Ron Paul on dollars and war.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to bbartlog on the comments at Henley's blog.
That is all.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
How Cute
Dick Morris worries that the Rudy Giuliani might not get the GOP nomination.
As a Rudy-disliker, I am happy with this, of course.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Daniel Larison.
That is all.
As a Rudy-disliker, I am happy with this, of course.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Daniel Larison.
That is all.
The Editors at National Review Don't Get It
Being worried about Federal Reserve policy and its recent rate cuts, they neglect to understand that this is the problem with the Federal Reserve itself.
The rest of the world saw this capitulation to the market’s nervous Nellies as inflationary, and became less willing to hold dollars. If the Fed had acted correctly, responding to the state of the economy rather than to a state of mind, the dollar would be stronger today, and closer to its intrinsic value.
What does "the intrinsic value" of the dollar mean? The dollar is worth what you can get for it. If the dollar loses value, it loses "intrinsic value." There is no platonic dollar to which our dollar aspires. People often accuse goldbugs of not understanding money and of thinking that gold has some magic value that makes it "real" money (we don't, but that's an issue for another day). Obviously, some fiat-bugs have this problem.
Small deviations from free-market principle can have outsized consequences.
Government-imposed fiat money is a deviation from the free-market. Honestly, I fail to see how one can characterize any of our government's policies as "small deviations" from the free market. Unless one is an anarchist or severe minarchist, one will invariably be offering rather large deviations from the free market. It is ridiculous to portray the free market as delicate and at the same time advocate a large, activist government at any level.
In particular, once you accept a large, ultimately government-controlled bank as the institution which controls the supply of currency, how you can discriminate betwen their policies as free market and non-free market is beyond me. Arguing that its policy should respond "to the state of the economy rather than to a state of mind" is arguing about how it should interfere with the economy, not about whether it should.
That is all.
The rest of the world saw this capitulation to the market’s nervous Nellies as inflationary, and became less willing to hold dollars. If the Fed had acted correctly, responding to the state of the economy rather than to a state of mind, the dollar would be stronger today, and closer to its intrinsic value.
What does "the intrinsic value" of the dollar mean? The dollar is worth what you can get for it. If the dollar loses value, it loses "intrinsic value." There is no platonic dollar to which our dollar aspires. People often accuse goldbugs of not understanding money and of thinking that gold has some magic value that makes it "real" money (we don't, but that's an issue for another day). Obviously, some fiat-bugs have this problem.
Small deviations from free-market principle can have outsized consequences.
Government-imposed fiat money is a deviation from the free-market. Honestly, I fail to see how one can characterize any of our government's policies as "small deviations" from the free market. Unless one is an anarchist or severe minarchist, one will invariably be offering rather large deviations from the free market. It is ridiculous to portray the free market as delicate and at the same time advocate a large, activist government at any level.
In particular, once you accept a large, ultimately government-controlled bank as the institution which controls the supply of currency, how you can discriminate betwen their policies as free market and non-free market is beyond me. Arguing that its policy should respond "to the state of the economy rather than to a state of mind" is arguing about how it should interfere with the economy, not about whether it should.
That is all.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Good Point at TPMCafe
One big reason for the housing crisis (specficially in this case the crisis for African-Americans), is that we were encouraging people to buy homes who shouldn't have done so - at least at the time (alternately, we encouraged those who had reason to buy a home to buy a bigger home than they could reasonably afford.
There's a great comment on the post pointing out that a house is a depreciating asset (i.e. not an investment in the traditional sense). This is why it is stupid to buy houses with the intent of making money on them. Yes, it is a good idea to make certain that when you buy a house, should the need arise you can sell it and so not "eat" the entire price of the house; but buying a house primarily with the intent to sell it when the price rises is, in most cases, insane. And in any sane economy, very few people are in a position where doing so is a reasonable plan.
That is all.
There's a great comment on the post pointing out that a house is a depreciating asset (i.e. not an investment in the traditional sense). This is why it is stupid to buy houses with the intent of making money on them. Yes, it is a good idea to make certain that when you buy a house, should the need arise you can sell it and so not "eat" the entire price of the house; but buying a house primarily with the intent to sell it when the price rises is, in most cases, insane. And in any sane economy, very few people are in a position where doing so is a reasonable plan.
That is all.
Monday, November 12, 2007
More on the Gold Standard
I'll have to try to discuss these articles later, you know, after I discuss all of the other things I planned to discuss but never got around to.
Jim Henley, Megan McArdle, Tyler Cowen.
Suffice it to say, I agree with Ron Paul and disagree with those cited above.
That is all.
Jim Henley, Megan McArdle, Tyler Cowen.
Suffice it to say, I agree with Ron Paul and disagree with those cited above.
That is all.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Friday, November 09, 2007
Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery
Mitt's, Huck's, and Arthur Branch's friends are trying to repeat the November 5 success of Ron.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to LewRockwell blog here and here.
That is all.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to LewRockwell blog here and here.
That is all.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Kucinich vs. Ron Paul
I have read a lot of people asking why Ron Paul is getting so much support but not Dennis Kucinich. After all, Kucinich's idea are not that much more "wacky" than PAul's, and he is also antiwar? Why the tremendous appeal of Paul to conservatives (and perhaps some liberal crossovers) but no such appeal for Kucinich?
I think there are several reasons, but the primary one is that Dennis Kucinich is not really to the Democrats what Paul is to the GOP. Kucinich is more like their Tancredo, a more purified. distilled version of what hte other Democrats believe, or claim to.
All of the Democrats in the race are antiwar or pretend to be (you can determine who you think is which for yourselves). At best, Kucinich can claim to be the more genuine liberal, sort of a reverse of Alan Keyes in 2000. Dissatisfied Democrats can still get a half-loaf with the other candidates with a better chance of winning.
But on the single most important issue of the last few years, the Iraq War, Ron Paul is the only candidate to speak up for the right wing antiwarrior. People who cannot stomach the Democrats but who want a humble foreign policy have only one choice. Listening to Paul at a Republican debate is far more electrifying than listening to Kucinich, because he stands against the entire pack of competitors.
Kucinich and Paul? Kucinich is, as far as I can tell, a good and sincere person, albeit one whose ideas are far more left-wing than mine. But he is not the Democratic version of Paul.
That is all.
I think there are several reasons, but the primary one is that Dennis Kucinich is not really to the Democrats what Paul is to the GOP. Kucinich is more like their Tancredo, a more purified. distilled version of what hte other Democrats believe, or claim to.
All of the Democrats in the race are antiwar or pretend to be (you can determine who you think is which for yourselves). At best, Kucinich can claim to be the more genuine liberal, sort of a reverse of Alan Keyes in 2000. Dissatisfied Democrats can still get a half-loaf with the other candidates with a better chance of winning.
But on the single most important issue of the last few years, the Iraq War, Ron Paul is the only candidate to speak up for the right wing antiwarrior. People who cannot stomach the Democrats but who want a humble foreign policy have only one choice. Listening to Paul at a Republican debate is far more electrifying than listening to Kucinich, because he stands against the entire pack of competitors.
Kucinich and Paul? Kucinich is, as far as I can tell, a good and sincere person, albeit one whose ideas are far more left-wing than mine. But he is not the Democratic version of Paul.
That is all.
When Farah's Right, He's Right
On the Robertson sell-out.
I totally agree with him about hte family channel. Some of the movies and shows they have shown on there since Robertson sold it do not belong on any network calling itself "family."
Granted, I am not denying that I watch some racy shows (Rescue Me, for example). But FX does not claim to be "family-friendly." I think that Robertson has sold everything out for power and influence.
That is all.
I totally agree with him about hte family channel. Some of the movies and shows they have shown on there since Robertson sold it do not belong on any network calling itself "family."
Granted, I am not denying that I watch some racy shows (Rescue Me, for example). But FX does not claim to be "family-friendly." I think that Robertson has sold everything out for power and influence.
That is all.
More on Constitutional Plan B
Ballot access for the Constitution Party as of 10/31/07, according to Ballot Access News:
Changes:
Petitioning for Missouri and Arkansas is done.
Iowa, South Dakota, and West Virginia are all further along in their petition drive, although this does not change the map color at all.
That is all.
Changes:
Petitioning for Missouri and Arkansas is done.
Iowa, South Dakota, and West Virginia are all further along in their petition drive, although this does not change the map color at all.
That is all.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Monday, November 05, 2007
There's Still Time
To donate to Ron Paul on November 5th, towards his goal of making this the biggest fundraising day for a presidential candidate EVER!
That is all.
That is all.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Friday, November 02, 2007
Once More About Andrew Sullivan
A few months ago I wrote:
It is obvious from the context that he considers any Christian who actually believes the Bible to be a "Christianist," one who perverts Christianity into his own political philosophy, whereas authentic Christianity, in Sullivan's mind, is apparently that which okays whatever his "personal experiences" tell him is okay.
Well, in a recent post, Sully approvingly quotes a reader:
Your reader is right to say that Jesus came to bring division to the land. The problem with this fellow is that he is on the wrong side of the divide. Jesus did not condemn homosexuals. He stands with them, not against them... I empathize with your reader's dilemma in attempting to be a good Christian while asserting the immorality of homosexuality, but in the end, this is not possible. He is trying to be good. Unfortunately, he is simply wrong, as are those portions of the Bible which make such charges.
In other words, to be a good Christian, you must reject certain portions of the Bible. How you determine what these portions are is not mentioned, but I have a feeling that any passage that doesn't celebrate every possible sexual expression is fair game.
There is also more of the inane equating of love with approval:
[Jesus] stands in radical contrast to these attitudes. He did indeed bring about division, by rejecting intolerance and embracing the approach of unconditional love.
Jesus never preached unconditional approval of all personal behavior, which is what this person is equating with love. Nor was he particularly tolerant. In fact, in areas where he reinterpreted Old Testament Law (reinterpreted from the standard interpretations present at that place in time) he often interpreted it more strictly than was common in Israel at that time. (Don't look with lust, don't yell at your neighbor).
If this is apparently what passes for Christian teaching amongst a lot of people in the U.S. today, we are in for some serious problems.
That is all.
It is obvious from the context that he considers any Christian who actually believes the Bible to be a "Christianist," one who perverts Christianity into his own political philosophy, whereas authentic Christianity, in Sullivan's mind, is apparently that which okays whatever his "personal experiences" tell him is okay.
Well, in a recent post, Sully approvingly quotes a reader:
Your reader is right to say that Jesus came to bring division to the land. The problem with this fellow is that he is on the wrong side of the divide. Jesus did not condemn homosexuals. He stands with them, not against them... I empathize with your reader's dilemma in attempting to be a good Christian while asserting the immorality of homosexuality, but in the end, this is not possible. He is trying to be good. Unfortunately, he is simply wrong, as are those portions of the Bible which make such charges.
In other words, to be a good Christian, you must reject certain portions of the Bible. How you determine what these portions are is not mentioned, but I have a feeling that any passage that doesn't celebrate every possible sexual expression is fair game.
There is also more of the inane equating of love with approval:
[Jesus] stands in radical contrast to these attitudes. He did indeed bring about division, by rejecting intolerance and embracing the approach of unconditional love.
Jesus never preached unconditional approval of all personal behavior, which is what this person is equating with love. Nor was he particularly tolerant. In fact, in areas where he reinterpreted Old Testament Law (reinterpreted from the standard interpretations present at that place in time) he often interpreted it more strictly than was common in Israel at that time. (Don't look with lust, don't yell at your neighbor).
If this is apparently what passes for Christian teaching amongst a lot of people in the U.S. today, we are in for some serious problems.
That is all.
Strange Case
This is a strange case. Apparently, a judge decided that raping a prostitute constituted simple theft.
The argument for this, of course, is that she had already agreed to have sex with him, he just made her do it without getting paid, so in essence he simply took her money away. Yes, a woman can change her mind, but she didn't change her mind about the sex except to the extent that she didn't want to do it without pay. So in essence, the only difference between what she would have done and what he forced her to do is the lack of pay.
I think the relevant distinctions here are (a) the man took out the gun to force her to have sex rather than after sex in order to force her to leave without getting paid. So in essence, he didn't rob her of money, he forced her to do work after she said she would not. Forcing service under the threat of bodily harm is more akin to slavery than theft. (b) He forced to have sex with four men when she had only agreed to have sex with two. Seeing as she had never consented to having sex with more than two men, it cannot be said that she would have if he had paid her; therefore, the net effect may have been more than just taking away her revenue.
That is all.
The argument for this, of course, is that she had already agreed to have sex with him, he just made her do it without getting paid, so in essence he simply took her money away. Yes, a woman can change her mind, but she didn't change her mind about the sex except to the extent that she didn't want to do it without pay. So in essence, the only difference between what she would have done and what he forced her to do is the lack of pay.
I think the relevant distinctions here are (a) the man took out the gun to force her to have sex rather than after sex in order to force her to leave without getting paid. So in essence, he didn't rob her of money, he forced her to do work after she said she would not. Forcing service under the threat of bodily harm is more akin to slavery than theft. (b) He forced to have sex with four men when she had only agreed to have sex with two. Seeing as she had never consented to having sex with more than two men, it cannot be said that she would have if he had paid her; therefore, the net effect may have been more than just taking away her revenue.
That is all.
Dishonesty at WorldNetDaily
The gist of the facts presented in Aaron Klein's article on WorldNetDaily are that by going to foreign countries and bad-mouthing our president, celebrities are doing things that plese terrorists.
But Aaron Klein's use of the term "urging terrorists on" obviously gives the implication that these celebrities are actually telling terrorists to attack us, which is a lie.
There is also the not-so-subtle implication that criticizing Bush is tantamount to supporting the terrorists.
Despicable.
That is all.
But Aaron Klein's use of the term "urging terrorists on" obviously gives the implication that these celebrities are actually telling terrorists to attack us, which is a lie.
There is also the not-so-subtle implication that criticizing Bush is tantamount to supporting the terrorists.
Despicable.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)