Ron Paul Humiliates Ben Bernanke so bad that CNBC had to cut him off.
- Thread starter aeliodon
- Start date
Combine the deconstruction of America's wealth with the racial changes and the answer is clear where the problem is - the non-whites who have filled all the political positions running this country!!
Get real. America was betrayed by the rich politicians in Washington grubbing for more money from their financial "backers". The Dumpocrats and fake Republicans have screwed the country over and now they want to point fingers and whine about how nobody should notice.
IF you are trying to impress me, then responding to an accurate, fact based post by responding with nothing original except a Youtube video is a lousy start. Watch it yourself.
This is a clever statement? It is not a tax. It is the way the world operates.
Inflation has been going up for centuries. Inflation exists in all 230 countries.
[/QUOTE]
The video was meant to show you the relationship between cause and effect. Jim Rogers isn't the only one who understands this relationship.
Sure inflation has been going on for centuries and it exists in all 230 countries. I won't refute those facts. But tell me why?
"It is the way the world operates."
According to what laws? Man's, Nature's, Universal?
i want to add something i haven't seen here for you guys to consider as well:
we have tons of supersmart imports on H1 visas and int'l student visas in top colleges like harvard and the like who ace through their degrees and are ready to add to the collegial intellect pool, BUT are exported outta here to places like, hmm, CHINA.
so our top line tertiary education system is receiving and educating these brainiacs that we are forcing to leave while they are welcomed into competing nations.
we should immediately give them permanent residence upon graduation!!!
- got that from an interesting article in "The American" - first time i had seen that magazine -
we have tons of supersmart imports on H1 visas and int'l student visas in top colleges like harvard and the like who ace through their degrees and are ready to add to the collegial intellect pool, BUT are exported outta here to places like, hmm, CHINA.
so our top line tertiary education system is receiving and educating these brainiacs that we are forcing to leave while they are welcomed into competing nations.
we should immediately give them permanent residence upon graduation!!!
- got that from an interesting article in "The American" - first time i had seen that magazine -
Try thinking for yourself instead of cutting and pasting Youtube briefs.
Quoting others without any analysis from yourself is the lazy or uninformed person's way out. It makes the other think you don't even understand your own argument.
And quoting one person's opinion is no more convincing than Ron Paul's stupid statement calling it a tax. As someone once said - opinions are like a-holes. Everyone has one.
Prices go up. Whoop de Doo. So do wages. Maybe Bernanke didn't respond to him, because it was stupid, not clever.
TraderZones obviously not only can't think for himself, he doesn't know squat about basic economics either.
The so called inflation tax is common knowledge among economists, nothing new here. This is taught in every econ dept, including Harvard, and maybe Princeton.
For instance, see below what Mankiw's blog has to say about it.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/05/inflation-tax.html
The Inflation Tax
One of my ec 10 students wonders whether it is possible to defend inflation:
Why is it such a bad thing for governments to rely more on the "inflation tax"? As long as it is applied within the context of an inflation-targeting Fed, all the negatives of inflation can be contained. That is, as long as the Fed sets a target inflation rate (say, 15%) and then uses open market techniques to bring inflation into line by taking into consideration the new money, there'll be no unexpected inflation, and therefore no inflation cost.
There are many advantages to the inflation tax, including: 1) Painless, free "collection." 2) Progressivity (those with the most accumulated assets pay the most.)
It is a provocative proposal. I don't know any economist who would endorse it, however. To explain why, let me make four points:
1. The inflation tax is not painless. There are various inefficiencies that inflation causes, even if it is steady and predictable. Those include the "shoeleather" costs of reduced real money balances, increased menu costs, spurious relative-price variability, and distortions in taxes due to the failure to have fully indexed tax laws. These are discussed in more detail in the textbook.
2. The inflation tax is probably less progressive than one might at first think. It is not a tax on all assets but only on non-interest-bearing assets, such as cash. The rich are able to keep their most of their wealth in forms that can avoid the inflation tax. (One exception is the rich in the underground economy; the inflation tax may hit criminals particularly hard.)
3. The inflation tax would raise only a modest amount of revenue. Here is a rough calculation. The monetary base is now about $800 billion. So an inflation rate of 15 percent would raise a maximum of $120 billion per year, or about 1 percent of GDP. That is an upper bound on the amount of tax revenue because, as inflation rose, the quantity of money demanded would fall, reducing the size of the tax base. (This is a standard "Laffer curve" argument, applied to the inflation tax.)
4. For reasons that are not fully understood, high inflation tends to be volatile inflation. A stable and predictable 15 percent inflation seems possible as a matter of economic theory, but it is rarely if ever observed. If we take this empirical regularity as a constraint, then choosing high inflation entails choosing volatile inflation, which increases uncertainty.
These are the reasons that most economists would be averse to a proposal of steady 15 percent inflation. But has some economist done a detailed and convincing cost-benefit calculation, weighing all the pluses and minuses, to figure out the optimal inflation rate? Not to my knowledge.
The so called inflation tax is common knowledge among economists, nothing new here. This is taught in every econ dept, including Harvard, and maybe Princeton.
For instance, see below what Mankiw's blog has to say about it.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/05/inflation-tax.html
The Inflation Tax
One of my ec 10 students wonders whether it is possible to defend inflation:
Why is it such a bad thing for governments to rely more on the "inflation tax"? As long as it is applied within the context of an inflation-targeting Fed, all the negatives of inflation can be contained. That is, as long as the Fed sets a target inflation rate (say, 15%) and then uses open market techniques to bring inflation into line by taking into consideration the new money, there'll be no unexpected inflation, and therefore no inflation cost.
There are many advantages to the inflation tax, including: 1) Painless, free "collection." 2) Progressivity (those with the most accumulated assets pay the most.)
It is a provocative proposal. I don't know any economist who would endorse it, however. To explain why, let me make four points:
1. The inflation tax is not painless. There are various inefficiencies that inflation causes, even if it is steady and predictable. Those include the "shoeleather" costs of reduced real money balances, increased menu costs, spurious relative-price variability, and distortions in taxes due to the failure to have fully indexed tax laws. These are discussed in more detail in the textbook.
2. The inflation tax is probably less progressive than one might at first think. It is not a tax on all assets but only on non-interest-bearing assets, such as cash. The rich are able to keep their most of their wealth in forms that can avoid the inflation tax. (One exception is the rich in the underground economy; the inflation tax may hit criminals particularly hard.)
3. The inflation tax would raise only a modest amount of revenue. Here is a rough calculation. The monetary base is now about $800 billion. So an inflation rate of 15 percent would raise a maximum of $120 billion per year, or about 1 percent of GDP. That is an upper bound on the amount of tax revenue because, as inflation rose, the quantity of money demanded would fall, reducing the size of the tax base. (This is a standard "Laffer curve" argument, applied to the inflation tax.)
4. For reasons that are not fully understood, high inflation tends to be volatile inflation. A stable and predictable 15 percent inflation seems possible as a matter of economic theory, but it is rarely if ever observed. If we take this empirical regularity as a constraint, then choosing high inflation entails choosing volatile inflation, which increases uncertainty.
These are the reasons that most economists would be averse to a proposal of steady 15 percent inflation. But has some economist done a detailed and convincing cost-benefit calculation, weighing all the pluses and minuses, to figure out the optimal inflation rate? Not to my knowledge.
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:
Put all the horseshit spin you want. One of the negative economic and social factors in America has been the transformation from majority white to majority brown. If you think a black and Mexican workforce is the productivity equivalent of our old school European workforce then it's you who's either stupid or delusional.
Well lets see which is more true, your delusional arguments or reality. Is USA Productivity in decline due to more "browning"?
BUZZZZZZ - Sorry, you lose
Crime and dissimulation are ripping the fabric of American economic choices.
Well lets see which is more true, your delusional arguments or reality. What is happening with USA Crime Rates?
BUZZZZZZ - Sorry, you lose
You think white folks are still cranking out kids?
Well lets see which is more true, your delusional arguments or reality. Is white fertility declining while "brown/black" is increasing?
BUZZZZZZ - Sorry, you lose
In fact your belligerent argument illustrates how folks like you contribute to the problem. You better take off the rose colored glasses and see whats really there not what you'd prefer be there.
I took off the glasses. Survey says - Pabst is STUPIDLY WRONG.
And now, on ignore.
Put all the horseshit spin you want. One of the negative economic and social factors in America has been the transformation from majority white to majority brown. If you think a black and Mexican workforce is the productivity equivalent of our old school European workforce then it's you who's either stupid or delusional.
Well lets see which is more true, your delusional arguments or reality. Is USA Productivity in decline due to more "browning"?
BUZZZZZZ - Sorry, you lose
Crime and dissimulation are ripping the fabric of American economic choices.
Well lets see which is more true, your delusional arguments or reality. What is happening with USA Crime Rates?
BUZZZZZZ - Sorry, you lose
You think white folks are still cranking out kids?
Well lets see which is more true, your delusional arguments or reality. Is white fertility declining while "brown/black" is increasing?
BUZZZZZZ - Sorry, you lose
In fact your belligerent argument illustrates how folks like you contribute to the problem. You better take off the rose colored glasses and see whats really there not what you'd prefer be there.
I took off the glasses. Survey says - Pabst is STUPIDLY WRONG.
And now, on ignore.
it appears they also stop the media coverage of just about any Congressperson whenever their questioning of an important business figure shows impropriety or questionable reporting of either news, events or their sector of responsibility (as in the cases of appointed officials, like the Chiefs, and department heads of government agencies).
it is quite frustrating and demeaning of their worth to traders during the trading day....
so many of the others in the trading forums complain in a similar manner about CNBC's coverage....