2010-08-29T20:01:54Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Everything not expressly authorized in the Constitution is by default prohibited from doing and left to the States and to the people. Does the Constitution authorize the Congress to levy taxes and spend that revenue? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/482 "2010-08-29T20:08:59Z")
> [@Kiber](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > FDR didn’t pursue policies that he thought would lengthen the Depression, but thats the effect that they had. > > > > Some evidence: > > > > [Newsroom | UCLA](http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx) > > > > [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/10/14/abc-finds-fdr-partly-blame-10-year-great-depression](http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/10/14/abc-finds-fdr-partly-blame-10-year-great-depression) > > > > [http://mises.org/daily/1623](http://mises.org/daily/1623) > > > > This is almost common knowledge at this point. > > Well - I addressed some of this in an earlier post. But I had to address this again since you keep bringing it up. > > First - it’s true that 2 UCLA economists wrote a paper blaming the depression on FDR. However, it’s also true that their paper is complete bunk. In short, they argue that, had FDR not messed about with all his bad policies, the US economy would have fully recovered by 1936 - within 4 years of FDR entering office. Sadly, say the authors, FDR did mess with the economy, and so the Depression dragged on. Unfortunately, it turns out that the growth rates necessary for a recovery by 1936 (which the authors claim would have happened otherwise) would have been totally unprecedented. This [site](http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10644) (Note: This is a lefty site - so beware) does a good job of addressing many of the “papers” key points - and even has a chart with numbers and data and stuff. The money line is here: > > > [@Site with Actual Data](#): > > > > The GDP gains that their “lost opportunity” scenario required would have averaged 16.9% for four consecutive years, from 1933 to 1936-a totally unprecedented growth rate, for a cumulative 86.7% increase in four years. Indeed, the only years in US history with such growth rates were 1941-43, with growth rates of 17.1%, 18.5% and 16.4%. Even so, the best 4-year run, 1940-1943 fell more than 10% short of their projection-75.8%. > > So, while not specifically stating it, your site is arguing that, had FDR not messed stuff up, the US would have seen 4 years of the greatest growth in all of history. Since the US did not see 4 years of the greatest growth in all of history, FDR’s policies must have been bad. I’m afraid I can’t really subscribe to this theory. > > Your second site relies on the word of an anonymous economist, listed only as WOMAN in the transcript. So not much to address there. > > Your third site is to [mises.org](http://mises.org) again - which is getting a bit circular. > > I will, however, applaud the return of the Op, who has quite a task ahead. Well apart from the specific claims of the economists at UCLA, even if a recovery took longer, why should the economy be allowed to re balance itself, liquidate bad debt and find an equilibrium? That should be obvious that preventing this process will drag out the inevitable. And why did the recovery only happen when, after WWII, the spending was cut two thirds and the taxes were cut one third? What if we pursued these polices a decade earlier? Surely you can see that the length of the Depression is not exactly a point in FDR’s favor. What about the Depression of 1920-21? The government did nothing and a robust recovery happened in less than a couple of years. [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/czcUmnsprQI/hqdefault.jpg "Why You've Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI) What is your opinion of this? How come my theories worked in practice and yours created a fifteen year catastrophe? Do the facts matter to you? ---
**Author:** ![Algorithm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/algorithm/32/12204_2.png) [@Algorithm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algorithm)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/483 "2010-08-29T20:13:56Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Not only are you ignoring all the things that HAVE come true so far, you are criticizing him before the timetable for his concerns is even up! Because his “concerns”, which you’ve previously labeled as correct predictions, **are not going to come true**. He’s wrong. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > A few things though. The Karzai government HAS failed and we will certainly be forced to leave Afghanistan before too long. He can be “right” about that when it actually happens. Not before. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > Other things, like an oil boycott and the reinstatement of the draft are things that current events lead us to look out for. Conditions are such that either could happen as a result of increased tension around the world. Look, I have every confidence that you smugly point to every item on Ron Paul’s [list of predictions](http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul29.html) that you’ve judged as “right”, and think to yourself about how accurate a predictor he is. Yet, when it’s clear that some of them are **100% unambiguously not right** you hand wave that away, just like you’re doing now. You walk through the list, using some items as evidence of how accurate and genius Paul is, and redefine the other ones as “things to look out for” as opposed to predictions. Do you see how that methodology could never come to any conclusion other than “Ron Paul can see the future?” We’re getting mighty close to self-parody here. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > And Ron Paul is not always right. See, if you’d just said that at the beginning, instead of talking about how he’s been right about everything, we wouldn’t have had to waste so much time. Now admit that you’re wrong, Ron Paul isn’t a visionary oracle, and we can all go home and have cake. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/484 "2010-08-29T20:21:38Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Today the price of gold is almost $1300 an ounce. > > Actually it’s closer to $1200 an ounce, but I won’t belabor the point. Putting the price near $1300 an ounce is a lot closer to being true than most of what you say. > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > The price of gold tells the value of fiat currencies, which change all the time. What you need to look at is what that gold will BUY at any one time. Think about this, you know how high gas prices were a few years ago? Look at this graph: > > > > [http://i14.tinypic.com/8ajy8ad.gif](http://i14.tinypic.com/8ajy8ad.gif) > > > > The price in gold is virtually flat. The true value of gold only changes when there is a massive new mining effort for gold, which doesn’t happen that often, and is certainly not comparable in any way to how central banks can print paper money. > > You say that the “value” of currency is determined by the price of gold, but who gave you the authority to decide that? The vast majority of people who have ever lived have not cared about gold, and even today, if a typical household owns any gold at all, it’s just a few baubles. Gold is good for nothing other than looking pretty. (And a tiny number of technical applications.) So who cares about gold. I’d say that basics like food and clothing are a much better way to measure value. > > Also, let’s look at your claim that “the price of gold is virtually flat”. No it isn’t. Click on your own graph. The price of gold, as compared to oil, goes up and down by well over 50% many times. It is neither flat nor virtually flat nor anywhere close to flat. Come on, **j** , you’re making this too easy for me. > > Bottom line, though, is that the graph only gives you seven years of history. As I’ve already pointed out, if you look at the price of gold from 1980 to the 1995 it lost almost 75% of its value. If you think that looking at graphs of gold v. oil over time is a good way to gauge gold’s stability, then give me a graph of gold v. oil that covers those years. Until you’re willing to acknowledge that the value of gold has dropped dramatically in the past, I’m going to assume that you have no real answer to my third criticism. A few misconceptions should be cleared up about Gold, the Gold standard and its use as money: > [@](#): > > Some responses to common objections about the use of gold as money: > > 1. There simply is not enough gold for it to be used as money. > > This is just like saying “we cannot possibly measure the size of microbes because inches are too large”. An excellent counterpoint to this line of thinking is to ask “what amount of gold will make it acceptable for use as money?” > > Hoppe writes: > > Once a money is established, any stock of money becomes compatible with any amount of employment and real income. There is never any need for more money since any amount will perform the same maximum extent of needed money work: that is, to provide a general medium of exchange and a means of economic calculation by entrepreneurs. [Source] > > The total amount of gold that has ever been mined is 142,000 tonnes. If half of that gold disappeared, it would still be viable to use as money, and prices of goods would simply adjust downward to fit the quantity of money. > > However, one could ask the question, “Could one ounce of gold serve as the monetary base?”. > > The answer to this should be consistent with the resume writers theory, as should the answer to, “If gold became as common as aluminum, would it still be useful as money?” > > Similarly, if gold, which is a useful commodity is found to cure cancer, the non-monetary value of gold would cause a shift in the desirability to use it as currency… rather than a life saving cure. > > A fundamental tenet to the Austrian analysis is an understanding of the origin of money. Gold became the most useful commodity to use as currency because of its particular characterisitcs by custom writing company. No one decided to use gold, it was just the best thing available at the time, and perhaps it still is. > > The suitability of gold as a monetary base is the result of a number of different market factors. One of the factors is the value per weight. If it falls to that of aluminum or lead, then storage costs alone will undercut the usefulness of this element as currency. Silver may take its place. The fundamental truth, however, is that the commodity chosen by the market should be the one in use as currency. > > The market seems to choose gold, and the shifts in its supply and value over the generations have not deterred them. One thing that people trust about gold is the relatively stable supply of it. It makes the value of gold somewhat predictable. A large shift SHOULD result in a market evaluation, but historically, these shifts have been fairly stable. > > However, saying that “ANY” amount of gold will be enough to act as a medium of exchange misses the point. The market is fully capable of running on gold, but it wouldn’t have evolved that way if gold did not have the characteristics that make it ideal for monetary exchange. If you posit a RADICAL change to those characteristics, such as supply, you will cause the market to re-evaluate its usefulness. > > If India acquired ALL of the gold, that wouldn’t mean we had no alternatives for a monetary base. All land and capital can serve as money, because money is just a type of capital. Indeed, land or commodity baskets may be preferred by the market outside an environment of market interference. Gold is a fantastic currency base, but it is far from the only one. > > 1. At current market prices, all the mined gold on earth is worth $4.5 trillion. This is much less that all the currency that has been printed in the whole world! > > The price of gold in terms of pieces of paper is irrelevant. After all, fiat currency notes can be printed with very little effort at all. For purposes of transition, the price of gold can be adjusted (by fiat if necessary) to that all central bank money holders can convert their money into gold. > > 3.What’s stopping you from using gold as money now? > > Legal tender laws. Central bank money is legal tender for all debts, public and private. Your taxes are payable in central bank money. Contracts in gold coins will not be defended in the same way as contracts in dollars or euros (e.g. if somebody defaults on a gold contract, compensation may be payable in central bank money) > > 1. The money supply must grow at the same rate as the economy. > > No it doesn’t. Prices are not independent of the money supply. The quantity of the money supply overall does not matter (See 1.). If the amount of goods and services increases, while the money supply stays fixed, prices of all goods and services will fall. > > 1. But deflation is bad, isn’t it? If the purchasing power of money constantly rises, doesn’t that mean an end to investment? Entrepreneurs will surely prefer to safely hide their money under the matress instead of taking the risk of investing. > > Falling prices are surely a good thing! > > The answer to the second question is no. While it is certainly “risk-free” to keep your money under the bed, it comes with a very real opportunity cost. Investors have a peculiar trait: they prefer goods in the future to goods in the present. In other words they forego consumption today and prefer a larger return later. > > So a deflationary economy a nominal return (i.e., $1) becomes $1.10 when repaid compounds the real return (i.e., the purchasing power of $1.10 is now $1.21) > > The desire for future goods will increase the desire for investment. > > 1. When did falling prices ever coincide with economic prosperity? > > The period between 1873 and 1896 in Germany and the United States was a time of deflation. Prices for goods fell at an annualised rate of 1.6%. Gross Domestic Product grew at an annualised rate of 3.6%. > > Innovations in manufacturing, chemistry and railroads made the 1880s the most productive decade in the history of the United States - and one of the most prosperous. Check this out: [http://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/uploads/oilgoldsm.jpg](http://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/uploads/oilgoldsm.jpg) Gold has lasted over thousands of years, fiat currencies crash and burn. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/485 "2010-08-29T20:24:34Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > > [@CannyDan](#): > > > > The idea of wage earners holding out for whatever the competitor is paying reminds me of an old (very old) joke. A woman goes to the butcher and asks “How much is your ground beef?” The butcher answers “Twenty cents a pound.” > > > > “Outrageous!” the woman replies, “Schmidt down the street has it for ten cents!”. > > > > “Well why don’t you go buy it from Schmidt then?” the butcher asks. > > > > “Because he doesn’t have any more!” > > > > “Well, when I don’t have any more, I sell it for five cents a pound”, the butcher declares. > > Of course what would really happen is that Schmidt and the other butcher would get together and decide that both would sell at a dollar a pound, and work together to drive any new competitors who tried to sell for less out of business. How would they do that without government action? The governments role is to prevent this sort of thing and allow free entry and healthy competition in the marketplace. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/486 "2010-08-29T20:45:53Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Gold has lasted over thousands of years, fiat currencies crash and burn. Lasting and stability are not synonymous. Personally, I do not want the feudal economies that predominated over the majority of those thousands of years. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/487 "2010-08-29T20:45:56Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@CannyDan](#): > > > > The Master [speaks](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1889/did-roosevelt-know-in-advance-about-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor-yet-say-nothing). (By proxy, anyway.) > > > > This side issue is analogous to the rest of your screed. You have absorbed some rather unusual world views and interpretations of history, converted them into dogma, and reject out of hand all attempts to provide you with reasoned and reasonable refutation. > > That article hardly refutes this claim and actually gives credence to the notion that many could easily come to that conclusion based on an evaluation of the facts. \ The fact that you could make this statement, suggesting that the linked article does anything but deride and debunk the thesis you support, shows just how deeply your cognitive dissonance is entrenched. It takes absolutely herculean twisting of logic and complete blindness to facts for “many” to “come to that conclusion”. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > So you are claiming that industrialization provided no benefits to the population at larger? Are you kidding me? > > \ If you pick out a few cases of greedy businessmen acting badly, that does not take away from the greater facts that America was being built into the greatest nation on earth through the engine of free enterprise and entrepreneurship. > > \ You desperately need to have a broader understanding and more critical look at the history of the period. > > \Okay, in a vibrant economy where all markets have plenty of competition and many jobs are available, the notion that large segments of the population would be “forced” into slave labor by a certain single corporation with no hope is downright laughable. I’m not saying there is never exploitation, but the examples of it would be very limited. The entire country would have so much wealth that poverty would be very low. Companies have to be competitive. They cannot abuse their workers and hope to remain viable. Uh huh. Exploitation would be the rare exception rather than the rule, huh? Just like throughout history, right? The rising tide floats all boats, does it? Too bad the rich peoples’ boats just get more and more palatial, while everybody else has to crowd onto the fewer and fewer crappy rafts remaining afloat. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > \ It would take quite a bit to undo the myths that you take as gospel about the “evils” of the market and the “benevolence” of government. You have to do that on your own. You can start by reading the Austrian literature. Once you understand how markets really work and the way in which history has been rewritten to benefit the establishment, you will see the light. “Myths” of the evils of the market?!!? To this I can only offer hysterical laughter. Please tell the child laborers and other literal wage slaves of your halcyon 19th century how lucky they really were to be exploited, worked into debilitation, injured and crippled, then cast aside and replaced by others. Hell, tell it to coal miners today, for whom, despite government “interference”, life isn’t markedly different from that of their forebears in the dawn of the industrial revolution. _You load sixteen tons, what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. Saint Peter, don’t you call me, 'cause I can’t go; I owe my soul to the company store._ This is the true ideal of free market advocates. You should perhaps lessen your blind adulation for your Austrian heroes and learn a bit more about the real world around you. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/488 "2010-08-29T20:46:06Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > You say the current rate of inflation is three tenths of a percent? Are you crazy? You believe government statistics? > > To answer the first question: yes. To answer the third: Most, not all. Two answer the second: various psychologists have disagreed about it. > Okay, I’ve read it. That article is from four years ago. I guess you must feel pretty embarrassed having tried to cite it as proof about the _current_ inflation rate. Maybe next time you try to cite something about current statistics you’ll check the date first. Ha Ha. Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha. > > Here’s a cite for the current inflation rate. > [http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/](http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/) Right, the consumer price index, which I have explained is a bullshit measurement of true inflation. It is not accurate. What makes that article from four years ago not applicable in relation to the inaccuracy of government statistics about inflation? > [@](#): > > Let’s consider a sentence: “mice are larger than elephants”. Most would agree that it’s false, but someone might say it’s true because they defined ‘mice’ as 6-ton animals with trunks, tusks, and huge ears, while defining ‘elephants’ as tiny animals with whiskers that like cheese. The point is that any sentence can be true if you use bogus definitions. But of course if you have to use bogus definitions to make a sentence true, then the sentence actually is, by sane standards, false. > > Inflation is a “sustained rise in prices”, and you can check this in any dictionary. If Ludwig von Mises gave a different definition for inflation, then his definition is wrong. I guess you should feel pretty embarrassed about being suckered by a wrong definition. Heck, that’s almost as embarrassing as using a cite from 2006 as proof about today’s inflation rate. Jesus Christ you are fucking clueless. Okay, how about this. What causes inflation? Do prices just magically go up for no reason one day? What causes the rising of prices? Right, the printing of money, the growth of the monetary base. This CAUSES prices to rise. Rising prices can be defined as inflation. The point I and the Austrians make is to focus on the cause of rising prices and all the harm that causes. Here, read this and put some much needed wisdom in your head for a change: > [@](#): > > On August 16, the U.S. government will debut of a new type of Consumer Price Index (CPI), one which it says will better reflect true inflation. Unlike the existing CPI, the new index will be subject to revisions as more detailed data become available. The regular CPI has long been criticized for overstating the actual rate of inflation. The hope is that, once the Fed is able to use more accurate information concerning general prices, it will be in a better position to use its tools to counter inflation. > > Is inflation about price rises? > The fundamental problem here is a failure to define the problem properly. For example, the definition of human action is not that people are engaged in all sorts of activities, but that they are engaged in purposeful activities–purpose gives rise to an action. > > Similarly, the essence of inflation is not a general rise in prices but an increase in the supply of money, which in turns sets in motion a general increase in the prices of goods and services. > > Consider the case of a fixed money supply. Whenever people increase their demand for some goods and services, money will be allocated toward other goods. Thus, the prices of some goods will increase–i.e., more money will be spent on them–while the prices of other goods will fall–i.e., less money will be spent on them. > > If the demand for money increases against goods and services, there will be a general fall in prices. In order for an economy to experience a general rise in prices, there must be an increase in the money stock. With more money and no change in money demand, people can now allocate a greater amount of money for all goods and services. > > From this we can conclude that inflation is a general increase in the money supply. > > As Mises explained in his essay “Inflation: An Unworkable Fiscal Policy”: > > “Inflation, as this term was always used everywhere and especially in this country, means increasing the quantity of money and bank notes in circulation and the quantity of bank deposits subject to check. But people today use the term `inflation’ to refer to the phenomenon that is an inevitable consequence of inflation, that is the tendency of all prices and wage rates to rise. The result of this deplorable confusion is that there is no term left to signify the cause of this rise in prices and wages. There is no longer any word available to signify the phenomenon that has been, up to now, called inflation. . . . As you cannot talk about something that has no name, you cannot fight it. Those who pretend to fight inflation are in fact only fighting what is the inevitable consequence of inflation, rising prices. Their ventures are doomed to failure because they do not attack the root of the evil. They try to keep prices low while firmly committed to a policy of increasing the quantity of money that must necessarily make them soar. As long as this terminological confusion is not entirely wiped out, there cannot be any question of stopping inflation.” > When inflation is seen as a general rise in prices, then anything that contributes to price increases is called inflationary. It is no longer the central bank and fractional-reserve banking that are the sources of inflation, but rather various other causes. In this framework, not only does the central bank have nothing to do with inflation, but, on the contrary, the bank is regarded, against all evidence, as an inflation fighter. > > Thus, a fall in unemployment or a rise in economic activity is seen as a potential inflationary trigger which therefore must be restrained by central-bank policies. Some other triggers, such as rises in commodity prices or workers wages, are also regarded as potential threats and therefore must always be under the watchful eye of the central bank. > > The popular definition cannot explain why inflation is bad > If inflation is just a general rise in prices, then why is it regarded as bad news? What kind of damage does it do? Mainstream economists maintain that inflation, which they label as general price increases, causes speculative buying, which generates waste. Inflation, it is maintained, also erodes the real incomes of pensioners and low-income earners and causes a misallocation of resources. > > Despite all these assertions regarding the side effects of inflation, mainstream economics doesn’t tell us how all these bad effects are caused. Why should a general rise in prices hurt some groups of people and not others? Why should a general rise in prices weaken real economic growth? Or how does inflation lead to the misallocation of resources? Moreover, if inflation is just a rise in prices, surely it is possible to offset its effects by adjusting everybody’s incomes in the economy in accordance with this general price increase. > > However, if we accept that inflation is an increase in the money supply, and not a rise in prices, all these assertions can be easily explained. It is not the symptoms of a disease but rather the disease itself that causes the physical damage. Likewise, it is not a general rise in prices but increases in the money supply that inflict the physical damage on wealth generators. > > … We need to understand the harm caused by inflation and attack the problem at the source, the creation of money and credit at the Federal Reserve system. > [@](#): > > Have I ever denied it? Then you would agree that we have very high levels of inflation, even if prices haven’t risen yet. Learn the true definition of inflation. Inflation is causing horrendous problems RIGHT NOW, but the CPI says there is no inflation. > [@](#): > > Originally you said that we were in a period of hyperinflation. Now it appears that you’ve retreated to the claim that we’re going to have hyperinflation in the future. Does this mean that you’re admitting that your original statement was wrong? If so, good on you. If you were willing to make similar admissions about everything else you’ve said, you might actually get a little respect around here. No I am explaining how the Fed can print so much money and how they can claim we have deflation at the moment. People who have a faulty definition of inflation, like yourself, don’t see the possible hyperinflation looming because prices are steady or even going down at present. According to the increase in the monetary base we have experienced very high levels of inflation. It won’t be hyperinflation until things get out of hand and prices shoot through the roof. Then people will experience the pain caused by Fed polices NOW. I am pointing out the follow of saying that there is no risk for inflation because prices are dropping slightly. That drop is the market trying to correct itself and price assets at their proper worth. The Fed won’t allow that, thus printing more and more paper money to prevent falling prices. That is how we can appear to be experiencing both deflation of prices and inflation of the currency. Prices will soar in the next couple of years, however, and nobody will deny the effects of inflation on the economy. > [@](#): > > Like I said earlier, your definition of inflation is wrong. Mine is right. Look in the dictionary if you don’t believe me. Okay, so what causes inflation? If you answer that the fed printing money, you made my point. If you reject that, you must things inflation has no cause, it merely happens for mysterious, unknown reasons. > [@](#): > > What makes you think that I missed it? Please be specific. That is inflation right there. Rising prices are INEVITABLE after that much printing of money. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Given the TRUE definition of inflation, are you sure you want to claim we don’t have inflation? > > Yes, given the true definition of inflation as “sustained rise in prices”, I am sure that I want to claim we don’t have it. Inflation is at a historic low right now and we are teetering on the edge of a deflationary spiral. As for your insistence that prices will rise, go right on saying and those of us who have a connection to economic reality will go right on ignoring you. Let me understand this correctly. You believe there is no correlation between printing money and rising prices? Is that correct? Are you even vaguely aware of how insane that it? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/489 "2010-08-29T21:02:00Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > There were abuses of free markets and government intervention even in the 19th century. And there was corporate abuse and fraud. There always has been. > > You, in your opening salvo, said: “Monopolies in a free market are traditionally very rare and almost never occur.” Then when I point out a long list of monopolies in the USA in the 19th century, which you’ve listed many times as a free economy, you say that it wasn’t a free economy after all. Are you hoping we won’t notice that you’re constantly posting new “facts” that contradict your original “facts”? > > Are you standing by your claim that “Monopolies in a free market are traditionally very rare and almost never occur”? If so, explain why I should believe it in light of the examples already cited. The trusts such as Standard Oil that took over industries in the late 19th century were not backed by the government. They were corporations that grew large enough to gobble up their competitors, sometimes using force when other tactics failed. They are a clear example of the fact that monopolies do exist in free economies, and plentiful other examples can be found in other countries. > > > [@](#): > > > > But the notion that poor exploited working class were able to escape the exploitative conditions of a “free” market is bullshit, plain and simple. This myth is drilled into our heads to make the notion of returning to a truly free economy unthinkable. You should read this excerpt from Human Action: > > > > [http://mises.org/daily/4604](http://mises.org/daily/4604) > > Okay, I’ve read the excerpt and it provides nothing to back you up in this debate. If anything it serves to prove the point that the conditions of the working poor were awful in the 19th century, prior to the time when the government stepped in to save them. It uses the word “deplorable” to describe conditions of factory workers. Other than that, of course, it’s so obvious that I don’t know why I should bother point out that the entire excerpt has barely any footnotes to back up its bizarre, untrue claims. > > You have a real problem with cites. Considering all the threads you’ve started, about half your links go to someone explain why blacks, Jews, or Mexicans should be exterminated and the other half go to things that don’t have any relationship to what you claim they say, or even say the opposite of what you’re claiming. Your inability to provide _any_ decent sources to back up _any_ of your claims would be hilarious enough even without your ludicrous boasting about your own intellectual dominance. > > Before you showed up on this board I sort of dismissed the Austrian school of economics as a sideshow, wrong, but no more wrong than any other group of economists. Now, thanks to your efforts, I am convinced that their policies are utterly crazy and that their supporters are driven mainly by racism. Some of what you are saying here is actually insane and offensive. What link did I EVER post that claimed that blacks, Jews and Mexicans should be exterminated? I provided quite a bit of links that back up what I am saying. We are dealing with economic schools of thought, therefore I am putting forth the material of Austrian theories so you can learn about it. If you are going to play the race care, you had better back it up with some facts. How are Austrian School economists driven by racism? > [@](#): > > Let’s go back to the issue of inflation for one moment. I note with a distinct lack of surprise that you skipped over one of my questions, apparently hoping that I and other readers wouldn’t notice. I asked you this: I look in the window of any bank and see long-term bonds going for rates of 2% or 3%. If there’s actually going to be significant inflation in the near future, why aren’t investors driving those rates up? If you’re going to brag about how you responded to every question, you need to answer that one. This point was addressed brilliantly by Guido Hulsmann, Professeur des Universités Faculté de Droit, d’Économie et de Gestion Université d’Angers France Listen: > [@](#): > > If I understand this point correctly, higher deficits need not be monetized (or not much) because of the current drop of T-bill rates. Therefore, the danger of inflation is limited. Well, this argument presupposes that it is always possible for political institutions such as the Fed to stabilize TB rates at the current low levels, or even decrease them. But this is wishful thinking. In the past 20 months, the US Treasury, along with the German treasury and a few others, have benefited from the fact that investors have been losing confidence in all other market participants. Therefore, their TB rates have declined while the rates of all others have increased, or are starting to increase. However, this group of beneficiaries shrinks by the day. > > Pressure is mounting for rates to go up, for three reasons: (1) there are more and more countries that have to pay higher rates, which will create pressure on T-bills and bonds precisely if and when the general situation seems to stabilize; (2) the supply of T-bills and bonds could dramatically increase if and when the general situation deteriorates, because the US and the German governments have started to act as financial problem-solvers of last resort; and (3) the return on investments in the “natural monies” gold and silver is outpacing the meager return offered by T-bills, and this at much lower risk. These facts are so glaringly obvious that even mainstream banks such as the Landesbank of Baden-Württemberg in Germany, Société Générale in France, or UBS in Switzerland are now hammering this point, to the benefit of their clients. See the latest installment of this wave of financial enlightenment. > > As soon as the rates of US T-bills and of bonds start increasing to a moderate crisis level of, say, 10 percent, all government budgets will be belly-up. Then the only remaining alternative will be between (I) US and German government default, entailing a deflationary meltdown of world financial markets, and (II) monetizing T-bills and bonds, which will very quickly bring us on the road of world hyperinflation . Make sense? More and more economists around the world are warning of hyperinflation and the collapse of the dollar. You should be listening. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/490 "2010-08-29T21:06:26Z")
> [@purplehorseshoe](#): > > How did a political debate about economics descend into anti-vax? It didn’t. John Mace brought it up from another thread I created. We don’t need to go off on that subject though. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/491 "2010-08-29T21:13:51Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Okay one by one, > > > > The panic of 1819 and 1837 was caused be the creation of the first and second banks of the United States, precursors to the Federal Reserve. Subsequently they were eliminated. > > And then you hand wave the rest of them away. The free markets and gold standard of the 1800’s were an economic disaster which you have utterly failed to address. Then what do you call the continuous bubbles and downturns during the 20th century? According to Wikipedia, there have been twenty recessions or depressions since 1913. Is that success? Plus the growth of government, the ballooning national debt and the continuous wars we have engaged in. The 19th century was not a perfect model of free markets and commodity money. There are many things that could be done better today. But a free market and honest money would provide a far better result than the Federal Reserve system has given us. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/492 "2010-08-29T21:19:01Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > I’ve beaten the vaccination issue to death already. But will you concede that there is a dramatic difference between vaccinating against a deadly contagious disease and a minor illness that a person is highly unlikely to get in the first place? Vaccinating against the flu? Why would I do that? I don’t mind getting the flu and considering I am extremely healthy and work out every day it is highly unlikely that I will sick. > > In the interests of fighting ignorance, you are dead wrong about this. Some strains of flu (for instance the one responsible for the 1917 pandemic) use the body’s immune system against itself, and are more deadly to those with good immune systems versus those with weak ones. In fact it spread initially in the US in army bases full of healthy, young recruits. If you think being healthy gives you immunity from this kind of flu, and do not get vaccinated, you are putting your life at risk. My wife who is a biologist and medical writer wrote and sold a book on the flu, which didn’t get published because the avian flu stubbornly refused to become a major epidemic. > > BTW, that flu was called the Spanish flu because the countries engaged in The Great War suppressed information on the extent of the outbreak, fearing it would make them seem weak. When it spread to Spain, which was neutral, the news got out. Okay, but what about my larger point? Can’t I have a rational concern that people are given too many vaccines? Aren’t the pharmaceutical companies making a bundle off of these things? What about the long term effects of vaccinations? If you claim there are certain illnesses that are deadly and people should be vaccinated, then that is a reasonable point. It is not reasonable to blindly support vaccinations for every single disease, including ones that people are highly unlikely to ever encounter. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/493 "2010-08-29T21:23:59Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Are you fucking retarded or something? Only a fool would claim that Greenspan, excepting his youth, was anywhere close to a libertarian or Austrian School follower. The Austrian School is against the existence of a Federal Reserve, yet you think a Fed chairman could be a follower? The purpose of the Fed is to intervene in the marketplace, artificially setting interest rates. > > > > Ron Paul, by the way, opposed Bernanke from the very beginning. He oppose Ronald Reagan and called him a traitor and a complete failure. And he certainly didn’t support Bush I, Clinton or Bush II. You really need to get your facts straight. > > > > The Austrian School advocates and true libertarians have opposed all economic policies of our government for decades. They have never had any allegiance to the Republican Party. I know its comforting for you to narrow anything down to a partisan war, but that is simplistic and doesn’t apply to the principled advocates of economic liberty. > > Shoot, and here I just posted something correcting your ignorance about the flu, ignorance which could be life threatening. > > Where did I claim that Greenspan was a follower of the Austrian school? Of course not - no Austrian could ever pass Congress to be Fed Chairman. Those who know anything would be laughing too hard to vote. I also never claimed he was a pure libertarian, but he certainly had those tendencies, resisting regulation of the mortgage industry even as it spun out of control. And care to support Paul’s claim? In your own words please, not with 20 paragraph cut and pastes. > > Paul opposing Bernanke shows what a moron Paul is. Bernanke is an expert on the Depression and responses to the Depression, which is damn lucky. I know you support letting the economy fall into a depression which would have caused untold hardship to untold millions to maintain the fiction that government can’t help, but luckily those in power feel some degree of responsibility to the people of the United States. Even Bush stepped back and supported what was right, even against the rabid right wing of his party, and it is one of the things I respect him for. > > As for Paul calling Regan a traitor, that just shows that the guy shouldn’t be in a Committee room, he should be in a rubber room. You know, there is some ignorance that is so deeply ingrained that rational discussion becomes counterproductive. I don’t know how to respond to such bullshit as “bernanke is an expert on the Great Depression”. He is a fraud and a phony. He is a corporatist and and has created economic ruin and he is leading us on the path to hyperinflation. How about this: Why did he fail to see this crisis coming? Watch this video: [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HQ79Pt2GNJo/hqdefault.jpg "Bernanke: Why are we still listening to this guy?") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ79Pt2GNJo) **I want you to respond to the above video specifically. Tell me precisely why you trust this guy given his track record?** ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/494 "2010-08-29T21:29:51Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > The Austrian School advocates and true libertarians have opposed all economic policies of our government for decades. They have never had any allegiance to the Republican Party. > > I’m sure that no True Scotsman would join the Republicans either. > > Or to be less subtle; whether you like to admit it or not, factions at least of the Republicans have again and again tried to push libertarian extreme free market fantasies into reality; in post conquest Iraq for example. Our occupation government slashed the ability of what passed for the Iraqi government to regulate or tax, and forbade any government attempt to begin rebuilding the government; under the theory that the Free Market would solve everything and turn Iraq into a capitalist paradise. What then happened in Iraq pretty much demonstrates why you don’t want to admit it; Iraq failed to turn into the free market paradise the libertarians expected and collapsed into a hellhole even worse than directly after the fighting. Companies did not rush in to do the work the free marketeers forbade the government from doing, nor did Iraq become wealthy and prosperous by letting foreigners own its resources and infrastructure against its will. Not only did the magic free market fail to do a better job than the government, it did nothing of use at all. This is astounding. How can you possibly think the disastrous Iraq war constitutes a fair trial of free market principles? It is utterly unbelievable that you can believe this bullshit. The Republican Party of the last quarter century has not significantly implemented true free market policies. Reagan adopted some libertarian sounding rhetoric, but his “supply side” economics were completely opposite of what the Austrians advocate. As has been said elsewhere, government grew much more under Republicans than Democrats. Now, the Republican Party of the fifties and sixties was much closer to libertarianism, but they were out of power and failed to enact any policies during that time. You need to get your facts straight. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/495 "2010-08-29T21:35:42Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@Voyager](#): > > > > If you are unaware that substantial amounts of the bailout money has already been paid back, I would suggest you abandon the publications who seem to find it inconvenient to publish this information. Now, it is true that much was paid in order to allow for big bonuses for execs, but it was paid, with interest. Will it be 100% paid back? Of course not - it was not meant to make a profit, but rather to prevent a further collapse, which it did. > > So, hows that recovery going? I’m sure not feeling it. The truth is they can always say how bad it would have been if they hadn’t done what they did, bailing everyone out. You are just taking their word for it. Is there some point where you would say, “maybe what they are doing is making it worse”?. That is the truth. Big companies and banks, with lots of political pull, got bailed out. They didn’t want to lose their personal wealth, so they made up some bullshit about how it would devastate the larger economy and things would be terrible. Do you understand the concept of allowing the correction to occur and why that is necessary? Why should we buy up toxic assets and dump them on the taxpayers? Nice job of trying to change the subject. So, you admit you were wrong about the bailout money being paid back? And we don’t have to guess what would have happened if the banks were allowed to fail. We could see the reaction of the market to Lehman failing, which is what made bailing out the rest imperative. Or do you refuse to acknowledge this, the way you refuse to acknowledge what the inflation rate is because it doesn’t support your biases? > [@](#): > > :eek: What? I don’t want to know what will happen when they hit their “target value” > > By the way, I have a target value of confiscating half your money every month. How does that sound? The target value is about 3%, which provides growth, encouragement to invest, and a number of other advantages. If you don’t know about this, you really have no business taking part in an economic argument. [quote] You should blame the people who created this crisis. The Austrians warned that we shouldn’t build this giant bubble in the first place. They are the ones who advocated that we take our bumps a decade or two ago, reduce our debt and reform the monetary system. We didn’t and now that the crisis that the Austrians correctly predicted has occurred, you still believe the predictions of the Keynesians? Are you crazy? [quote] I do blame the people who created this crisis, who are the anti-regulation anti-tax conservative Republicans. Keynes never said that you should run a deficit in times of prosperity. Good for the Austrians for predicting the problem, but Krugman did also. The people who ignored it were the banks, who were making a fortune, and the Republicans, who bought the banks’ argument that pulling their faces out of the trough would make them uncompetitive. Remember, before Bush cut taxes we had a surplus. That came about through traditional economics. > [@](#): > > Allowing the liquidation of debt and malinvestment and having the correction and doing the proper things to reform the system will allow a MUCH shorten down turn. Haven’t you read about the New Deal causing the Depression to be much longer than necessary? The blue print for current policies is one that caused the great depression to last more than fifteen years. Yes, I read that claim and consider it to be a pile of crap. You’ve already been shown, and have ignored, the data showing unemployment decreased with New Deal policies, only increasing again when FDR was convinced to try to balance the budget. You’ve also ignored the inconvenient fact that letting the economy fend for itself for 3 years after the crash only made things worse. You are like the rainmaker who will take credit for the rain no matter how long it takes to show up after his dance. > [@](#): > > Do you want a depression or do you want hyperinflation? I’ll take neither, thanks. > [@](#): > > No, in fact Hellestal did not “refute” the notion that the Austrians explained the Great Depression. Mises predicted the crash of 1929 and Keynes lost his personal fortune in it! Doesn’t that tell you something? Yes, it tells me you don’t even understand what Keynes said. He was talking about how to deal with a crash, not how to predict one. > [@](#): > > You talk about the “stability” for a couple decades following the great depression, but what about the debt? If we are comparing the 19th century to the 20th, what about the devaluation of the dollar? What about the number of wars we engaged in? The number of minor downturns, or market corrections, is immaterial compared to the cumulative debt and devaluation of the currency and the balancing (or lack of) of the budget. What about the debt? The debt, very large from WW II, decreased steadily in the '50s due to a high tax rate and prosperity - very Keynsian. It only became a big problem due to Reagan and his tax cutting, and an even bigger one with Bush’s tax cutting, neither of which was necessary to combat a slump. > [@](#): > > Government does have strong control of our currency. I favor a gold standard to reduce that power. Then I want private currencies to circulate as well. I WANT a free market in banking, which we don’t have today. > > If you think a system of honest money is socialistic in any way, you are crazy. Back in the good old days you could be arrested for selling gold for higher than the government price. (Or it was at least illegal.) The government of course influences the price of our currency in a number of ways, but it cannot control what the currency traders do. The market provides valuable information about the state of the economy and trade, something beyond what a few politicians and administrators setting the value of the dollar are able to do. Why do you think they can do a better job than the market? If you don’t understand that government control of prices and the market is socialistic, (not socialism per se) you don’t understand much. As for private currencies, how exactly do you propose to prevent the issuance of bad money? And does your free market in banking look anything like the free market we had in the 1980’s, which led to that crisis, or the one in the '20s, which led to bank runs? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/496 "2010-08-29T21:36:58Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > You could definitely learn a thing or two about competing currencies. I don’t blame you for not understanding it, most people have never given it any thought. > > > > **Legalize Competing Currencies > > By Ron Paul**: > > > > And this: > > > > **Competing currency being accepted across Mid-Michigan** : > > by Dan Armstrong > > I don’t suppose you noticed that your second quote utterly discredited the first one? We **don’t** need to legalize contradicting currencies, because -guess what?- _They’re already legal_. You can’t make your new junk look like an impersonation of US coins (they should also not be similar enough in size and shape to fool vending machines), but if you don’t do that, you can sell and accept trade of anything that anyone is willing to barter with you. This is already true. To bad that Ron Paul is too ignorant of economics, the market, and reality to realize this, as you yourself just proved (with a cite!). > > Or perhaps your/his problem is that the US hasn’t forced all vendors to accept gold and silver as legal tender? You want to buy a candy bar with a gold coin? How small a coin? If I wanted to run a garage sale, would I have to have a precisely accurate scale to weigh your gold shavings? What foolishness. > I will also note that nothing in what you posted even _attempted_ to refute anything I said. No possible explanation for this is complimentary to you. Though they do make the balls you show in coming in and claiming that _ **I** _ lack understanding of competing currencies especially ironic. Excrutiatingly so. > > When come back (and you apparently will), do try and bring less fail. And quote people with less fail too. The point was, and I should have made this more clear, that competing currencies ARE illegal. That doesn’t stop some people from doing it anyway. The fact that some people have so little faith in the dollar that they would ignore the law and use competing currencies gives credence to my larger point about the economy. But yeah, the point is competing currencies ARE illegal. These small town experiments are very small scale and infrequent because otherwise the participants get arrested. The point is that despite government prohibitions, a sufficient demand creates an underground market for things that are desired. We need to repeal legal tender laws. Don’t ever claim that Ron Paul doesn’t understand economics. That shows the level of ignorance you possess. Read more on the subject of competing currencies and legal tender laws. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/497 "2010-08-29T21:42:39Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Its not right wing. Its the Constitution. Its following the advice of the founders. Its protecting individual liberty. Its being antiwar except when we are attacked. Its balancing the budget and providing checks and balances to prevent abuses. > > > > Its only radical to a mind that has been utterly brainwashed by statist propaganda. The greatest minds of the last five hundred years have written and spoken eloquently about the value of human liberty and the necessity to restrain the power of government from abusing the natural rights (or God given rights, if you are religious) of the people. > > How can you be so sure that you yourself have not been utterly brainwashed? If you are going to throw out such accusations, you have to be prepared to defend the inevitable riposte. Because most, if not all of the mainstream propaganda in the media and public schools is on the opposite side of liberty. To arrive at the positions I hold I need to read a lot and put forth effort to learn the truth. I _could_ still be brainwashed (from your perspective) but it is less likely. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/498 "2010-08-29T21:46:36Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > You know, there is some ignorance that is so deeply ingrained that rational discussion becomes counterproductive. I don’t know how to respond to such bullshit as “bernanke is an expert on the Great Depression”. He is a fraud and a phony. He is a corporatist and and has created economic ruin and he is leading us on the path to hyperinflation. How about this: > > Why did he fail to see this crisis coming? Watch this video: > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ79Pt2GNJo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ79Pt2GNJo) > **I want you to respond to the above video specifically. Tell me precisely why you trust this guy given his track record?** What part of “appointed by Bush” don’t you understand? Did Paul call for action to deflate the housing bubble? If not, he is attacking Bernanke for the stuff he did right, not the stuff he (and Greenspan) got wrong. None of which has anything to do with the cold hard fact that he did major research on the Depression, and is an expert by any criteria - though he no doubt disputes that leaving things around would have fixed it, and is thus a heretic to your faith. And why is Reagan a traitor again? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/499 "2010-08-29T21:47:14Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > > [@purplehorseshoe](#): > > > > How did a political debate about economics descend into anti-vax? > > Somebody doesn’t like Digital Equipment computers?? Oh, you mean anti-_vaccination_! 😃 > > Blame me for this. In a previous manifesto OP declared that any compulsory vaccination program was wrong. I didn’t consider vaccination to be an important issue, but thought that it would be a good example to refute the more extreme forms of libertarianism. But no matter how much we discussed this, _ **OP never grasped that society forces his kids to be vaccinated in order to protect my kids** _. But now he pretends he knew that all along. > > Similarly he wrote “Keynesians like deficits” or some such gibberish, and now revises this to “Kenesians like deficits during recessions.” > > I hope OP reads this and learns that to foster an impression of intelligence, one must take the time to think and write carefully. I am not changing my position. I always believe that mandatory vaccination is wrong. Voluntary vaccination is fine and there are some things that should be vaccinated against in certain cases. There is no flip flopping on this position. And Keynesian policies create deficits. Period. Whether they like it or not is immaterial. If you are trying to catch me being hypocritical you had better find something substantial and address the main points. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/500 "2010-08-29T21:58:58Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Okay, but what about my larger point? Can’t I have a rational concern that people are given too many vaccines? Not until you provide scientific evidence of what constitutes “too many.” > [@jrodefeld](#): > > Aren’t the pharmaceutical companies making a bundle off of these things? Possibly. It tends to depend on the amount of money they spent on R&D plus testing vs how much they can recover through sales. Can you provide actual details of companies “making a bundle” off vaccines (along with evidence that money made from low-cost vaccines, (if there are any) is not used to offset the expenses of drugs for cancer, etc.? > [@jrodefeld](#): > > What about the long term effects of vaccinations? Do you have any examples of such? (Preferably from someone other than Jenny McCarthy or the quacks she tends to cite.) > [@jrodefeld](#): > > If you claim there are certain illnesses that are deadly and people should be vaccinated, then that is a reasonable point. It is not reasonable to blindly support vaccinations for every single disease, including ones that people are highly unlikely to ever encounter. This might possibly be true, but then, what are your guidelines for diseases against which we are ordering massive vaccinations that are unlikely to be encountered? (In my experience, we do not vaccinate against rabies, for example, except those people who are going to work for extended periods with wild animals with known vectors, (_e.g._, bat researchers). Similarly, vaccines against Typhoid and similar diseases are routinely offered to people traveling to world locations where such diseases are prevalent and are not generally administered (or even offered) to people staying in the U.S.) Is your hypothetical based on anything that actually occurs in the real world?) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=26)