[remnant]

Yes, people generally prefer free public education to private education they have to pay for. That doesn't make the former a monopoly.

I don't know if you are being purposely obtuse or just dumb.

It's not clear what any of this is supposed to mean

question answered

particularly the business about "every child attends school with a certain amount of cash," but it's not a felony to send your kid to private school, and nobody is "forced" to send their kid to public school. Those assertions are factually incorrect.

If you are going to defend the current education model, learn how it works. Schools are paid a certain amount per student by the fed. Instead of having the money traveling with the child, the money is sent to whatever district the child lives in. That is one barrier preventing a child from traveling to a different school.

Also public school lobby's control how many alternative, online, charter and sometimes private schools are allowed in certain regions and areas.

It's a crime to lie about your residence in Ohio = public school monopoly? I think you need to think through your posts a bit more.

What ohio state law deems it a crime worth prison time and back 30k tution for lying about residence. it's clearly due to the school policies, and preventing consumers from accessing a different provider is a classic example of monopoly practices.

if the public school system had a weighted model, and not the restrictive monopoly system based on zoning we have today, she could send her kids wherever she wanted. She can't however. The public school in her area controls what school her child goes to, and how many private alternatives are allowed in that area.

If a private business did what that school district did, what would you call it?

So what? Do you have a problem with states rights? Ron Paul sure doesn't. As I said, I would cross-state competition with a uniform national minimum standard to prevent a race to the bottom. Now that JayDubya's here this thread might get crazy.

States wouldn't be able to block providers from crossing state lines. It would be unconstitutional for the states to prevent their residents from buying services from another state. That law can't operate on a state level.

Tax the wealthy.

inflation doesn't decrease with new revenue.

[XMonkey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyDexSQO0dA http://www.journalism.org/numbers_re...oring_ron_paul No, he does not get as much coverage.

You should read what I wrote a bit closer. I admitted he doesn't get fair media coverage. I also think that's wrong. But it is not the reason he has such little support in polls and why he doesn't get any kind of sizable percentage of votes, election after election. His views are simply unpopular among the American electorate, despite what libertarians like to think.

----

On a sidenote, what is it with libertarians and inflation. If you listen to them you'd think any moment now we're going to be crushed under spiraling inflation, when that's not the case at all.

[Flying_Phoenix]

You should read what I wrote a bit closer. I admitted he doesn't get fair media coverage. I also think that's wrong. But it is not the reason he has such little support in polls and why he doesn't get any kind of sizable percentage of votes, election after election. His views are simply unpopular among the American electorate, despite what libertarians like to think.

While I'm hardly a libertarian, I will have to disagree with this. Paul is the third most popular Republican presidential nominee. Its insane that others who are much less popular then he is get so much more coverage. Its no secret that the media doesn't like "radical" thinking politicians.

[Ridleyscott]

Tax the wealthy.

Won't work because there won't be any wealthy to tax, our money would be destroyed. Our paper dollars are going to be worthless because our government keeps printing money to pay for overspending - that is why the prices are going up.

[Matthew Gallant]

There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.

Remember, this is in reference to Lawrence v. Texas, Lawrence's complaint was that it was legal for a man and a woman to have anal sex, but not for two men. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution violated the 14th amendment, which leaves Ron Paul in the position of saying that it was the right of Texas to violate the 14th amendment because state's rights are more important than the federal government protecting an individual's liberty.

[XMonkey]

While I'm hardly a libertarian, I will have to disagree with this. Paul is the third most popular Republican presidential nominee. Its insane that others who are much less popular then he is get so much more coverage. Its no secret that the media doesn't like "radical" thinking politicians.

We're a year and some months away from the election. When you include Perry in the polls, Ron Paul doesn't do that favorably: http://www.gallup.com/poll/148664/Ro...andidates.aspx

I'd probably ignore Palin in that list because she won't run, but her supporters aren't going to jump to Paul's camp.

I'll say this, I do hope Ron decides to run as a Libertarian for the election once he loses the GOP nomination. It would almost ensure that Obama wins.

[remnant]

---- On a sidenote, what is it with libertarians and inflation. If you listen to them you'd think any moment now we're going to be crushed under spiraling inflation, when that's not the case at all.

Inflation is not going to rise noticeably now because there has yet to be supply shock.

[Ridleyscott]

You should read what I wrote a bit closer. I admitted he doesn't get fair media coverage. I also think that's wrong. But it is not the reason he has such little support in polls and why he doesn't get any kind of sizable percentage of votes, election after election. His views are simply unpopular among the American electorate, despite what libertarians like to think.

Ron Paul has won the CPAC straw poll (CPAC is huge but FOX decided to "accidentally" air the clip from 2010 instead of 2011 with audible boos when Paul's name was announced - FOX writes-off CPAC cause RP won) two years in a row, won the New Orleans RLC Straw Poll in a landslide, has polled nationally as having the best chance to beat Obama in 3 different polls, coming in 2nd or 3rd in just about every poll of likely republican voters (doesn't include independents/democrats), practically tied for 1st in Iowa by less than 1% of the vote, etc. etc. - type into Google: Ron Paul wins straw poll.

Typical polling is inaccurate, especially at this point in the race for at least two reasons: 1) most of them only use land-line phones; 2) The vast majority of the people haven't even begun thinking about who they are voting for - all they can see at this point and what most of them will probably ever see is who is getting media coverage. To use traditional polling at this point in the race is completely pointless when you also consider that most people's minds are made-up late in the race after the media has already chosen who the candidates are via giving them the most air-time and creating a cult of personality - exactly what was done with Obama.

On a sidenote, what is it with libertarians and inflation. If you listen to them you'd think any moment now we're going to be crushed under spiraling inflation, when that's not the case at all.

When government prints money to pay-off debt it depreciates the currency which is why we are paying $4.00/gal for gas and why gold is at $1850/oz. That is inflation... in 2008, gold was around $900/oz - that is a loss of 50% of purchasing power in 3-4 years.

[cagelessrat]

Blocked by mod_slotlimit. More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

The homepage keeps going down because of traffic. I'm getting it to work now. If it's not, try secure.ronpaul2012.com

I'll say this, I do hope Ron decides to run as a Libertarian for the election once he loses the GOP nomination. It would almost ensure that Obama wins.

My bad for misreading your post.
Is it Obama's extension/expansion of Bush's foreign policy, the renewal of the Patriot Act, or something else that makes you want him to be reelected?
That said, you're right in one aspect...Republican leadership needs to realize that Paul has more supporters than he did in 2007/8...and most of us are not willing to vote for someone else if Paul loses the nomination. It makes no difference to me if Romney, Perry, or Obama is in office. They all have the same philosophy...more government.

[Ridleyscott]

About $70,000 to go to meet the $1.5 million goal.

[scorcho]

Won't work because there won't be any wealthy to tax, our money would be destroyed. Our paper dollars are going to be worthless because our government keeps printing money to pay for overspending - that is why the prices are going up.

prices aren't going up because the Fed 'keeps printing money to pay for overspending.' it's up because of oil speculation pushing up the price of crude, which consequently effects the cost of food production and, obviously, its price on the market.

[Ridleyscott]

prices aren't going up because the Fed 'keeps printing money to pay for overspending.' it's up because of oil speculation pushing up the price of crude, which consequently effects the cost of food production and, obviously, its price on the market.

No, its inflation. Look at Gold and Silver. The news is trying to hide the fact that there is price inflation going on because of our debt so they blame high gas prices on OPEC and "Speculators". What people are speculating on is the diminishing purchasing power of the dollar which is why countries all over the world are on the verge of completely rejecting the dollar standard and are buying precious metals and commodities. That is the big secret that the Media and government is trying to hide from you, which is why the Blatant media bias against RP (Don't just read the link, watch it). Every time he goes on TV he explains what the problem is and how to fix it but they don't want you to hear it.

Look at my link on page 10 of RP calling in detail the housing bubble back in 2001. In 2008 the GOP laughed at Paul when he warned of the credit bubble, which is about to burst now, which is why the debt-ceiling circus.

[Flying_Phoenix]

We're a year and some months away from the election. When you include Perry in the polls, Ron Paul doesn't do that favorably: http://www.gallup.com/poll/148664/Ro...andidates.aspx

He's right behind Michelle Bachmann, someone the media won't shut up about. And those on the lower list are still talked about more than Paul.

I can't believe that I'm defending Ron Paul...

[XMonkey]

Ron Paul has won the CPAC straw poll (CPAC is huge but FOX decided to "accidentally" air the clip from 2010 instead of 2011 with audible boos when Paul's name was announced - FOX writes-off CPAC cause RP won) two years in a row, won the New Orleans RLC Straw Poll in a landslide, has polled nationally as having the best chance to beat Obama in 3 different polls, coming in 2nd or 3rd in just about every poll of likely republican voters (doesn't include independents/democrats), practically tied for 1st in Iowa by less than 1% of the vote, etc. etc. - type into Google: Ron Paul wins straw poll. Typical polling is inaccurate, especially at this point in the race for at least two reasons: 1) most of them only use land-line phones; 2) The vast majority of the people haven't even begun thinking about who they are voting for - all they can see at this point and what most of them will probably ever see is who is getting media coverage. To use traditional polling at this point in the race is completely pointless when you also consider that most people's minds are made-up late in the race after the media has already chosen who the candidates are via giving them the most air-time and creating a cult of personality - exactly what was done with Obama.

You typed up that whole first paragraph extolling all the polls Paul has won, then went on to try and discredit polls in the second paragraph. I know that he came in 2nd in the Iowa straw poll and I honestly don't care much because those votes are basically bought by the candidates. As for landline phones, you might want to rethink your point. If anything, it does a disservice to democrats. I've conceded there is media bias against Ron Paul, but I won't concede that's what is holding him back from the White House.

But hey, let's both agree that polls taken now are silly. I'm ok with that. The American electorate has a terrible long term memory. But, I'll also go further and make a friendly bet that Ron Paul's support in these early polls will diminish as the GOP primary gets in full swing and the two heavyweights, Romney and Perry, emerge to lead the pack. We'll see who's right in a year or so.


Do you think Ron Paul's economic policies would have a significant effect on lowering the price of gas? It's a finite resource that is declining in supply the longer time goes on. Growing demand from China and India is only going to make it a more scarce resource and we're going to run out of all the cheap ways to refine and extract it sooner, rather than later. Shale oil and the like that's currently causing all the boom in North Dakota is really only profitable when oil is around $100/barrel. All I've read so far is that Paul wants to get rid of the gas tax, which would make our already shitty infrastructure worse.

My bad for misreading your post. Is it Obama's extension/expansion of Bush's foreign policy, the renewal of the Patriot Act, or something else that makes you want him to be reelected? That said, you're right in one aspect...Republican leadership needs to realize that Paul has more supporters than he did in 2007/8...and most of us are not willing to vote for someone else if Paul loses the nomination. It makes no difference to me if Romney, Perry, or Obama is in office. They all have the same philosophy...more government.

I went over this with Ridleyscott pages ago and it seems to be a common argument from libertarians trying to convince democrats to vote for Paul. I may agree with Paul on 20% of his platform, but I'm not somehow going to ignore the other 80% of his platform that I dislike merely because he wants to stop the pointless wars (and you'll find that's actually a pretty common sentiment among a lot of Americans).

Not just that, but we have fundamentally different views on government. He wants the bare minimum, I don't. He wants to leave controversial issues like abortion and gay marriage up to the states, I sure as hell don't. I want government-run health care single-payer style. He not only wants the opposite of that, but to phase out Medicare and Social Security. These are the reasons Democrats and progressives don't want to vote for him.

For the record, I don't agree with what Obama has done extending much of the same executive powers that Bush implemented. It's probably the one area I'm most disappointed in him, actually. I'm also not very enthusiastic about Obama right now in general (as are quite a lot of progressives), but that doesn't translate into me doing a complete 180 on my philosophy of government because Obama isn't hitting homeruns every time he steps up to the plate.

[CornBurrito]

Won't work because there won't be any wealthy to tax, our money would be destroyed. Our paper dollars are going to be worthless because our government keeps printing money to pay for overspending - that is why the prices are going up.

Inflation occurs when the government continues to print money to pay for overspending, as you have said. Cutting our budget (though not getting rid of welfare entirely) and taxing the wealthy (or just increasing taxes in general) would allow the government to stop printing money, right?

Am I right or wrong with that line of thinking?

[Dude Abides]

I don't know if you are being purposely obtuse or just dumb.

That's nice. Unless you demonstrate an ability to grasp basic economic concepts expressed in simple English to a degree much greater than you've shown thus far I may be forced to conclude you're the latter.

If you are going to defend the current education model, learn how it works. Schools are paid a certain amount per student by the fed. Instead of having the money traveling with the child, the money is sent to whatever district the child lives in. That is one barrier preventing a child from traveling to a different school.

Which is not the same thing as "a child attends school with a certain amount of cash." See above for my observations about your difficulties with basic comprehension and verbal reasoning.

Also public school lobby's control how many alternative, online, charter and sometimes private schools are allowed in certain regions and areas.

Public school "lobby's" control everything, eh? Of course, various constituencies, including school boards and teacher's unions, have influence on politicians who in turn decide education policy. So do parents, property owners, etc. So when you say that "public school lobby's" control everything, you just sound like a simpleton.

What ohio state law deems it a crime worth prison time and back 30k tution for lying about residence. it's clearly due to the school policies, and preventing consumers from accessing a different provider is a classic example of monopoly practices.

The law she was convicted under? Hate to break it to you, but "school policies" don't determine the criminal law. See above comments about sounding like a simpleton. "Preventing consumers from accessing a different provider" is indeed a classic example of monopoly practice. But that isn't what happened here. She was perfectly free to send her kids to the private school of her choosing. She was not, however, allowed to lie about where she lived so she could send her kids to a public school outside the district of the public school where she lived.

if the public school system had a weighted model, and not the restrictive monopoly system based on zoning we have today, she could send her kids wherever she wanted. She can't however. The public school in her area controls what school her child goes to, and how many private alternatives are allowed in that area.

No, the law requires that, if she wants her kids to attend public school, they must attend the school were she lives. Just as she has to rely on the police department where she lives, the fire department where she lives, the department of transportation that builds the roads where she lives, etc. She can, however, pay to send her kids to private school if she wishes, so there's no monopoly.

If a private business did what that school district did, what would you call it?

I'd call it nothing because the school district didn't do anything except point out that she lied about her residence. Private businesses will also contact the local DA when someone attempts to defraud them, FYI.

[adamsappel]

"If you want to marry someone of the same sex you are free to move to a state that allows it" is apparently perfectly fine. But, "If you want to send your kid to a different school, you have to move to that district" is too onerous.

[makingmusic476]

The homepage keeps going down because of traffic. I'm getting it to work now. If it's not, try secure.ronpaul2012.com My bad for misreading your post. Is it Obama's extension/expansion of Bush's foreign policy, the renewal of the Patriot Act, or something else that makes you want him to be reelected? That said, you're right in one aspect...Republican leadership needs to realize that Paul has more supporters than he did in 2007/8...and most of us are not willing to vote for someone else if Paul loses the nomination. It makes no difference to me if Romney, Perry, or Obama is in office. They all have the same philosophy...more government.

This. If Paul isn't the nominee, the die hards will still vote for him if he runs or just won't vote at all, screwing the Republican candidate. If Paul is the nominee, he'll still get all the right wingers voting for him, as those people are most likely just voting against Obama.

[mavs]

When government prints money to pay-off debt it depreciates the currency which is why we are paying $4.00/gal for gas and why gold is at $1850/oz. That is inflation... in 2008, gold was around $900/oz - that is a loss of 50% of purchasing power in 3-4 years.

smh. This is why I tune out libertarians.

The only way any person has lost 50% purchasing power from a rise in the price of gold is if gold is the only thing they ever buy.

If you buy what a normal person buys, you have lost 2.7% of your purchasing power since 2008, or 4% since 2009 since things were cheaper in 2009 than in 2008.

[remnant]

That's nice. Unless you demonstrate an ability to grasp basic economic concepts expressed in simple English to a degree much greater than you've shown thus far I may be forced to conclude you're the latter.

How about you hold yourself to this same standard. If i'm wrong, please tell me where?What education model does the United states use? We don't use a staffing-ratio model according to you so do we do? Public schools don't control availability of alternative schooling, so explain these stories.

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/23/134769...harter-schools

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/05/...chools-in-nyc/

Yeah not as easy as to just walk into a private school if they are blocked from existing.

Which is not the same thing as "a child attends school with a certain amount of cash." See above for my observations about your difficulties with basic comprehension and verbal reasoning.

Yes it is. A school is paid around 7-10kk per student by the fed, when they attend a school. Many places however do not allow that money to be carried by a student to a different school.

A child attends school with a fixed amount of money attached.
Child is forced into certain school, and the school allocates that money with the family never seeing it.
Child tries to leave, never sees that money again.

A weighted student model is different from this.

I don't know how much more simple one can make it. Do you need a video or a picture?

Public school "lobby's" control everything, eh? Of course, various constituencies, including school boards and teacher's unions, have influence on politicians who in turn decide education policy. So do parents, property owners, etc. So when you say that "public school lobby's" control everything, you just sound like a simpleton.

Except that reality backs me up. When you can point at a lobby pushing for education reform as strongly as the NEA, the largest lobbying group in America than maybe you will have a point that Public school lobby's are irrelevant in a conversation about the power of public schools.

Teacher unions, administrators, yes all of them lobby consistently for public schools, many times directly against the people they say they support. They often oppose alternative schools allowed into various districts. So yes the public school monopoly, made up by various teacher unions, adminstartive unions, school boards support the monopoly, because allowing a competitor would force market forces into education, which would force them to compete.

The law she was convicted under? Hate to break it to you, but "school policies" don't determine the criminal law. See above comments about sounding like a simpleton. "Preventing consumers from accessing a different provider" is indeed a classic example of monopoly practice. But that isn't what happened here. She was perfectly free to send her kids to the private school of her choosing. She was not, however, allowed to lie about where she lived so she could send her kids to a public school outside the district of the public school where she lived.

In what state is listing your children living with their father a felony? This is a misdeameanor at best, but thecourt wants to make an example out of her.

No, the law requires that, if she wants her kids to attend public school, they must attend the school were she lives.

And that pretty much ends it. No other industry in America would be allowed to do that with no objection.

Just as she has to rely on the police department where she lives, the fire department where she lives, the department of transportation that builds the roads where she lives, etc. She can, however, pay to send her kids to private school if she wishes, so there's no monopoly.

You can call your security, you can take out with private fire insurance in many places in America.

but this is irrelevant. We don't know her feelings on her police dept. We do know her opinions on her shitty public school, and she tried to exercise a basic economic freedom. Due to bad laws pushed by public school lobbies, she isn't allow to send her child to the school she wants. Instead she has to deal with a shitty public school, or send her kids to a private school, which by the way the chances of that being available to her are rather low, and maybe cost prohibitive. It's not like her kids can reclaim the money given to them by the fed.

I'd call it nothing because the school district didn't do anything except point out that she lied about her residence. Private businesses will also contact the local DA when someone attempts to defraud them, FYI.

except that she didn't defraud them. If anyone was defrauded, it was the school she didn't force her kids to attend, thus that school spent zero resources on the children. No DA would prosecute a case that customer defrauded a business because the consumer refuse to accept their services.

So in summary, the NEA and public schools lobby and control what schools you can go to. They lobby and control how many alternatives you are allowed to use, basically controlling the barrier of entry. They lobby and control how money owed to you is used, basically becoming price makers.

but they aren't a monopoly nor have any monopolistic characteristics. yeah okay.

[cagelessrat]

I went over this with Ridleyscott pages ago and it seems to be a common argument from libertarians trying to convince democrats to vote for Paul. I may agree with Paul on 20% of his platform, but I'm not somehow going to ignore the other 80% of his platform that I dislike merely because he wants to stop the pointless wars (and you'll find that's actually a pretty common sentiment among a lot of Americans). Not just that, but we have fundamentally different views on government. He wants the bare minimum, I don't. He wants to leave controversial issues like abortion and gay marriage up to the states, I sure as hell don't. I want government-run health care single-payer style. He not only wants the opposite of that, but to phase out Medicare and Social Security. These are the reasons Democrats and progressives don't want to vote for him. For the record, I don't agree with what Obama has done extending much of the same executive powers that Bush implemented. It's probably the one area I'm most disappointed in him, actually. I'm also not very enthusiastic about Obama right now in general (as are quite a lot of progressives), but that doesn't translate into me doing a complete 180 on my philosophy of government because Obama isn't hitting homeruns every time he steps up to the plate.

I'm not trying to get you to support Ron Paul. I was just pointing out that it really makes no difference which party the president comes from if Obama or one of the Republican "front runners" is in office. I never was trying to argue that that meant you should support Paul...because I know you won't. I'm just saying...it doesn't really matter. It could be argued that the biggest policy difference between Bush and Obama is the insurance mandate...yet Romney passed the same thing in his state... Both parties are the same. The party politics is just for show.

[teh_pwn]

Gold is not some godly standard for money's true value. It is heavily distorted by speculation and overvaluation/undervaluation. Right now it's insanely overvalued.

The first sentence above is a fact. Look up a gold index over 50 years that's inflation adjusted. In 1980 gold was priced very high. Maybe even higher than today in real value (converting 1980 dollars to 2011 dollars). We've had a lot of inflation since then, so the idea that gold is some end all metric of money's worth is falsified.

Edit, looks like it was higher. $2200 in 2005 dollars in 1980:
http://goldprice.org/inflation-adjusted-gold-price.html

The 1980s has wicked inflation to the point that bonds beat stocks. So...does this chart not scare the shit out of gold owners? Do you all not expand your price history more than 5 years?

[remnant]

Inflation occurs when the government continues to print money to pay for overspending, as you have said. Cutting our budget (though not getting rid of welfare entirely) and taxing the wealthy (or just increasing taxes in general) would allow the government to stop printing money, right? Am I right or wrong with that line of thinking?

You're wrong. Government spending distorts the money supply in the long run, but first there need to be an economic supply shock that causes the inflation to grow at a faster pace than it naturally does. Inflation is always around. the question how much it is growing.

People shouldn't worry about inflation. They should worry about stagflation, and I think that is what most people mean when they talk about market uncertainty and government spending.

[aperman]

Wrote in his name in 2008. Voting for him in primaries for 2012.

Good man.

[mavs]

People shouldn't worry about inflation. They should worry about stagflation, and I think that is what most people mean when they talk about market uncertainty and government spending.

Stagflation includes high inflation. If you're worried about stagflation you are worried about inflation. You mean stagnation, the first half of that portmanteau.

[Mgoblue201]

I don't know if you are being purposely obtuse or just dumb.

It was your original framing of it that didn't make any sense. Total attendance is not a measure of a "monopoly"; you are talking about school choice, which I am largely in favor of. In fact, it's conceivable that public schools could still account for a large percentage of student attendance even if parents had greater autonomy to send their kids where they please. I support school choice largely on the principle of personal freedom. However, I don't think that competition is a magic panacea. Successful school systems range from a large private industry, such as in South Korea, to largely public, such as in Finland, which says to me that there are other factors at work here other than public vs. private, particularly when it comes to teacher quality and the design of the education experience.

By the way, I still want to know which metrics you used to measure healthcare spending per country.

No, its inflation. Look at Gold and Silver. The news is trying to hide the fact that there is price inflation going on because of our debt so they blame high gas prices on OPEC and "Speculators". What people are speculating on is the diminishing purchasing power of the dollar which is why countries all over the world are on the verge of completely rejecting the dollar standard and are buying precious metals and commodities. That is the big secret that the Media and government is trying to hide from you, which is why the Blatant media bias against RP (Don't just read the link, watch it). Every time he goes on TV he explains what the problem is and how to fix it but they don't want you to hear it. Look at my link on page 10 of RP calling in detail the housing bubble back in 2001. In 2008 the GOP laughed at Paul when he warned of the credit bubble, which is about to burst now, which is why the debt-ceiling circus.

What are you talking about? Inflation has been below 2 percent almost since the start of the crisis and is only 3.6 percent now, even with surges in oil and food prices. Gold is not an actual sign of inflation - there are many different ways to read gold prices - and with a pile-in to government bonds and no signs of a wage-price spiral, the claim is devoid of merit. People don't see it because it isn't there, not because they're trying to hide anything.

[scorcho]

No, its inflation. Look at Gold and Silver. The news is trying to hide the fact that there is price inflation going on because of our debt so they blame high gas prices on OPEC and "Speculators". What people are speculating on is the diminishing purchasing power of the dollar which is why countries all over the world are on the verge of completely rejecting the dollar standard and are buying precious metals and commodities. That is the big secret that the Media and government is trying to hide from you, which is why the Blatant media bias against RP (Don't just read the link, watch it). Every time he goes on TV he explains what the problem is and how to fix it but they don't want you to hear it. Look at my link on page 10 of RP calling in detail the housing bubble back in 2001. In 2008 the GOP laughed at Paul when he warned of the credit bubble, which is about to burst now, which is why the debt-ceiling circus.

so, the media's agenda in not reporting the widespread inflation that doesn't exist is to prevent the rise of Paul...along with every other Republican unversed in macroeconomics tenuously citing the widespread inflation that doesn't exist.

gas speculation exists. so does gold and silver speculation. arguing otherwise, or how the former can't possibly lead to a higher CPI rate is downright silly.

[Ridleyscott]

What are you talking about? Inflation has been below 2 percent almost since the start of the crisis and is only 3.6 percent now, even with surges in oil and food prices. Gold is not an actual sign of inflation - there are many different ways to read gold prices - and with a pile-in to government bonds and no signs of a wage-price spiral, the claim is devoid of merit. People don't see it because it isn't there, not because they're trying to hide anything.

Those are government numbers, the government uses all sorts of deceptive tricks hide inflation. They have changed the way they calculate it, the old way it is like 9%. They aren't even calculating inflation they are using CPI, which is completely bogus because it doesn't account for the change to lower quality ingredients in foods or increased productive capacity, or the fact that our stuff is made in countries where people get paid nothing. All those things hide the actual dollar depreciation. Inflation is around 10% a year since 2000 or so. I see it, so I don't know what you are talking about. Everything I buy is going up - education, gas, food, energy, etc. You are basically seeing inflation and denying it exists to conform to what the media and government is telling you about it. Foreigners like China, Iran, Venezuela see it which is why they are trying to dump their dollars for real stuff.

Inflation Charts:

Gold is not some godly standard for money's true value. It is heavily distorted by speculation and overvaluation/undervaluation. Right now it's insanely overvalued.The first sentence above is a fact. Look up a gold index over 50 years that's inflation adjusted. In 1980 gold was priced very high. Maybe even higher than today in real value (converting 1980 dollars to 2011 dollars). We've had a lot of inflation since then, so the idea that gold is some end all metric of money's worth is falsified. The 1980s has wicked inflation to the point that bonds beat stocks. So...does this chart not scare the shit out of gold owners? Do you all not expand your price history more than 5 years?

Gold IS money. Gold has been money for thousands of years - that is what the dollar tried to emulate. Gold is in no way over-valued, it reflects the loss of purchasing power of dollars. That is why gold has a lot further to go to reach its actual dollar-denominated value. Gold/Silver weren't bubbles in the 80s, the gold/silver markets were manipulated to hide the inflation after coming off the gold standard in 1971 by blaming the Hunts Brothers for market cornering and such.

Inflation occurs when the government continues to print money to pay for overspending, as you have said. Cutting our budget (though not getting rid of welfare entirely) and taxing the wealthy (or just increasing taxes in general) would allow the government to stop printing money, right?

Inflation is technically the increase in teh supply of money, but usually when people say inflation they refer to price increases. It depends on how much they print, but then you have a situation where the rich start looking for ways to leave the US and work around the taxes. Also, you decrease investment in future production. So, if you want a country that has no ability to produce jobs and people starving and homeless then your suggestion is a good idea. There is nothing good about taxes - they don't help the economy. How so many people think that taxing the rich is the answer to everything is puzzling. The less money the wealthy have, the less that can be invested - does that make sense? The key in an economy is to increase the total amount of savings so that investment potential can be maximized - that is how economies grow and living standards increase, its the only way.

You typed up that whole first paragraph extolling all the polls Paul has won, then went on to try and discredit polls in the second paragraph. I know that he came in 2nd in the Iowa straw poll and I honestly don't care much because those votes are basically bought by the candidates...

First of all, I am talking about land-line polls, not straw polls, but then you were the one using polls as a barometer and so I gave you the data that you decided meant something. Regarding Iowa, the candidates who can give out tickets are the candidates who already have the best organization and ground support - that is how they got their money. But you can handout tickets and not get their vote.

[empty vessel]

Won't work because there won't be any wealthy to tax, our money would be destroyed. Our paper dollars are going to be worthless because our government keeps printing money to pay for overspending - that is why the prices are going up.

Everything that you said in this sentence is false.

Gold IS money.

No.

[Ridleyscott]

so, the media's agenda in not reporting the widespread inflation that doesn't exist is to prevent the rise of Paul...along with every other Republican unversed in macroeconomics tenuously citing the widespread inflation that doesn't exist. gas speculation exists. so does gold and silver speculation. arguing otherwise, or how the former can't possibly lead to a higher CPI rate is downright silly.

The media's agenda is to prevent Ron Paul from getting publicity because they don't want him explain real issues in debates because he is warning everyone of how the government and banks are stealing all of Americas wealth - we are going to be left with absolutely nothing. He also truly intends on breaking the debt-slavery bondage to the banks and ending the military industrial complex - hence, they don't want him in office. Ron Paul is well-versed in economics, that is how he knew about the bubbles over the past 35 years and warned about them years before they happened. Economics taught in universities is complete BS - "Austrian"/free-market economics is the only economics there is. If you aren't analyzing the economy based on that then you won't see what is coming. That is why all the free-market economists knew Gold was going to soar and we would face a credit bubble.

[Ridleyscott]

Everything that you said in this sentence is false. No.

It isn't that what I said is false, it is that you don't want to accept it as true because if that was the case your entire views on economics would be completely wrong and you would have to admit you have never known what you are talking about.

Gold has been money for thousands of years and is still the only official form of money recognized in the Constitution which was done after the hyperinflation of the Continental Dollar. A Dollar is defined as 300 something grains of silver or gold.


Those charts I posted above provide the information necessary to understand why so many Americans are living in poverty - it isn't because there aren't enough taxes on the rich or social programs despite what many on this board would like to believe. We are being fleeced by the International Banking cartels just like every other country has been throughout history.

[Mr. Serious Business]

Everything that you said in this sentence is false. No.

I'm not picking anyone's side here, but why not try arguing a little more than not at all? I'm just looking for a good debate to watch.

[reggieandTFE]

How about you hold yourself to this same standard. If i'm wrong, please tell me where?What education model does the United states use? We don't use a staffing-ratio model according to you so do we do? Public schools don't control availability of alternative schooling, so explain these stories. http://www.npr.org/2011/03/23/134769...harter-schools http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/05/...chools-in-nyc/ Yeah not as easy as to just walk into a private school if they are blocked from existing. Yes it is. A school is paid around 7-10kk per student by the fed, when they attend a school. Many places however do not allow that money to be carried by a student to a different school. A child attends school with a fixed amount of money attached. Child is forced into certain school, and the school allocates that money with the family never seeing it. Child tries to leave, never sees that money again. A weighted student model is different from this. I don't know how much more simple one can make it. Do you need a video or a picture? Except that reality backs me up. When you can point at a lobby pushing for education reform as strongly as the NEA, the largest lobbying group in America than maybe you will have a point that Public school lobby's are irrelevant in a conversation about the power of public schools. Teacher unions, administrators, yes all of them lobby consistently for public schools, many times directly against the people they say they support. They often oppose alternative schools allowed into various districts. So yes the public school monopoly, made up by various teacher unions, adminstartive unions, school boards support the monopoly, because allowing a competitor would force market forces into education, which would force them to compete. In what state is listing your children living with their father a felony? This is a misdeameanor at best, but thecourt wants to make an example out of her. And that pretty much ends it. No other industry in America would be allowed to do that with no objection. You can call your security, you can take out with private fire insurance in many places in America. but this is irrelevant. We don't know her feelings on her police dept. We do know her opinions on her shitty public school, and she tried to exercise a basic economic freedom. Due to bad laws pushed by public school lobbies, she isn't allow to send her child to the school she wants. Instead she has to deal with a shitty public school, or send her kids to a private school, which by the way the chances of that being available to her are rather low, and maybe cost prohibitive. It's not like her kids can reclaim the money given to them by the fed. except that she didn't defraud them. If anyone was defrauded, it was the school she didn't force her kids to attend, thus that school spent zero resources on the children. No DA would prosecute a case that customer defrauded a business because the consumer refuse to accept their services. So in summary, the NEA and public schools lobby and control what schools you can go to. They lobby and control how many alternatives you are allowed to use, basically controlling the barrier of entry. They lobby and control how money owed to you is used, basically becoming price makers. but they aren't a monopoly nor have any monopolistic characteristics. yeah okay.

It's really amusing to hear libertarians rant about who is wielding monopoly power while advocating a political philosophy that would allow for unfettered corporate control of our lives.

Also, before you parrot your crackpot theories you might want to step into the real world. Newsflash: School boards and teacher Unions aren't on the same side! There isn't some secret bunker where they collude. Most school boards actively try to bust the Unions or to create pathways around them (urban charter schools).

[genjiZERO]

I have to say I think Libertarianism is unscientific, naive and dogmatic on it's economic positions, and it utterly fails on its civil liberties end, but I think I'd vote for Ron Paul if the Republicans ran him. I've decided that it would be unconscionable to vote for Obama again. I'd vote for Paul - even though I disagree with much of his position - just because he's not lock-step, seems sincere (and presumably has the record to back it up) and is mostly philosophically consistent. I can see no scenario where I'd vote for a different Republican though. So if the Republicans don't run him, and they likely won't, then I'll be voting 3rd party or not at all.

[Matthew Gallant]

I've decided that it would be unconscionable to vote for Obama again.

Just remember that this kind of thinking is what got us eight years of Bush.

[Ridleyscott]

Just remember that this kind of thinking is what got us eight years of Bush.

Isn't Obama practically Bush supercharged, only more capable of making people swallow the crap he feeds them?

[Mortrialus]

It isn't that what I said is false, it is that you don't want to accept it as true because if that was the case your entire views on economics would be completely wrong and you would have to admit you have never known what you are talking about. Gold has been money for thousands of years and is still the only official form of money recognized in the Constitution which was done after the hyperinflation of the Continental Dollar. A Dollar is defined as 300 something grains of silver or gold. Those charts I posted above provide the information necessary to understand why so many Americans are living in poverty - it isn't because there aren't enough taxes on the rich or social programs despite what many on this board would like to believe. We are being fleeced by the International Banking cartels just like every other country has been throughout history.

And what part of Ron Paul fully intends to open the floodgates for a theocracy to be set up don't you fucking understand?

[Pollux]

wow this thread really took off lol.

[Ridleyscott]

And what part of Ron Paul fully intends to open the floodgates for a theocracy to be set up don't you fucking understand?

I don't even know what you are talking about so I almost have no idea how to respond. How your response is even related to what you quoted evades me entirely. Ron Paul's platform is to stop the wars and return the control of our money back to the people/congress and away from the banking cartel. Do you understand that? Private banking cartels have a monopoly on the issuance of money and credit in the US and they use that power to steal our wealth leaving people in poverty.

Where you are pulling all this stuff about theocracies and such is beyond me. You obviously don't understand what Ron Paul intends to do or what he is talking about doing - maybe you should spend some time listening to what RP is saying and reading-up on the history which has led to Ron Paul running for President.

[Dude Abides]

How about you hold yourself to this same standard. If i'm wrong, please tell me where?What education model does the United states use? We don't use a staffing-ratio model according to you so do we do? Public schools don't control availability of alternative schooling, so explain these stories. http://www.npr.org/2011/03/23/134769...harter-schools http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/05/...chools-in-nyc/ Yeah not as easy as to just walk into a private school if they are blocked from existing.

Charter schools are publicly funded, not private. You seem to be struggling with this distinction for reasons that are difficult to understand.

Yes it is. A school is paid around 7-10kk per student by the fed, when they attend a school. Many places however do not allow that money to be carried by a student to a different school. A child attends school with a fixed amount of money attached. Child is forced into certain school, and the school allocates that money with the family never seeing it. Child tries to leave, never sees that money again.

I don't know how much more simple one can make it. Do you need a video or a picture?

You could start by understanding the difference between public and private schools.

Teacher unions, administrators, yes all of them lobby consistently for public schools, many times directly against the people they say they support. They often oppose alternative schools allowed into various districts. So yes the public school monopoly, made up by various teacher unions, adminstartive unions, school boards support the monopoly, because allowing a competitor would force market forces into education, which would force them to compete.

Some school employee organizations are opposed to certain types of charter schools. They don't block actual private schools.

In what state is listing your children living with their father a felony? This is a misdeameanor at best, but thecourt wants to make an example out of her.

Most courts don't look too kindly on those who conspire to submit falsified documents to mislead the court (as she convinced the father to do). She only got 10 days in jail and three years probation so if the court was trying to "make an example out of her" it did a pretty bad job.

And that pretty much ends it. No other industry in America would be allowed to do that with no objection.

Public education isn't an industry. It's a public good that is made available on the municipality level. You have to attend the public school in your district (unless, of course, you choose to attend a private school) just as you generally have to rely on the police, fire, and water departments in your municipality.

You can call your security, you can take out with private fire insurance in many places in America.

And you can pay to go to private school in many places in America. It's exactly the same. Do the police and fire departments have a monopoly? Of course not, and neither do public schools.

but this is irrelevant. We don't know her feelings on her police dept. We do know her opinions on her shitty public school, and she tried to exercise a basic economic freedom.

To get a free education for her child wherever she chooses?

Due to bad laws pushed by public school lobbies, she isn't allow to send her child to the school she wants. Instead she has to deal with a shitty public school, or send her kids to a private school, which by the way the chances of that being available to her are rather low, and maybe cost prohibitive.

There are many private schools in the Akron area.

http://www.greatschools.org/ohio/akron/private/schools/

If it's cost prohibitive, that's unfortunate, but many things people would like to have are cost-prohibitive.

except that she didn't defraud them. If anyone was defrauded, it was the school she didn't force her kids to attend, thus that school spent zero resources on the children. No DA would prosecute a case that customer defrauded a business because the consumer refuse to accept their services.

Uh, the school had to expend resources educating kids who weren't in their district, because she lied and said they were.

So in summary, the NEA and public schools lobby and control what schools you can go to. They lobby and control how many alternatives you are allowed to use, basically controlling the barrier of entry. They lobby and control how money owed to you is used, basically becoming price makers. but they aren't a monopoly nor have any monopolistic characteristics. yeah okay.

So, in summary, you still don't know what a monopoly is, don't understand the difference between public and private, and think lobbying is the same as control.

[scorcho]

Inflation is technically the increase in teh supply of money, but usually when people say inflation they refer to price increases.

no it isn't. inflation, at the root, is the rise in price of goods and services and a decrease in one's purchasing power. a sharp increase in money supply is one condition that can lead to it, but that alone isn't inflation.

but then you have a situation where the rich start looking for ways to leave the US and work around the taxes. Also, you decrease investment in future production. So, if you want a country that has no ability to produce jobs and people starving and homeless then your suggestion is a good idea. There is nothing good about taxes - they don't help the economy.

how is that data born out, AT ALL, by the US' economy over the last 30 years? marginal tax rates on the rich have steadily dropped, all the while we've seen massive instability on a now global level due to the whims of an under-regulated finance sector. how many jobs were created throughout the 8 years of GWB's presidency, where middle class wages remained stagnant in spite of massive tax cuts, while wealth continued to concentrate in the top 1% of earners? how is it that our tax revenues as a % of our GDP is drastically lower than Germany, yet out economic strength so much worse?

[Ridleyscott]

no it isn't. inflation, at the root, is the rise in price of goods and services and a decrease in one's purchasing power. a sharp increase in money supply is one condition that can lead to it, but that alone isn't inflation.

From Wiki with source: "The term "inflation" originally referred to increases in the amount of money in circulation, and some economists still use the word in this way. However, most economists today use the term "inflation" to refer to a rise in the price level. An increase in the money supply may be called monetary inflation, to distinguish it from rising prices, which may also for clarity be called 'price inflation'.[23]Economists generally agree that in the long run, inflation is caused by increases in the money supply. However, in the short and medium term, inflation is largely dependent on supply and demand pressures in the economy.[24]"

Austrian/free-market economists still use the original definition of inflation. Keynesians had to nix this concept because all that those policies do is destroy the value of the currency through monetary inflation - so they shifted the focus of inflation over to prices which they could manipulate through the CPI. They effectively need to use media to convince people that nothing is wrong - they hide real economic data so people don't know they are being fleeced.

how is that data born out, AT ALL, by the US' economy over the last 30 years?

Well, it isn't born out by the data over the last 30 years because the US has been a highly regulated and taxed market for much longer than that. I don't believe Bush's presidency was at all favorable to economic growth and it isn't currently either. We need to drop Federal taxes by like 80% across the board not a few percentage points, we need less regulations - much much less than even under Bush. Regulations and taxes hinder growth and act as barriers to entry to smaller competitors. Corporations want the regulations because it keeps competition out and helps them maintain monopolistic conditions.

[Mgoblue201]

Those are government numbers, the government uses all sorts of deceptive tricks hide inflation. They have changed the way they calculate it, the old way it is like 9%. They aren't even calculating inflation they are using CPI, which is completely bogus because it doesn't account for the change to lower quality ingredients in foods or increased productive capacity, or the fact that our stuff is made in countries where people get paid nothing. All those things hide the actual dollar depreciation. Inflation is around 10% a year since 2000 or so. I see it, so I don't know what you are talking about. Everything I buy is going up - education, gas, food, energy, etc. You are basically seeing inflation and denying it exists to conform to what the media and government is telling you about it. Foreigners like China, Iran, Venezuela see it which is why they are trying to dump their dollars for real stuff.

If by lower quality ingredients you mean substitutions in food consumption, then that has been thoroughly addressed. Allow me the opportunity to quote liberally from this article, which demonstrates the impracticality of the charge in the real world:

Among all the criticisms leveled at the CPI, its use of the geometric mean formula to reflect consumer substitution behavior is undoubtedly the most frequently misunderstood and mischaracterized. Members of the general public are naturally concerned when critics charge that, in using the geometric mean, the BLS is subtracting from the CPI a certain amount of inflation that consumers can “live with” by reducing their standard of living. Some critics have incorrectly claimed, for example, that the BLS assumes that consumers are no worse off when they substitute hamburgers for steak. That is not, however, what the geometric mean does, and such an interpretation is hard to reconcile with the fact that the geometric mean is widely used by statistical agencies around the world. One of two formulas recommended by the International Monetary Fund and approved by the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) for use in those countries’ Harmonized Indexes of Consumer Prices (HICP), the geometric mean is used by 20 of 30 countries as a primary formula for computing the elementary indexes in their HICP’s.

...

To begin, it must be stated unequivocally that the BLS does not assume that consumers substitute hamburger for steak... Instead, the BLS uses a formula that implicitly assumes a degree of substitution among the close substitutes within an item-area component of the index. As an example, consumers are assumed to respond to price variations among the different items found within the category “apples in Chicago.” Other examples are “ground beef in Chicago,” “beefsteaks in Chicago,” and “eggs in Boston.”


There can be no doubt that consumers exhibit shifts in their purchasing patterns toward items that have fallen in relative price... There is also no dispute among economists that the price index formula used in all of the basic CPIs prior to 1999 (called the Laspeyres formula) tends to overstate changes in the cost of living; specifically, the change in a Laspeyres index is an “upper bound” on the change in the cost of maintaining a standard of living. This fundamental result is found throughout books on cost-of-living indexes, as well as in economics textbooks. It long predates the BLS decision to switch to a geometric mean formula for computing most of the basic CPIs.

...

The quantitative impact of the CPI’s use of the geometric mean formula also has been grossly overstated by some, with one estimate exceeding 3 percent per year.

It is difficult to identify real-world circumstances under which geometric mean and Laspeyres indexes could differ by such a large amount. The two index formulas will give the same answer whenever the prices used in an index all change by the same percentage. The bigger the differences in price changes, the more the Laspeyres index will tend to exceed the geometric mean. For the growth rate of the Laspeyres index to exceed the growth rate of a geometric mean index by 3 percentage points, however, the differences in individual price changes have to be quite large.

To see this point, consider another very simplified example. Suppose that the CPI sample for ice cream and related products in Boston consisted only of an equal number of prices for ice cream and frozen yogurt and that, between one year and the next, all the prices of ice cream in Boston rose by 8.6 percent while all the frozen yogurt prices fell by 4.2 percent. In that case, the geometric mean estimate of overall annual price change would be 2.0 percent, only slightly less than the Laspeyres estimate of about 2.2 percent.

In order to come up with a difference of 3 index points, one has to assume a much more dramatic divergence between ice cream and frozen yogurt prices than the one hypothesized. For example, if ice cream prices rose 30 percent in one year, while frozen yogurt prices fell by 20 percent, the overall geometric mean index would still rise by 2 percent, but the Laspeyres index would rise 5 percent, for a difference of 3 index points. However, such a large annual divergence would be quite uncommon within CPI basic indexes—between ice cream and yogurt, between types of candy and gum, between types of noncarbonated juices, or between varieties of ground beef. Moreover, for a 3-percentage-point divergence to continue year after year, the divergence between the individual component prices would have to continue to widen. For example, if, by contrast, during the next year ice cream prices increased by the same amount as frozen yogurt prices, then the two index formulas would give the same inflation estimate for that year. Although such a divergence might plausibly occur in one component for 1 year, it is beyond belief that such sharply divergent price behavior would continue year after year across the whole range of CPI item-area components

Much more at the link.

Furthermore, Larry Ball rebukes the idea that globalization contributes to inflationary pressures:

[Larry Ball] reviews theory and evidence on the behavior of U.S. inflation, and concludes that globalization has had little effect on the rate of inflation in the United States.

...

Finally, Ball examines the role of falling prices for imported goods. Many policymakers and journalists cite increases in imports of low-cost goods from countries such as China and India. To many observers, it seems obvious that lower prices for imports contribute to lower inflation, since inflation is an average of the economy's price changes.

However, this idea rests on a confusion between relative prices and the aggregate price level. As Milton Friedman pointed out long ago, changes in the price level – that is, the inflation rate – depend on monetary factors. Trade with China and India reduces the relative prices of certain goods, which increases U.S. living standards, but there is no obvious effect on inflation.

And, as I have said, the signs point to low inflation, such as spare capacity in the economy.

EDIT: I'm not entirely sure if you did mean food substitution. If not, then it should at least partly rebuke the idea that the fed is hiding inflation.

[balladofwindfishes]

It isn't that what I said is false, it is that you don't want to accept it as true because if that was the case your entire views on economics would be completely wrong and you would have to admit you have never known what you are talking about.

Like the aliens and Illuminati, right?

[Mortrialus]

I don't even know what you are talking about so I almost have no idea how to respond.

Ron Paul has gone on record stating that he does not believe that there is a Separation of Church and State, and that the only thing the Establishment Clause prohibits in regards to religion is Congress creating a national region like the Church of England. This isn't just completely wrong, that alone is more dangerous than any of the wars we have fought to day. What the hell do you think is going to happen when Ron Paul puts judges, who think like him and give the thumbs up for states becoming small theocracies?

How your response is even related to what you quoted evades me entirely. Ron Paul's platform is to stop the wars and return the control of our money back to the people/congress and away from the banking cartel. Do you understand that? Private banking cartels have a monopoly on the issuance of money and credit in the US and they use that power to steal our wealth leaving people in poverty.

Because you have ignored people posting about Ron Paul's stance as a theocrat since you've been posting here and you will concede this point.

Where you are pulling all this stuff about theocracies and such is beyond me.

From Ron Paul's own fucking statements where he says the founders fully intended a Christian government, which is false because many of the founders like Thomas Jefferson loathed Christianity. He has proposed legislation that would give states downright TYRANNICAL powers in regards to imposing religion on their citizens.

Also, Ron Paul harps on and on about the constitution, and yet he makes downright bullshit claims about how the constitution is "Replete with references to God." Except it isn't. Excluding the phrase "In the year of our lord" which was the standard protocol for writing dates back in that era, the constitution doesn't mention God once. And you will concede that point. If Ron Paul is going to made lubricious claims like that it is clear he hasn't looked at the constitution once.

You obviously don't understand what Ron Paul intends to do or what he is talking about doing - maybe you should spend some time listening to what RP is saying and reading-up on the history which has led to Ron Paul running for President.

I have read what Ron Paul has said. He is a theocrat. That single fact makes him dangerous to the point of being unelectable from any sane person's perspective.

[genjiZERO]

Just remember that this kind of thinking is what got us eight years of Bush.

Not really. Gore won the 2000 popular vote. So blame government design, not disenfranchised voters or third party candidates on that Bush win.

But more than that: why should I vote for Obama again? It hasn't been much different than voting for a centrist Republican. He also hasn't done anything meaningful to balance the budget. People complain that it's the Republican majority keeping Obama from enacting progressive legislation, but he didn't do it when he did have the majority. So I really can't believe he actually is a progressive . . .

[teh_pwn]

Gold IS money. Gold has been money for thousands of years - that is what the dollar tried to emulate. Gold is in no way over-valued, it reflects the loss of purchasing power of dollars. That is why gold has a lot further to go to reach its actual dollar-denominated value. Gold/Silver weren't bubbles in the 80s, the gold/silver markets were manipulated to hide the inflation after coming off the gold standard in 1971 by blaming the Hunts Brothers for market cornering and such.

What? Are you serious?

I posted a chart showing that gold was priced more than today is 1980 inflation adjusted dollars. Are you saying that we haven't had inflation in the last 31 years, or are you saying that gold is at the mercy of speculated value? This is a binary choice, you can't have it both ways.

Actually let's make this more simple. Go between 1980 and 1985:
http://goldprice.org/inflation-adjusted-gold-price.html

Did the dollar strengthen 500%? Or did a gold speculation bubble burst?



I think you're way oversimplying inflation. For example, oil is heavily tied to demand. Just in 2008 prices nearly went down to $1/gallon. Very little of it had to do with the deflation strengthening the dollar by about 20%, most of it had to do with manufacturing across the world ceasing and companies using already produced goods. In 2011 we have way more industry in China and other nations using gas than in 1990, and supply has stopped increasing. Economics 101. We don't need to get into Austrian vs Keynesian for this.

[Dude Abides]

Not really. Gore won the 2000 popular vote. So blame government design, not disenfranchised voters or third party candidates on that Bush win.

As someone who campaigned and voted for Nader in 2000, that's pretty silly. You can oppose the current electoral structure and at the same time understand that in the short-term if you vote for a third party rather than Obama you are increasing the likelihood of a Romney/Perry/Bachmann/Paul lol presidency.

[Ridleyscott]

If by lower quality ingredients you mean substitutions in food consumption, then that has been thoroughly addressed. Allow me the opportunity to quote liberally from this article, which demonstrates the impracticality of the charge in the real world: And, as I have said, the signs point to low inflation, such as spare capacity in the economy. EDIT: I'm not entirely sure if you did mean food substitution. If not, then it should at least partly rebuke the idea that the fed is hiding inflation.

No, I mean this: Ice cream used to contain Milk, Sugar, Cream, Vanilla, Egg - or something like that. Today it contains milk, high fructose corn syrup, carob bean gum, etc. etc. The real ingredients have been replaced with lower cost counterparts to simulate others. Real colas had cane sugar, today it is HFCS, etc. fast-food is largely soy substitute. Beef/Poultry is injected with growth hormones and often filled with water before selling. Proportions are smaller year over year. There is real ice cream from Hagen Daaz at my grocery store, it costs $12 for 1/2 gallon.

The signs for inflation are that we have seen at least a 50% devaluation in the dollar. It takes more time to see the effects in things like food/clothes/electronics - inflation is first seen in commodities especially gold/silver/oil. I could post a bunch of articles that argue what you posted and explaining how the Fed hides inflation if you want, but we really only need to use common sense and understand that as money supplies increase, the ratio of goods and services to that money decreases altering the pricing structure in the market. You don't want price inflation, you want it to be zero or slightly deflationary over time so that the value of savings increases.

[genjiZERO]

As someone who campaigned and voted for Nader in 2000, that's pretty silly. You can oppose the current electoral structure and at the same time understand that in the short-term if you vote for a third party rather than Obama you are increasing the likelihood of a Romney/Perry/Bachmann/Paul lol presidency.

so even though Gore won the popular vote, but lost because of the electoral college system it's still the fault of disenfranchised voters or voters of third party voters? That's mathematically nonsensical. And anyway, why should I vote for Obama? As a progressive, what has he done for me? The only thing I can think of is ending DADT, but he's still enforcing DoMA . . . He's done nothing about the budget. Guantanamo is still open . . . We're now in 3 wars . . . He's reversed on enforcement of federal anti-marijuana laws in regards to California . . . Credit reform is shell legislation . . . Healthcare reform is a "mandate" to force citizens to pay private insurance companies and still does nothing to ensure fair access to medicines for the middle-class. I was never tricked into the whole "Hope" nonsense and I never expected him to keep his campaign promises, but I did expect him to do something that seemed different from the previous administration. Instead is seems like a Bush 3rd term without the associated religious fervor. Obama just doesn't represent my interests, and I won't vote for a candidate who I don't want to represent me just because it's the strategic thing to do.