Senator Rand Paul receives warm standing ovation during UC Berkeley speech
As Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) presumably gears up for a 2016 run, he was warmly welcomed by a group of unlikely supporters – students at the University of California, Berkeley.
According to the Associated Press, Sen. Paul spoke UC Berkeley yesterday at the request of the university’s Republican club. The event drew about 400 people, who “filled the hall to capacity.” There were no visible protestors, and Sen. Paul “drew a large crowd of well-wishers on his way off campus.”
The 30-minute speech criticized President Obama and other government leaders over recent surveillance disclosures. Sen. Paul also declared the country is desperate for a “new kind of party.” And while he admitted the Republican Party has been far from perfect, he believes it can be the party to get this country back on track.
“Go back to what happened yesterday with Rand Paul. This is huge. Absolutely huge… This is incredible,” Glenn said on radio this morning. “Rand Paul goes to the University of California, Berkeley. I mean this as a sincere question: Have you ever in your lifetime heard of a Republican that has gone in and received a standing ovation at the University of California, Berkeley?”
Over the last several months, Glenn has stressed the importance of being open to the idea of aligning with strange bedfellows, for he believes the future will require a coalition of people who can unite on the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
“Do you think Jeb Bush is going to even be listened at the University of California, Berkeley? No,” Glenn said. “They keep talking about widening the tent. Is there any tent bigger than: Look I just want to it agree on the Bill of Rights. That’s all I want to agree on. We’re going to disagree on a lot of things… Rand Paul can bridge the gap between Glenn and Pat and the university of California Berkeley… That’s huge. Never before done.”
While the left desperately tries to discredit Sen. Paul and other conservatives and libertarians who are looking to build bridges, Glenn ultimately believes yesterday’s speech is a sign of things to come.
“If [Sen. Paul] were on the left, he would be being heralded as God. Barack Obama might be Jesus. But what this guy can bridge is astounding… That again is the coalition building,” Glenn concluded. “They dismiss him and mock him and are going to try to discredit him. But I’m telling you: If you just play the game of who can win, it’s Rand Paul.”
How does the 4th Amendment apply in the digital age?
ReplyDeleteIt was a student republican club what did you expect them to do boo him. 400 students at UC-Berkeley whoo hoo. The college has 35000 students. Rand Paul drew 400 of them yeah that's big isn't it .
ReplyDeleteI'm happy for Rand Paul, really, I mean it. But I also hope that the Republican Party doesn't nominate him for President because I feel that he doesn't have a chance, Just my opinion.
ReplyDeleteRand Paul is a name becoming more and more recognized in Australia. Still very low key but the name is beginning to be spoken in political circles. After reading the article three times I find myself confused. Who is the gentleman mentioned in this excerpt? He seems to get quite a lot of coverage. Quote that again is the coalition building,” GLEN concluded. “They dismiss him and mock him and are going to try to discredit him. But I’m telling you: If you just play the game of who can win, it’s Rand Paul.”So, who is Glen?
ReplyDeleteCheers from Aussie
NB Is there any chance Jeb Bush may run?
Glen Beck, has declared that he is an entertainer, not a news reporter. He has also admitted inventing things from time to time which are not true in order to stir up his followers. He uses sensationalism and partisanship to woo his audience, which is considerably smaller since he left Fox News.
DeleteKing it's Glenn Beck the resident talking head for the repub party. We normal Americans will happily send him to you and as a bonus you can have Rupert Murdoch back.
ReplyDeleteThe appeal of Rand Paul to younger people who can't think of anything more important than what they will eat at the next meal and who they will have sex with that night is pretty easy to figure out. They don't fully understand the full libertarian outlook, but they certainly like the idea of no rules and not having anyone to answer to and no responsibility to anything but entertaining themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe good thing about people like Paul is that every once in awhile they actually DO bit the hand that feeds them and cause some embarrassment for the Republican party. Compared to a jackass like Ted Cruz or any one of the countless idiots protected by gerreymandering, Ron Paul and Rand Paul raise many points that can appeal to a broad spectrum of political beliefs. Either, however, would be a disaster as POTUS.
Why? Because they understand the Constitution and the founders idea of limited government?
DeleteMick and Ric
DeleteMy thanks, I am now better informed. We too have Glen Becks in Aussie, Talking heads which spew their personal vitriol without the facts to support opinions. They are in most cases too juvenile to enunciate the script without some force feeding from a team of "researchers" who in turn are nearly illiterate.
Underestimate Rand Paul at your own risk Max. His dad has cultivated the underbelly of young democratic voters for a very long time. Rand takes it to another level and the fact that recent grads have been unable to find employment, and are forced to buy Obamacare has forced their growing curve.
DeleteAs far as ric discounting the numbers it is true that while a liberal bastion such as UCBerkley will remain pink it is noteworthy that Paul makes clear and cogent points and there is any audience at all. Who knows, if this keeps up a republican may someday wrestle a single vote in a Phidelphia voting district.
And for Kingston, Glen Beck just happens to be a national treasure.
Google Glen Beck. Restoring Honor rally
Good to see you gotta,
DeleteI've read a lot of Ayn Rand and feel confident that I could discuss with anyone here what her views espouse. Assuming that her beliefs are representative of how Ron Paul or Rand Paul would approach being POTUS, ask yourself what would either Paul start to do as POTUS? I think you and I would agree that the FED is simply a tool for cartel banks to control our money. What would happen to the stock market though if it were abolished? And what about our military? If Obama is a pussy for not nuking Putin, what will you call either Paul when they precipitously start to draw down our troops from around the world because they believe playing policeman in the world is not our problem. What about Israel? Rand Paul has already questioned the amount of money and guns we send to that part of the world. I don't for a second believe our founding fathers would have supported the amount of military engagement we have in the world today.
My general problem what constitution wavers is that they cling to an image of a world that never existed. The Founding Fathers espoused many things I wholeheartedly agree with. And then they lived personal lives that greatly contradicted what they preached. So it is with America. We preach one thing to the world, and do something entirely different simply because we can and no one else can stop us from it. It would probably surprise you how much I can agree with Ron Paul philosophically. But that's just it; philosophy always crashes at the point of actually putting it into practice because you always have people who simply don't want to play by any rules. How do you deal with those people? I think many conservatives/libertarians believe they can isolate themselves from all social ills. I assert they can't. I think that's where most of my disagreement with conservatives starts.
Unlike many, William, I don't underestimate many candidates. Obama did not win solely by courting votes of people who consider themselves Democrats. The Republicans, basically, are the party of old white people. Period. While it's bullshit to say Obama is the reason that college graduates don't have jobs these days, it's not a stretch to believe that they will also swallow the bullshit of trickle down economics and the quaint idea that if we engorge rich people like human leeches, they will give us jobs instead of just sucking as much money out of us as they can before they explode.
DeleteIt is funny to hear to many people chide Democrats for allegedly looking upon Obama as a dear leader type while they simultaneously wish Reagan was propped up in a glass box like Mao so that they could walk by bless his greatness. You seem to look upon people like Paul and Glenn Beck the way a fourteen year old girl salivates over Beiber.
There you go again Max. There you go again with your "can in the backyard" logic.
DeleteLet's just say you win the lottery Max and after a few nights of pot partying you want to store some of the excess winnings for future needs. Would you put the excess in a can in the backyard, or, or, or,,please God give me strength,,,or,,would you invest it so you could grow your fortunate nest egg? Hummmmm?
Well,,,let's just say for the sake of argument that you wanted to produce some gain from your winnings,,,I know in your case this is a stretch,,,would you consider your invested capital a curse because it may have been invested in companies that produce jobs for people???
Because that's what invested capital does you loony left wing trickle down denier nut job!
That's honestly what invested capital does.
Don't be an ass. I have plenty of money invested in a 401K and when I had more money, I used to trade stocks. Here is the key, I don't for a second kid myself that buying and flipping stocks or some other asset is remotely associated with job creation. Yet, that endeavor, is taxed way less than actual labor. I think it's a very twisted nature of our tax code that allows hedge fund traders and the mega rich to pay a far lower percentage of taxes than a small business person.
DeleteYou don't have to be a left wing nut job to know that trickle down is bullshit. Papa Bush nailed it perfectly.
BTW, thanks for picking up the bill on my tax reduction while I write off all my school expenses. Consider it an "investment", now that I'll have some money left over, I can contribute to Democratic campaigns. I think I'll actually type in "From William and the Tea Party" in the comment section.
DeleteMax your trader, flipper mentality blinds you from the beauty of true investment. Need we repeat over and over again the reasons for the differing tax rates? I tire in the exercise as I don't think you have the capacity for understanding.
DeleteWhere the he'll do you think the money goes that you invested in your 401K portfolio?
You have a "can in the back yard" mentality Maxie.
it's good you are here to school in what it means to invest. Warren Buffet, to me, is an investor. The managers of the funds in my 401K are flippers. They buy shares of established stocks in the open market, hold them, and later sell them. They are not job creators. A person who buys land, builds houses and sells them, IMO, is both an investor and a job creator. They bought something, added value, and sold it. The person who buys a completed house in the development with the sole intention of selling at a later date at a higher price is a flipper.
DeleteI'll concede this may not fit with your definition of investment and to you, perhaps anyone who buys something with the hope of later selling it higher is an investor. As for the differing tax rates, capital gains tax is an abused section of the code. We should reward investment that creates jobs and encourage it. But, we have instead created a tax code that basically allows the wealthy to earn a ton of money but not be taxed on that money as income. Despite the lower of the top brackets under Bush, the lowering of capital gains, we've really accomplished nothing but shifting wealth away from the middle class up to the very top. In essence, we have nothing to show for it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"My general problem what constitution wavers is that they cling to an image of a world that never existed. "
Delete... Even God felt us all to be imperfect but also capable of working to his image. As we will recall, the preamble states the intent of the document with the words "In order to form a more perfect union". When asked of Benjamin Franklin was asked, “What kind of government have you given us, Dr.Franklin?” He replied: “A republic, if you can keep it.”
We are moving away from that notion, not towards it. Interestingly enough I feel that same as you about people who harp on about the evils of laissez faire capitalism....
Max, are you saying the people who process the trades shouldn't be reasonably compensated? How would markets operate without middlemen? Even electronic trading requires and entity to clear paper.
DeleteAnd as to your definition of an investor, why would someone trust his capital with another, or his paper, if he was not interested in making a gain? Again, here we have the "can in the backyard mentality."
Of course we want to make a profit nimrod! Only communists want to redistribute equally, as if that works.
William and Max.
ReplyDeleteInteresting philosophical debate going on here. Max has a bit of a problem with his belief in the slogan: From each according to his ability, to each, according to his needs. The words of Louis Blanc in about 1850. William advocates investing the windfall for his old age and as a demonstration of how wealth appreciates under capitalist management.
The problem as it appears to me is that you both have a choice and under the "freedoms” given to you by the founders, you should be allowed to exercise that choice without let or hindrance by your philosophical opponent. Of course, you could ignore the words, written over two centuries ago and try to put a modern day meaning on them. This modern day interpretation was espoused by a bloke named Kennedy when he mouthed the words penned for him by Galbraith, Adeli Stevenson and his speechwriter Sorenson. “Ask not what your country …..”.
I am old enough to remember the declaration of war by Chamberlain in 1939; I remember also the speech by FDR after Pearl Harbor. Many passages from Churchill during and after the war. All of the foregoing was momentous, within the context of the war climate of the early forties. In the sixties, the fear generated by the cold war among the population of America was palpable. A country which remained unoccupied during the war needed a speech with nobility about it which did much to allay that fear. Kennedy delivered the speech for the times and I often wonder why my friends continually pull the country apart rather than try to live up to those words of a slain president>?
Cheers from Aussie.
King, I genuinely do not understand what you mean by this. "Max has a bit of a problem with his belief in the slogan: From each according to his ability, to each, according to his needs." Are you suggesting that I espouse a communist philosophy?
DeleteMax, my thanks.
DeleteCertainly not, I deliberately quoted Blank because the quotation is his original thought. Marks et al used it later to lend weight to their philosophy of total centralized control. We saw the results of that philosophy with Stalin and later the long march and the centralization of power in China.
With Blanc, the thrust appears to be protection of the workers but not with the destruction of private enterprise as a result of the policy. I see you as a socialist Max, never a Communist. It is dangerous to classify ones friends and opponents alike concerning their political leanings; I have done as here as an exception because you specifically asked me to do so.
Cheers from Aussie
Max, in my humble Tea Party opinion, is actually a Clintonian progressive. Or as I heard described the other day, a patient communist.
DeleteNow as King has mentioned the collectivists Stalin and Mao we take this opportunity to tally up the most deadly administrations is the history of mankind.
Contrast this to the dastardly conservative administration of one Ronald Reagan who just happened to free more countries and people from the strangle hold of totalitarianism.
Why do we have the situation in the Ukraine today? The people well remember their communist overlords and refuse to return to a twenty first century dark age.
King, for it's worth,
DeleteYour knowledge and scholarship of the history of this country and history in general genuinely impresses me. I don't dismiss history and in younger days, was quite interested in both history and conservative philosophy. However, the study of both stopped answering my questions at some point. Likewise, the labels of communist, socialist and libertarian also fell short.
Socialism is thusly defined by google "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." I don't remotely support this idea. People need to have for reward for taking risk and bettering themselves and socialism eventually squashes that reward. Regardless, I am very interested in what creates stable society. It is one thing to look backwards at history and examine the quotes of inspiring individuals like Kennedy as well as scammers and tyrants. But to me, those people at the top are remembered because they took advantage of a sentiment and reality of the people they came from.
Frequently, what they capitalized on was disparity, whether disparity of spirit or disparity of wealth.
My basic outlook at this point in my life is that the government can govern in a way where risk is rewarded, hoarding of capital is discouraged and opportunity to better ones self (stress on opportunity like access to education, not guaranteed job) are available to all. For the veterans of WW II, we provided such an environment. Starting with the children of those veterans, however, we have gone on a rampage to dismantle everything that created stability for the great generation. There is some irony of course, that is the great generation who are voting so strongly for the party that is removing all of these stabilizers.
Likely, this won't change your opinion of me at all. But, when I make a comment, it's from what I've learned dealing with people growing up, in the business world and now as a nurse taking care of dying people.
"Contrast this to the dastardly conservative administration of one Ronald Reagan who just happened to free more countries and people from the strangle hold of totalitarianism."
DeleteThis is another fantasy of the worshippers of Reagan. For a moment, lets concede this point and say you are correct William. Communism did, end, and Reagan certainly played a part, but it came it a cost to our nation. Under Reagan, we entered a new era wherein we built endless missiles with borrowed money, exploded both the deficit and the national debt, and forever removed the idea that we need to live within our means. This reality is never discussed by the right.
Eisenhower warned us of the growth of the military industrial complex and how it was taking control of the very soul of the nation. Reagan embraced the MIC and set us on a course to being the nation that spends so much on its military that it dwarfs the military budgets of multiple nations combined. That buildup has created an Empire and also put us in a position of using very heavy hands to deal with the rest of the world. We've seen how that has worked out.
Your last sentence really makes no sense.
Max, I guess you already forgot that the Ukrainian people overthrew their Russian aligned overlord just last month. Putin moving into the Crimea is a sideshow.
DeleteAnd as for Reagan's military build up your selective memory of course remembers that Tip O'neill controlled the purse strings for much of the build up in debt.
"Prior to the Reagan administration, the United States economy experienced a decade of rising unemployment and inflation (known as stagflation). Political pressure favored stimulus resulting in an expansion of the money supply. President Richard Nixon's wage and price controls were phased out.[3] The federal oil reserves were created to ease any future short term shocks. President Jimmy Carter had begun phasing out price controls on petroleum, while he created the Department of Energy. Much of the credit for the resolution of the stagflation is given to two causes: a three-year contraction of the money supply by the Federal Reserve Board under Paul Volcker, initiated in the last year of Carter's presidency[3] (and continued during the Reagan presidency), and long-term easing of supply and pricing in oil during the 1980s oil glut.
In his stated intention to increase defense spending while lowering taxes, Reagan's approach was a departure from his immediate predecessors. Reagan enacted lower marginal tax rates in conjunction with simplified income tax codes and continued deregulation. During Reagan's presidency the annual deficits averaged 4.2% of GDP[4] after inheriting an annual deficit of 2.7% of GDP in 1980 under president Carter.[4] The real (inflation adjusted) rate of growth in federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan. GDP per working-age adult, which had increased at only a 0.8% annual rate during the Carter administration, increased at a 1.8% rate during the Reagan administration. The increase in productivity growth was even higher: output per hour in the business sector, which had been roughly constant in the Carter years, increased at a 1.4% rate in the Reagan years.[2]
Before Reagan's election, supply side policy was considered unconventional by the moderate wing of the Republican Party, though in reality John F. Kennedy in his 1963 State of the Union address, proposed substantial reduction in marginal tax rates, as well as a reduction in corporate tax rates."
"During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988 (in constant 2005 dollars), averaging 7.91% annual growth in current dollars. [29] This reduced the unemployment rate by 1.6%, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988. [28][30] A net job increase of about 21 million also occurred through mid-1990."
"The misery index, defined as the inflation rate added to the unemployment rate, shrunk from 19.33 when he began his administration to 9.72 when he left, the greatest improvement record for a President since Harry S. Truman left office.[33] In terms of American households, the percentage of total households making less than $10,000 a year (in real 2007 dollars) shrunk from 8.8% in 1980 to 8.3% in 1988 while the percentage of households making over $75,000 went from 20.2% to 25.7% during that period, both signs of progress.[34]"
So the exploding debt is all Tip O'Neil's fault? You won't get an argument from me that Tip and the Democrats were complicit in the militarization of America spawned by Reagan. But that was a different time. Reagan and O'Neil could talk to each other and unlike today, they made compromises.
DeleteYou are correct about Volker and for the bazillionth time, I will say again, my outlook on the damage caused by the Fed does not differ significantly from anyone here. Ayn's little puppet Alan Greenspan undid everything Volker strove for. The second para there has a to discuss, but I'm going to hone in on a couple things. First, it appears you lifted all of your stuff here from a wiki link called "Reaganomics". Here is chart link from that page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Budget_Deficit_1971_to_2001.png
Reagan inherited a budget deficit of 2.7% of GDP and pushed them up to annual deficits of 4.2%. Year after year of this had disastrous results on the debt. To me, the ratio of debt as a percentage of GDP is useless. Debt is debt and you pay back what you borrowed plus interest. Starting with Reagan, our debt has been on an upward climb. The budged deficit (not debt) has narrowed under Obama, but it's not like he gets any credit for it.
The increase in productivity is something that seldom gets a full discussion. Despite that fact that productivity has gone up exponentially since the 80's, the salary of workers producing more has been stagnant. We know where that gain has gone and with our tax cuts, we have actually encouraged the owners of capital to continue hammering wages and hoard capital.
But the last piece is wanted to comment on is what I feel is a total distortion of reality about supply side economics. When Kennedy talked about lower taxes being the tide that would raise all boats, taxes were very, very high. Under Reagan, it was a similar deal. When marginal rates are at 70%, like they were when Reagan started, I will concede that taxes are discouraging investment. However, I do not believe that the same argument can be made at every level of taxation down to zero. The poor don't pay any taxes. Why aren't they creating jobs?
A consequence of of Reagan's view of taxation is that we now have a situation wherein we believe we can simply stop spending and our debt will go away. Much is made of how tax receipts went up when Reagan cut taxes and took away loopholes. Well, now all the loopholes are back, money is hid outside of the country, and we won't even discuss raising taxes to pay our bills. The reason why we did not have massive deficits and debt prior to Reagan was because we raised taxes accordingly. At this point in history, the people who have benefitted from deficit spending (the rich) want to dump all the debt on someone else to pay while they endless roll their money over and over to all their heirs.
Max, Obama gets no credit for the trend in deficit reduction because his proposed budgets never cut the deficit. We both know this. The sequestration which both spendthrift parties were dragged to kicking and screaming was the catalyst for the paltry effort to date.
DeleteYour statement about hammering wages and hoarding capital is nonsense. The market sets wages, except where artificially tampered with by government, and investing is hardly hoarding.
No doubt the government has created an atmosphere whereby prudent savers and investors have been leaning towards increased percentages. This is hardly hoarding, the term sanity comes to mind.
I don't think anyone is advocating the reduction of taxes down to zero as in your extreme example. Everyone agrees that taxation is necessary and supply side arguments posit that lower rates advance increases in overall prosperity as more capital will be risked if the vig is moderate.
I agree that loopholes should be closed, what sane person wouldn't. The reason we had what you call "massive debt" under Reagan was that the democrats in congress didn't follow through with their promises of spending cuts. There was no lack of tax income due to Reagan's tax cuts.
"The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988."
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates
It's a matter of vision. There is no shortage of corporate capital, and no shortage of capital from wealthy investors. There is, however, a complete lack of willingness to make meaningful investment in the borders of this country. In your vision, the wealthy guy who buys and sells assets instead of starting a new business or providing capital for a new business is a vital cog in our economy. In my vision, he's just a guy who would rather sit back, take less risk and let his money grow while the Fed debases the dollar to keep assets inflated. I've got no problems with the wealthy being rewarded for risk. But, I've got a big problem with the reality that the holders of capital have basically sucked this country dry and left a smoldering hole in their wake. Labor has been crushed. Unions have been crushed. Benefits have been eliminated. Technological gains have increased output exponentially while wages have gone nowhere. Tell me how our economy will grow if workers don't make more money and spend more money?
DeleteYour fourth para, is bunk. How freaking low does the "vig" have to be before the wealthy feel we are worthy of their investment? Again, though you state no one is calling for no taxation, you go on to say they will invest if taxes are lower. This is the endless promise of supply siders. Just one more tax cut and we will get involved. but it never happens and the trillions of pent up dollars just sit around doing next to nothing except buying lobbyists to create more loopholes to allow further gain of capital without paying any taxes. You agree that loopholes should be closed, but they won't. And if they do, just like under Reagan, they will all be recreated. Nobody wants to pay taxes, but someone needs to an adult and say no more loopholes. Again, this is fantasy. Wont. Ever. Happen.
Once again, you blame Democrats for Reagan's foibles and there is no way you are going to let that fantasy go. You are not without ability to make a salient point William, but you are utterly void of the ability to be objective. By your logic, then, Obama is blameless after Boehner became speaker because he controls the purse strings or that Bush was blameless because the congress didn't stop him. It's a ridiculous claim. To your last para, it doesn't say much. They saw their share of the tax bill climb and they also their income rise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Share_top_1_percent.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Productivity_and_Real_Median_Family_Income_Growth_1947-2009.png
To be fair, I think one of my previous points needs to be reiterated. Ayn's boy Alan has had a major hand in this debacle and the growth of inequality. He has created one bubble after another that I can't blame the wealthy for taking advantage of. Plenty of smart, middle class people, also benefitted enormously from timing the bubbles. Nonetheless, because of continued Fed pumping and low taxes, there is no reason to take risk unless you are a poor slob who would rather save your money. It's a gun to the head situation, either you put your money in the bank and let them make money off you for free while simultaneously earning a return less than inflation, or you can put your money in the stock market or bond market. It doesn't bother me much at mid 40's to be buying stocks with greater risk/reward, but it's a shitty deal for seniors. We have done this solely in the name of rewarding the wealthy and we have gotten nothing in return for it except for the creation of a mountain or risk that will continuously be dumped on the taxpayers when it blows up. We saw it with deregulation of S&L's (Reagan) and deregulation of wall street (Clinton).
I would like to add one point to this discussion about debt... we have the debt creation that we have today simply because we can. When Nixon unplugged the dollar from Breton Woods unlimited fiat insured. Like a coed with daddy's credit card our government was no longer tethered to any type of fiscal restraint. Many states to fiscal policy seriously and actually ran a balanced budget... some with no income tax at all because they couldn't create cash out of the air.
DeleteI too found your comment about hoarding cash a bit off putting too Max... the fed is destroying people who otherwise lived responsibly and put money away for future needs. As for business hoarding cash. When they see no good opportunities to further their enterprise or find the regulatory environment such that any capital improvements might be costly... they sit on their hands and of course borrow cheap debt from the graciousness of the fed....
This gets better and better. The debate is running smoothly and without rancour, everyone contributing something of interest to act as a stimulant towards the sharing of knowledge.
DeleteThe question of debit and the distribution of wealth are of interest to us all. Scott delivers some insight in his post of 1.55 when Breton Woods is mentioned.
I wonder how many understand the meaning of Breton Woods and the necessity of the agreement forged there in 1944. In a nutshell, the agreement allowed reconstruction of the economies of the world following the end of the war. The principal benefit was the establishment of the International Monetary Fund (now the World Bank) which was able to prop up member nations during periods of high expenditure. It must be remembered that the free world currencies were tied to the U S Dollar and that in essence America tied herself to gold as the backing metal for the dollar. America undertook to honour all US bank notes with one sixteenth once of gold to the dollar (from memory).
The system operated well until August 1971 when US terminated her participation and moved off the “Gold Standard” thereby becoming a “Fiat” currency., France is blamed for the US terminating the system as the French government began a raid on US gold reserves by repatriating large amounts of US paper in exchange for gold.
As has been pointed out, with America no longer needing to hold gold reserves, the present problems began and quickly spread throughout the world. The current US debit would assume its proper significance if it was measured in gold bullion. Unfortunately, the measure we use is the magic word “Fiat”. This literally means Government honour and guarantee the amount printed on the “Paper”
.
Fiat currency has been in existence for centuries, it is a system marked by failures as far back as Roman times with the collapse of the denarius. China also failed and the spectacular collapses of developing countries in more recent times have been predictable. Unfortunately, there is a strong possibility that the mighty US could find herself in the same predicament within the next 30 years. There must come a time when China, India and other rapidly rising powers will simply not buy the paper the Fed Reserve prints.
As a small child I was given a dollar bill by an American soldier who had become a friend of the family in UK just before the D Day landings. It was impressed on a small boy that this piece of paper was good for exchange anywhere and a man called “Uncle Sam” had a pocket full of gold to exchange for these little bits of paper. The world then was in the midst of a tragic war, a soldier was about to cross the channel to fight on the French beaches and a small boy received his first lesson in economics and national pride as he listened to that soldier extol the virtues of his homeland and his government.
Perhaps the foregoing may explain my feelings of goodwill to America and more importantly its people; it has grown over the years and Max and the Scott may rest assured that I bear you no ill will, rather I enjoy your posts even though on occasions I may not agree with you.
Cheers then from Aussie
TS, I have to agree that your statement that we have it because we can is undeniably true. I used to be a big believer that Nixon set the stage, but that's not entirely fair. It wasn't until Reagan came in that deficits and debt skyrocketed. Until Reagan, I think that there was more or less an ingrained mentality that taxes would be raised to meet budget obligations. Whether this was fair or not is a very debatable point. I don't think even I would support the tax levels that were in place in at the time of Reagan's assumption of power. Regardless, once taxes were cut under Reagan and he allowed the debt to double on his watch, we slowly began to simply accept it. Today, neither party has the balls to remotely suggest a tax increase of anything more than a few percent. Someday, this will change, but likely, not for a very long time.
Deleteyour second para that goes into the regulatory environment is, IMO, both an admission that capital is being hoarded, and a trickle down promise that if we keep taking away regulation and taxes, the wealthy will help us all. I ask, if your tax rate is low and you are earning a good return with the status quo, why put it at risk? I wouldn't. Especially when I live in a country where the central bank is willing to bankrupt the entire middle class to support that asset class. I don't know TS, you may be put off by my comment about hoarding, but I don't think your comment really disputes that it is happening. To blame our current regulatory environment and tax code when we have had explosive periods of growth when both taxes and regulations were much higher just doesn't pass the smell test with me.
King,
DeleteI can only imagine how that experience stuck with you for life. That's an awesome story and memory to have.
Some thoughts about gold and fiat currencies. Not surprisingly, I diverge from the great minds of economics here, and I don't say that derisively. I respect that there are people infinitely better educated about economics than me. Still, I feel like all currencies and even gold are beholden to perception. You can't eat gold, you can't heat your house with gold and unlike the dollar, which basically is backed up by the strength of our military (my opinion anyhow), the value of gold is completely based on whatever your trading partner values it at. To tie the value of a currency to the VALUE of gold is essentially tying the value of the currency to a perception. Without perception, what value does gold have?
Whether the value of the dollar is pegged at some ratio to gold, or is simply traded in an open market against other currencies, the net result is the same. People who hold dollars want to know what they will get for holding US dollars. Right now, (again, this is opinion here) the reality is such that our military is likely to win just about any battle it engages in, we have strong protection of property rights and we have an enormous market that others can sell goods to. Why would you not want to own that currency?
The belief that the common man would have more power if only the federal government was restrained from printing it is very enticing. But, I ask this question, what if, instead of limiting our money supply to what is essentially a fixed amount of gold in the world, we passed a law that required taxes to go up by 3% a year until our debt was brought under a number we want it under. I don't see that there would be a functional difference. Whether it is Reagan's fault or not, has become essentially irrelevant to me. What I don't let go of though is a belief that we have DECIDED to untether ourselves from fiscal responsibility because we have come to the conclusion that we can never go back to where taxes were when Reagan came into office. Put another way, there is no consequence for our printing. the money is printed, it enters the financial markets, and largely stays out of circulation. When and if that money every is shared with the working class, we will have inflation. Until then, no consequence and hence, no real reason to change.
Max, under Reagan and a 28% tax rate we enjoyed one of the countries finest decades for growth. Now under Obama and the progressives our rate approaches 40% and we witness a moribund advancement.
DeleteBoth presidents doubled the debt, Reagan around 1.9T and Obama by the time he's done about 10T. Reagan's tally was about 50% of GDP where Obama''s is over 100% of GDP.
Under Reagan and his deficit spending:
"The 600-Ship Navy was a strategic plan of the United States Navy during the 1980s to rebuild its fleet after cutbacks that followed the end of the Vietnam War. The plan, which originated with Republican leaders, was an important campaign plank of Ronald Reagan in the 1980 presidential election, who advocated a larger military and strategic confrontation with the Soviet Union."
Under Obama's deficit spending:
""After hearing concerns about how the permitting process delays construction, Obama smiled and said: "Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected." "
"In 2012, U.S. military readiness plummeted — an unprecedented occurrence during wartime. The decline effectively has our troops swirling around the drain, and readiness will plunge further when the full weight of sequestration is realized.
There have been three rounds of defense cuts in the past four years. Then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired the opening salvo during the first year of the Obama administration. His effort was a successful failure: Gates’s reordering of the defense budget produced nearly $300 billion in savings, which was slated to support deployed forces in the Middle East. Instead, most of it was snatched by the Obama White House and used to support domestic priorities. No other federal agency was asked or expected to go through similar housecleaning.
In April 2011, the president proposed cutting the defense budget by nearly half a trillion dollars. Congress acquiesced in order to avert a government shutdown. Although less than 20 percent of the federal budget is spent on our military, half of the cuts in the 2011 Budget Control Act came on the backs of our troops.
What was the military forced to do? Rely on further supplemental war funding to keep its head above water. Most of the money authorized for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has gone to our deployed forces. But some of it has gone toward restoring readiness — fixing tanks, repairing ships and resetting equipment damaged in combat — because the base budget isn’t sufficient to keep aging equipment, mostly from the Reagan era, in working condition.
But the White House has snipped this budgetary lifeline. According to senior military leaders’ testimony to the House Armed Services Committee in February, the Obama administration’s fiscal 2013 war funding request was short by approximately $12 billion. And this year’s initial submission for war funding was less than that — even as our best fighter squadrons were being grounded, tens of thousands of troops were being forced out of uniform and lines were growing for overdue equipment maintenance. About the same time the Defense Department was issuing furlough notices to nearly 800,000 people, the White House revised its request, slashing the defense budget by an additional $5 billion. Because the president hasn’t publicized his plans for troop levels in Afghanistan, we have to assume that the additional cuts and his accelerated, costly plans for withdrawal will once again force our troops to raid their readiness accounts to cover the cost of carrying out the commander in chief’s combat orders.
If that weren’t enough, sequestration’s additional half-trillion dollars in military cuts might be the proverbial straw."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/budget-cuts-chip-away-at-military-readiness/2013/06/06/55647598-cd36-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html
Max. March 25, 2014 at 5:00 PM.
DeleteMorning all, I wonder what some of the smarter economic theorists in the past would make of your post. Would old Adam Smith in about 1700 try to nuke Spain or the Netherlands, Karl Marx with his determination to centralize everything would have to start at the very centre before implementing his plan by force John Maynard Keys, being British, would have tutt tutted and watched as the arse of his pants burnt away.
No my friend, the thinking that might is right has no place in the solution of the problems of the world in an economic sense. I have observed this trait previously in American thinking, perhaps stemming from the experiences of the last century or so when your armament factories and the Fed supported any and all sides engaged in belligerent activities. The US became a very wealthy country through such activities and the industrial spin offs were enormous as a result of Rand D which was carried out on a scale unimaginable before such conflicts took place. In 1912 the US was a debtor nation but through expansion of manufacturing for both sides during the war you emerged a creditor nation. Likewise early in WW2, the US was ramping up production of military equipment for sale or “Lend Lease” to the allies until Pearl Harbor. The arms race and the cold war were further examples of the might is right doctrine. In all fairness however, we need to remember that it was the power of the US which prevented Soviet expansion throughout the whole of Europe.
No Max, forget the guns and the bombs, it simply would not work. As a further deterrent to this thinking, remember China and India, just to name two developing super powers are nuclear nations. They too are engaged in Rand D and will soon be too big to fight .Just as the USSR and America became towards the end of last century.
Unless and until all the leading industrialized nations decide to reduce debit and run economies geared to surplus, the economic picture as we know it is doomed to fail. Debit and deficit is almost holy writ within socialist thinking and surplus is the mantra of the right. Here in Aussie is a perfect example. Six years ago the Conservatives lost power having run surplus budgets for about nine consecutive years. The outgoing government also left a sizable surplus in the treasury for the incoming lot. The Labor party was in office for six years and has left the country with a debit of about 300 billion. This is a sum unimaginable to all of us but the new government has taken on the task of repayment of the debit and working towards a surplus.
Let me give you an example or so which I am sure is replicated in your country. Age pension (social security to you) far too high and add on's make the system not only unaffordable for the government but allow us the recipients to live high on the hog. Because I am a returned veteran (Navy) I receive free health care for all conditions, a pension for “war :” injuries”,( I seldom heard a shot fired) subsidized license fees for driving and vehicle registration and all manner of other items cannot remember. All of the above is costing the nation money it does not have and I receive so much I do not need. So here is a start point; good I am sure for your nation and mine; let the citizens who are lucky enough to live in our wonderful countries, contribute more for the right to do so. We hear so much about the citizens rights, how about the citizens responsibilities.
Cheers from Aussie
"So here is a start point; good I am sure for your nation and mine; let the citizens who are lucky enough to live in our wonderful countries, contribute more for the right to do so. We hear so much about the citizens rights, how about the citizens responsibilities."
DeleteWere I to say this, it would be deemed calling for "each according to his needs....." Meh, my politics are really not very from yours King. I do not in the least agree with a policy of might is right, which is one of many things that puts me at odds with the conservatives of this country who worship the idea that it is better to be feared than respected; a belief that if we are strong enough and flash enough muscle, the entire world will bow to our whim. THAT type of thinking is what starts major wars. But, I digress.
In any event, I am simply pointing it that it is a reality of why we are allowed to do what we do. The size of our military and the size of our consumer base have allowed us to be the equivalent a spoiled brat child who grows well into early adulthood assuming that everybody who meets them loves them and lives to find ways to make them happy. I agree with you about running surpluses and for a very brief time while Clinton was POTUS, we did this and we were on a path of responsibility. We then decided we must never run surpluses and promptly cut taxes and began borrowing again to make that point clear. And for good measure, we invaded Iraq, a country that was not remotely worthy of being on our radar as a threat.
Here is another of my whacky views. The reason we will not balance our budgets and pay our debts is because it would be disastrous for our stock market and would drive down the numerical price of anything priced in dollars. It also would make paying our debt more expensive. The dollars we borrowed under Reagan bought a lot more than the fixed number of dollars we are returning to borrowers to today. Though liberals are endlessly hassled about being creators of debt, there is no denying who has most benefitted from the Feds printing. A true path of fiscal restraint would end the "food stamps" the Fed hands out on a yearly basis. Our banks are so weak and bloated with worthless assets that they would not survive a dollar rally that further decreased the value of their paper. We are stuck with this situation until we successfully inflate our way out of it, or we see a true 1920's style depression.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnd I would like to add that Glen Beck is not even close to being a national treasure. Really William a "National Treasure"? Hell most people don't even listen to the scumbag. Really are you making this stuff up as you go along?
ReplyDeleteI personally know dozens of patriots who attended Beck's Restoring Honor Rally in Washington DC. I stood with hundreds of thousands before the capitol on 9/12, a rally his endorsement inflated. Each and every one I would stand with over and over again. Calling him the name above associates all of us with that term. You sir are not worthy of the mud on their shoe.
DeleteThe conversation of this thread is in large part a result of patriots like Rand and Ron Paul standing on the shoulders of Beck, and Levin, and Church, and Rush. and millions of others who are not afraid to take on the establishment in DC and the various gerrymandered States.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberty-Amendments-Restoring-American/dp/1451606273
"The conversation of this thread is in large part a result of patriots like Rand and Ron Paul standing on the shoulders of Beck, and Levin, and Church, and Rush."
DeleteSee as how you and all of these people frequently express the words of others, I would say that the originators of the words are the real patriots while the rest are basically fan boys who make a living pouring old wine into new bottles while stirring up hostility. Rush is as establishment as you can get in his support of the Republican party and all of it's gerrymandered glory. I can't stand Beck and his theatrical crying and way over the top rhetoric, but every once in awhile he makes a slip and goes off script from the established conservative (AKA Republican) agenda. I saw Levin once on TV during the financial meltdown, and he was literally praising Hank Paulson. Next.
The Paul's represent the only interesting dynamic to me. In Paul Sr.'s case, he has become the old man who can say whatever the hell he wants and generally, he has been an equal opportunity basher and I frequently enjoyed watching him rip into Greenspan during Humphrey Hawkins hearings. Rand Paul, though he mouths the same general stance of his father, is the next Barack Obama. IE, he has had his eyes set on running for POTUS since he got to Washington. Every word he utters is a calculated talking point that will become his portfolio of "established" positions when he runs for POTUS. Who knows, maybe he wins someday.
Thank you Max. Beck is a magpie and he has been, by his own admission, labelled an entertainer. Now William there you go again, Hundreds of thousands? The event drew 87,000 Americans although Beck and his co horts claim tens of thousands or even 500,000. Again an admitted entertainer. And this particular rally was not political but a fund raiser for the children of Special Operations Soldiers who have fallen in combat. A Great cause regardless of your political beliefs. So since I believe in this cause can I now be a patriot too? Even without subscribing to the tea party doctrine? And it was not held at the Capitol but at the Lincoln Memorial.
Delete@ Max, but to be successful Rand Paul will have to run towards the middle in a general election for POTUS. I re-iterate for the umpteenth time, America is a centrist country. Sometimes we are center right. Sometimes we are center left. But always we are hovering around the center. Americans don't like drastic change (ex: Obamacare). We like to ease our way to the left or to the right. The fanatic right of which Paul will have to court to gain the republican nomination will give him the same scars that Romney carried into the general election. He will have to say things to appease the base then say something different to appease the country in the general election.
DeleteWilliam is comical that you speak of gerrymandered states because that is what is keeping the Repubs in power in the house. Gerrymandering does not greatly effect Senate races or elections for the POTUS as they are statewide and gerrymandering has little if anything to do with the result.
DeleteRic, Hundreds of thousands at the 9/12/09 Tea Party rally
DeleteUploaded on Sep 12, 2009
Sen. Jim DeMint does an interview with Fox News live from the 9/12 Taxpayer March in Washington, where he immediately corects Brian Wilson and says there are "not tens of thousands" of people there, but "hundreds of thousands."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Rc-Ys0Z_Lg
Uploaded on Sep 13, 2009
Rare footage from the terrace of the US Capitol building and time lapse footage of protesters marching down Pennsylvania Avenue illustrate the gathering of people who attended the March on Washington on September 12, 2009.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UULBKgxRGk
Agreed on Paul Rick, but it's the same for Democrats. Since both parties need to nominate in the next election, it could be an interesting dynamic. Where Paul will have some freedom, I think, is that Republicans have watched what happens in the general. Gerrymandering wins local races, but it will take strong voter suppression tactics to negate large numbers of Democratic voters. However, the Democrats have to accept that this is the new reality. They can't keep whining about voter supression, they have to overcome it and win anyway.
DeleteUltimately, all candidates have to turn back towards center. Romney, IMO, looked more comfortable heading towards the center than he did spouting the far right line, except when it comes to money. Depending on how Paul runs his campaign, he might pull in a few more younger voters than Democrats might expect. I'm not sure Hillary is the Democrats best choice.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThere you go again William. You were talking about Beck's restoring Honor rally now you are talking about something different a "tax payer " rally. two different one's aren't they? Again this is comical Because although the tea party claims no leaders it is highly ingrained with Freedomworks and always has been. Freedomworks funded by oops The Koch Brothers? NO! say it ain't so. There is truth to this rumor!? Freedomworks organized the 9/12/2009 march of 200,000 people on Washington. Freedomworks suggested reading list: Saul Alinsky. Ha!
ReplyDeleteAnd you teas want respect as a viable alternative? Just a big 'ol lie.
"I personally know dozens of patriots who attended Beck's Restoring Honor Rally in Washington DC. I stood with hundreds of thousands before the capitol on 9/12, a rally his endorsement inflated. Each and every one I would stand with over and over again. Calling him the name above associates all of us with that term. You sir are not worthy of the mud on their shoe."
DeleteTo quote myself for your clarification. I was referring to both events. Beck was a big part of both events.
And as for 200,000 at the 9/12 event. I was in that crowd, I've been in many large crowds, that crowd was massive. Much more than you estimate, much more than any left wing media admitted. Helicopters flew over all day they could have easily counted the numbers. I'm sure they did, if they weren't scared to report the actual amount.
At the time I attended that event I wasn't affiliated with a Tea Party or any group. I didn't know who Freedomworks was. I did know that Glen Back helped promote the day.
Facts are terrible things ric.
Yes they are William. You as an individual would not know the difference between standing in a crowd of 200000 or 500000. Either is a gang of people. Counting people from a helicopter? Seriously. The people never moved? How do you do that count the red shirts first then the blue ones?
DeleteWhat name scumbag? It fits nicely with an "entertainer" like him. Glen Beck promoted the day as a day of National Unity following the 8th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Maybe he isn't such a scumbag after all.
Ric, you take a picture of the crowd and count the people. They can read license plates from satellites for crying out loud. The National park service use to estimate DC crowds until lawyers from "The million man march" sued over their estimate.
DeleteWilliam did you take a picture? No one in a helicopter is going to count bodies on the ground not that many anyway. You are talking about two different technologies when you talk about what a helicopter can see and do and what a satellite can see and do. 200,000 was probably close to the right number. No one has given a larger figure except Glen Beck and you.
Delete