patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,264,830 comments by 15,117 users - Patrick, RWSGFY online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 43 - 49 of 49 Search these comments
Vicente
2012 Nov 8, 2:19am
Republicans had a better option for their candidate, but they chose to ignore and actively sideline him in favor of their favored elitist and radical religion-spouting crack heads who wouldn't have had a prayer against Obama. Seriously, Santorum? And ignoring a responsible conscientious man like Ron Paul.
Hahaha! Ron Paul is not a Republican see there's your problem right there. He's an honorary Republican in the way that some independents fall under the Democratic caucus.
Anyhow Ron Paul never had a shot even if the entire GOP elite and every plutocrat had lined up behind him. Tell America you are going to downsize it's military, close bases overseas, and you can watch your voters evaporate. Republicans like having that big stick, and they like USING it, so Ron Paul was always a non-starter.
curious2
2012 Nov 8, 3:06am
During the primaries, Ron Paul was the only candidate from any party to outpoll Obama nationally. Republicans had a chance with him, but as Quigley observed they chose instead to sideline him. The major parties are both patronage networks, and Ron Paul was too independent for the party bosses. He actually wanted to work for America, not the party machine.
Read this on the instability of the gold standard:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/golden-instability/
Krugman's blog is hardly an objective source. Even in his official columns, he has trouble with basic facts and/or math, sometimes saying instead whatever he thinks will make his case:
http://patrick.net/?p=1217991&c=887899#comment-887899
The NY Times doesn't seem to fact-check opinion columns or blogs, so a demonstrably false statement can remain uncorrected if it's part of an "opinion" that they want to promote (usually more spending). His official articles can be good, because they are subject to editing and fact-checking.
A fiat currency can have genuine advantages over gold or silver, but it also involves risks. If we had sound fiscal and monetary policy, and a real commitment to maintain them, then a fiat currency would be the best choice. A balanced budget amendment, which would need to be carefully written to allow some flexibility while preventing abuse, would be better than the gold standard.
Bellingham Bill
2012 Nov 8, 3:21am
no one has specifically stated how people will retire without cashing out the stock market. By the time 2015 comes retirements will come en masse. Neither candidate has specifically said how this is to be solved.
ayup. This came to my attention 5+ years ago, the 1980-2020 supercycle of boomer investment and disinvestment.
The one thing for stability is that Gen Y is turning 20 now and is a bit bigger than the boomers, so they have the bodies to invest.
Whether they have the disposable income is the more interesting question, since Gen Y also has to pay to pension off their parents, while investing!
(but if this pension money just gets spent back into the payroll economy maybe it's all good -- we need velocity, we don't have any real resource constraints, other than some strategic metals and oil.)
Reagan could even though Iran contra happened
November 1986 (and Bush Sr knew nothingk, nothingk).
something dramatic like hostidges (Carter in '80)
The Fed did more to fuck over Carter than the hostage crisis maybe.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=cC2
Graph shows the Fed really wanted that 1980 recession and wasn't going to stop until they got it. Then they went more to make sure!
uomo_senza_nome
2012 Nov 8, 3:35am
Krugman's blog is hardly an objective source
The link I quoted is very precise. I don't quote Krugman unless I think he's correct. He is spot-on about the fixed gold standard problems. There are instances where he is biased because of political/economic views, but on this particular point - he's stating facts.
Am I confusing you with someone else, but weren't you an Austrian proponent like a year ago?
Same guy. Austrian is a broad term. If you mean the American Mises Circle Austrian, I am certainly not. I fully comprehend Krugman's argument against the classical gold standard. I still think Austrian insights have merit, but I tend to look at it through modern system based theories - complexity theory, agent based economics etc.
Here are a few examples:
http://nonlineardynamic.blogspot.com/2012/11/put-your-finger-on-bubble.html
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/things-that-arent-bubbles/
Krugman actually says "value is an emergent property", which is basically Austrian in thinking.
Bellingham Bill
2012 Nov 8, 3:40am
As for Carter:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=cC5
10 million more jobs in just 3 years. +300,000 a month every month.
Problem was the baby boom was turning 20 and wanted to work, plus women were flooding into the workforce and also wanted to work.
Then we had price shocks in oil, back in the Nixon days and then again when the Iran thing went down.
The Bush Boom ginned up 8M jobs:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=cC7
from the 2003 bottom but only +6M from the (admittedly slowing down) economy he inherited in 2001. And +6M over 7 years is 70,000 net per month, on a much bigger population base!
Part of the problem I have with today's Republicans -- and conservatives in general -- is that they have no facts, just one long stream of consciousness of bullshit ("cancer of liberalism" etc).
And what facts they do bring to the table tend to be BS too.
« First « Previous Comments 43 - 49 of 49 Search these comments
http://news.msn.com/politics/why-mitt-romney-lost
Lots of reasons in the article:
"That Mitt Romney lost nonetheless is in part a tribute to his own weaknesses as a candidate. The Obama campaign put Romney on the defensive early about his work at Bain Capital, and left him there. The Republican nominee made any number of horrendous gaffes. He ran a disastrous GOP convention. He never found a way to talk about himself or his agenda in a way that middle class voters could relate to.
"But even a clumsy candidate might have beaten Obama if not for a simple factor that could not be overcome: the GOP’s growing extremism."
I disagree. Mitt Romney isn't a personable man. He is a very wealthy guy who is extremely out of touch with most Americans. He couldn't possibly speak for me, nor can he understand me as a person. If he met me on the street, he would be as condescending as when he was describing the lesser people when he didn't think anyone was watching.
His father was Governor, and he was raised to expect wealth and to expect that he would be deferred to. He didn't appear to understand that respect is something that is earned, and that his offer to bet Rick Perry $10,000 during a debate was condescending and reflective of his attitude toward most Americans who can't afford a $100 bet, much less $10,000.
Mr. Romney and his wife never struggled, never worried where their next meal would come from, never had to look out the door and see if the neighbor's lights were out when their power was cut off (because it was usually lack of payment of the bills and not a power outage). Mitt Romney wasn't a self-made man, he was an opportunist whose lack of compassion and understanding showed through the entire time he was running for office.
Mitt Romney was a man whose wife suffers a debilitating illness but they never had to worry about paying for it - nor did they ever have to choose which medication she would take because they couldn't afford them all. The people who
became unemployed as a result of his "successes" at Bain Capital know what that's like... but not him.
Mitt Romney was out of touch with the common man and woman. He is an elitist, and he doesn't speak for me or anyone I know. And, IMHO, that's why he lost.
#politics