Or maybe everyone isn't out to get you

maybe most economists aren't delusional

maybe most everyone else but you isn't either crazy or stupid

these are possibilities.

5/26/2011 11:42:53 AM

Kris these "economists" you are talking about are not reputable authorities. Theres a reason no one in the investment world gives a flying fuck what krugman and his band of idiots have to say. It's because the education system, specifically higher education, is controlled by no nothing liberals.

Those that can do, do. Those that can't, teach.

Get back to me when professors and government shill economists get anything right and actually make money in the private sector.

5/26/2011 11:52:58 AM

Is making money in the private sector synonymous with getting economic predictions correct?

5/26/2011 12:01:44 PM

^^^I'm not saying you're out to get me. I'm saying you're a fool that can't see the writing on the wall. We've explained, so many times, why the bond market is going to fail spectacularly. You have had no rebuttal. Maybe you can't cope with the implications of such a development - that your way of life will change substantially. Maybe you're trying to save face after years of espousing an ideology that has been the ruination of this country.

Ron Paul Backs Industrial Hemp Farming Bill

Quote :

"House Bill 1831, The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2011, would exclude low potency varieties of marijuana from federal prohibition. If approved, this measure will grant state legislatures the authority to license and regulate the commercial production of hemp as an industrial and agricultural commodity."

Quote :

"According to a 2005 Congressional Resource Service report, the United States is the only developed nation that fails to cultivate industrial hemp as an economic crop. As a result, U.S. companies that specialize in hempen goods — such as Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, Patagonia, Nature’s Path, and Nutiva — have no choice but to import hemp material. These added production costs are then passed on to the consumer who must pay artificially high retail prices for hemp products."

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/ron-paul-backs-industrial-hemp-farming-bill

Is anyone actually opposed to hemp farming, other than corporations that would rather not be forced to compete? We end up importing hemp from other places. These laws make no sense, yet the vast majority of politicians are afraid to speak out against them.

[Edited on May 26, 2011 at 12:14 PM. Reason : ]

5/26/2011 12:12:44 PM

Quote :

"Theres a reason no one in the investment world gives a flying fuck what krugman and his band of idiots have to say."

Economic versus business are like chemistry versus chemical engineering, while they are loosely connected, one is far more applicable to the real world. Economics is much more theoretical, that's why people in the investment world don't care as much about it, it can't be quantified.

Quote :

"Those that can do, do."

The only 3 "do"s that you can really do with in economics is teaching, writing, or policy. Policy means you either have to get elected or appointed. Anything else is more business than economics.

Quote :

"I'm saying you're a fool that can't see the writing on the wall."

Let's make it clear, you're saying a HUGE number of investors are all fools.

Quote :

"You have had no rebuttal."

Make an argument. You know, something more than "BONDS WILL FAIL HERP DERP".

Quote :

"We end up importing hemp from other places."

Please excuse me while I shed a tear about a bunch of hippie shit costing a dollar more.

5/26/2011 12:53:42 PM

Quote :

"Please excuse me while I shed a tear about a bunch of hippie shit costing a dollar more."

Surely you're joking...? Or do you not know how valuable hemp is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#Uses

5/26/2011 12:56:01 PM

It's so valuable that the rest of the world uses it as cigarette paper and bird seed.

5/26/2011 1:28:44 PM

You sure are an ignorant fuck sometimes. Yes, there's no value in a single plant that can produce a multitude of environmentally-friendly products.

Quote :

"Hemp can be used to make an astounding 25,000 different products. In addition to well-known products like rope, twine, nets, canvas bags and carpets, the fiber from hemp stalks can be used to make textiles for apparel, diapers, sheets, towels, tents, drapes, knapsacks and shoes. The first Levi's jeans were made of hemp fibers which are longer, stronger, more lustrous, absorbent and mildew resistant than cotton. The fibers and hurds (a pulp byproduct after the hemp fiber is removed from the plant) can make newsprint, cardboard and stationery. Hemp fibers will also strengthen and allow paper to be recycled indefinitely. In addition to salad oil, margarine and food supplements, hempseed oil has been used to make paint, varnish, ink, fuel, plastic resin, solvents and lubricating oils. It can also be used to make soap, shampoo, bath gels and cosmetics. Hempseed is the world's second richest plant source of protein and is cheaper to cultivate than even soybeans. Hemp protein can be added to flour and animal feed instead of more expensive crops like soy and corn. Hemp hurds can be used to manufacture cellophane, plastic, building materials, insulation, fiberboard, cement blocks and mortar, and can even be made into a fiberglass substitute. A hearty plant with few natural enemies, hemp requires no pesticides or fertilizers. Since it takes only 100 days to grow, several crops can be planted a year or after other crops are harvested. the leftover stalks make excellent mulch. A variety of hemp used for industrial purposes contains only minute amounts of the psychoactive chemical THC that is usually associated with hemp cultivation."

5/26/2011 1:37:43 PM

I'm just saying it's not a big deal. Just ask any of the number of other countries that have it. I have no problem with it being legalized, and think it probably should, but as I pointed out earlier, I really don't give a shit if the price of hippie shit or bird seed goes down a dollar.

Again you have throughly derailed a thread, congratulations.

5/26/2011 1:52:37 PM

No, I posted about some legislation introduced by a presidential candidate (specifically, the one that this thread is about), and you made an idiotic comment. But yeah, let's change the subject, right?

For the record, the "big deal" is not that the price of hemp is a little higher; it's that YOU GO TO JAIL FOR CULTIVATING IT IN THIS COUNTRY. That is absurd, and given that the founders cultivated hemp themselves, they would be absolutely appalled.

[Edited on May 26, 2011 at 1:57 PM. Reason : ]

5/26/2011 1:55:25 PM

Quote :

"That is absurd, and given that the founders cultivated hemp themselves"

Well they had slaves too, and you rightfully should go to jail for having those, so your logic is flawed there. I'm just saying there are bigger things to worry about.

5/26/2011 2:01:49 PM

Don't focus on fringe issues like hemp focus on our impending economic disaster.

And economists from liberal academia haven't gotten a policy or prediction right in 40 years that's why no one listens to them.

Their entire fallacious "science" is based on economics being "counter-intuitive"

They preface every argument with "I know this sounds backwards but economics is counterintuitive"

Has anyone ever said wait what if economics is actually intuitive? What if things are exactly how they seem and I don't have to rely on someone else to spin information before I can digest it.

Why do they call it " quantitative easing"?? Why not just call it American wealth destruction? Not quite the same haughty ring to it?

[Edited on May 26, 2011 at 2:10 PM. Reason : a]

5/26/2011 2:08:20 PM

Not everyone is capable of understanding the things going on in the financial world right now. They're also pretty likely to write off anything you say as "doomsday prophecies" if they don't buy it. You won't convince everyone to stock up on guns, gold, food, and water. You might convince them to vote for Ron Paul, though, if you can demonstrate how he's markedly different than the vast majority of politicians out there right now. I don't consider Hemp a "fringe issue" (it's pretty common sense, honestly), but it's another way to bring into focus the unified principle of liberty.

5/26/2011 2:20:00 PM

Fox news is terrified of Ron Paul's meteoric rise in popularity.

He is receiving 10% of the vote and when palins name is removed he is 2nd in the GOP primary.

Despite all of this documented support fox news ran a poll on the oreilly factor last night showing 7-8 candidates all the way down to 1% support. Ron Paul was not listed at all inferring that he received 0% of the votes!!


This despite the fact many people surveyed for the poll selected Ron Paul!

Is this really happening? Fox is fudging poll results to try to get their candidate Romney through the primary?!

Tell fox news to report the truth or to go fuck themselves

5/26/2011 2:31:39 PM

You two just love to jack each other off and blow hot air.

I wish one of you would actually post some sort of logical argument so I could argue against it rather than "ITS SO OBVIOUS" and "ECONOMISTS ARE STUPID".

5/26/2011 2:44:00 PM

I have. In the debt thread, I posted a lengthy comment on the bond market and the ways it could potentially play out. You had no response. You did not offer an alternative outcome. It seems like you have faith that everything will be fine, but you have no reason for believing that.

Quote :

"Is this really happening? Fox is fudging poll results to try to get their candidate Romney through the primary?!"

I happened constantly in 2008, and they'll try it this time around too. I tune into shows like Rush for a few minutes every day, and they don't talk about Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. They just don't. They'll rail on the "GOP establishment" all day, not realizing the irony of their statements.

Bottom line: the Fox News machine will not allow deviations from the mainstream GOP view on foreign policy and the war on drugs.

[Edited on May 26, 2011 at 2:54 PM. Reason : ]

5/26/2011 2:50:54 PM

How the Hell does Ron Paul get 10% of the votes in the gallup poll and fox says he gets 0%?????

We are being disenfranchised here. I have emailed everyone I can think of about this heist.

Email Matt drudge and tell him we demand honesty in the polls. This election is not going to be stolen by the Dick morris types in 2012. Tell everyone you know about this travesty. Are we living in China? Why is our media suppressing the truth?!

5/26/2011 2:57:39 PM

I didn't respond because it was retarded, you speculated that as foreign demand for our debt decreased, bonds would become worth less. This all requires that demand for our debt drastically goes down, which you don't attempt to actually provide a reasoned argument for. Treasuries have remained fairly stable outside of the drastic increase in demand for them during the recent recession and the drastic increase in demand for them during the Euro debt crisis. I would point out that these large increases in demand during points of instability show that inverse relationship between demand for private investment and demand for treasuries is still very alive and well.

5/26/2011 2:59:27 PM

Actually demand is falling sharply. Japan will be a net seller probably to rebuild their country. China is reducing. pimco and other investment funds are reducing. Most importantly the fed is reducing their buying. If the last resort buyer isn't buying, who is?


Oh and you can bet once treasuries suffer huge losses there will be even more sellers. That is just basic market pyscholigy, even you can understand big losses lead to panic selling

[Edited on May 26, 2011 at 4:25 PM. Reason : ron paul 2012]

5/26/2011 4:24:31 PM

Quote :

"Actually demand is falling sharply."

No, it isn't.

Quote :

"Oh and you can bet once treasuries suffer huge losses there will be even more sellers."

But you're only speculating that there will be. Your arguments are always like the following:
If treasuries go down all this bad stuff will happen
What is your reasoning that treasuries will go down?
Well look at all the bad stuff that would happen

5/26/2011 4:34:17 PM

China has reduced their holdings every month this year. Japan is running into problems of their own. The Fed had been buying 6 billion worth a day. The people that are buying treasuries are turning around and selling them - see PIMCO. No one is long treasuries, the smart money is shorting treasuries (read: speculating).

5/26/2011 5:09:17 PM

Not to rain on your parade, but Bill Gross himself said that the idea that he is shorting all his treasuries is a complete misconception.

Of course, he is probably just covering his short-term ass since [the 10-year] yield has actually gone down over half a percent over that time.

[Edited on May 26, 2011 at 5:22 PM. Reason : x]

5/26/2011 5:18:17 PM

I'm aware of what Bill Gross said. He's undoubtedly aware of his position and what that means for the bond market as a whole, and he's been careful to keep his rhetoric ambiguous. It's semantics, but come on - there's no way anyone in their right mind goes long treasuries right now.

Bill Gross in April:

Quote :

"Unless entitlements are substantially reformed, the U.S. will likely default on its debt; not in conventional ways, but via inflation, currency devaluation and low to negative real interest rates."

So, there's his long-term outlook on the dollar. Based on that, how could he not be shorting? He's not in the business of losing money.

[Edited on May 26, 2011 at 5:35 PM. Reason : ]

5/26/2011 5:31:41 PM

That's conspiracy theorist logic right there.

US Bonds have maintained their inverse relationship with the market no matter how much you claim it not to be there.

5/26/2011 5:33:17 PM

Bonds have traditionally been a "flight to safety" move, so that makes sense. That says nothing about whether they always will be safe.

[Edited on May 26, 2011 at 5:37 PM. Reason : ]

5/26/2011 5:36:57 PM

Nym you can't be serious. He is definitely short the treasury read the fund holdings for gods sake.

Yes I know what gross said but he's just trying to downplay all the attention he's getting for being so early with his treasury short. He made a misleading statement that is technically true because he's shorting synthetic treasuries instead of the actual bonds themselves.

I can understand this confusing average hors but you are a CFA candidate you can figure out why he's plying this charade. His pride is hurt by all the attention doubleline is getting for kicking his Ass

[Edited on May 26, 2011 at 5:47 PM. Reason : a]

5/26/2011 5:45:08 PM

I know what the fund's holdings are.

My point is that he's now hedging his call and basically a walking contradiction right now. Yes, it's certainly possible that he is simply early and yes there are other heavy hitters who did the same (to a lesser degree) but it's certainly not a consensus that yields will rise and certainly not to the degree that he initially expected.

5/26/2011 5:48:56 PM

There's no consensus, but QE2 just finished up, and no one knows what to expect going forward. I think we'll see more easing (though I imagine there's many tricks they could play to avoid drawing attention to it), but until the Fed speaks up, any short-term call is going to be speculation.

5/26/2011 5:53:23 PM

Quote :

"That says nothing about whether they always will be safe."

You seem to be assuming the opposite with little reason.

As far as PIMCO goes, it was a dumb move from the start. It really doesn't matter what you believe or how sure you are of it. You don't put all your eggs in one basket, and you don't let a basket have no eggs in it.

5/26/2011 6:05:40 PM

The media is attempting to block Ron Paul's nomination.

This is an outrage look at this

Http://nacilbupera.blogspot.com/2011/05/dick-morris-propaganda-poll-hides-Ron.html

5/27/2011 10:50:56 AM

Yeah, I don't get how you can call yourself a legitimate media outlet when you edit candidates out of polls because you "don't see them as viable." How about let the people decide who is and isn't electable?

5/27/2011 2:59:53 PM

For the working poor: Ron Paul tries to end taxes on tips, the bulk of wages for many young people

Quote :

"Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning Republican presidential candidate from Texas, has become an unlikely hero among bar and restaurant workers as he fights for a bill that would end all taxes on tips -- the bread and butter of bartenders and waiters."

Quote :

""It's just not right. That money is supposed to be a gratuity for [the workers], not for the government," said Dominic Inferrera, 38, a volunteer with the group. "I worked as a server for 10 years, and I know how hard it can be," he said. "The sad thing is that a lot of the servers end up getting audited at the end of the year and usually work so hard that they don't have the time or financial resources to handle it." "

Quote :

"Paul introduced the Tax Free Tips Act of 2011 in March. The measure would end all income tax, Social Security withholding and other federal levees on any tips earned by salaried workers. "Unlike regular wages, a service-sector employee usually has no guarantee of, or legal right to, a tip," Paul said in 2009, when he introduced a similar bill. "Instead, the amount of a tip usually depends on how well an employee satisfies a client. Since the amount of taxes one pays increases along with the size of tip, taxing tips punishes workers for doing a superior job." "

http://m.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/raising_glass_to_ron_pnQMYegNe82iIc7oNyuVPK

6/6/2011 2:16:25 PM

i can get behind that.

i could get behind RP if he wasn't such a jesus freak

6/6/2011 2:41:40 PM

But he is not really a jesus freak. He preaches social tolerance. He doesn't expect anyone else to have the same beliefs he does. Everyone is allowed to worship (or not) who/whatever they want.

6/6/2011 3:00:33 PM

i hear ya...i just don't know if i believe him. his stance on abortion makes me skeptical.

6/6/2011 3:04:59 PM

I'm highly critical of religion and Christianity specifically, as are many Ron Paul supporters out there. I don't agree with Ron that life begins at conception, though I can certainly understand how someone that has personally delivered thousands of babies would be opposed to abortions, especially late-term.

Unfortunately, there are some facts that have to be acknowledged. Non-Christians don't typically get elected in this country, especially not as Republicans, and that goes double in Texas. I'm not suggesting that Ron is feigning religious belief, but I am suggesting that he never could have obtained his influential position without being strongly Christian.

With all of that said, you don't really hear Ron Paul speaking about very religious subjects. He's not like a Huckabee or Palin that try to connect non-Christianity/family values with American decline. Ron Paul doesn't talk about God, aside from "God-given rights," which can just easily be described as "natural rights." He doesn't want any of these things enforced at the federal level. The real priorities right now need to be restoring the economy and making major changes to how the country runs and spends money. I'm willing to put aside some of my substantial disagreements because there are huge issues that need to be dealt with in a serious way, and Ron Paul is the only viable candidate talking about them.

[Edited on June 6, 2011 at 3:06 PM. Reason : ]

6/6/2011 3:06:24 PM

you speak the truth. i may vote for RP but I'm going to see how things play out first.

6/6/2011 3:15:50 PM

Even though I know he'd never win if he did, I wish he'd run under a third party. We've got to get away from this dual party bullshit.

6/6/2011 3:29:59 PM

The laws would have to be changed substantially, as RP explains in this recent interview on CNN:

Quote :

"We don't have democracy in this country. The parties aren't different, they're all the same."

He goes on to explain that third parties spend most of their money just getting on the ballot, and many times, they're not even allowed into the debates. That means that someone offering an alternative has to work within the two party system if they want to have any effect at all. This is a good interview and worth watching, as it addresses your exact concern.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPbAqzMo-ck

6/6/2011 3:35:30 PM

short piece on his 'state of the union' interview yesterday

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/307644

6/6/2011 4:20:08 PM

When the severe deflation comes, and no one's business has the credit to operate and only the wealthy have all the gold and the plebes all have to go back to subsistence farming like before the 20th century, I've decided that I'm going to be a travelling peddler ala the guy that sells you items in Resident Evil.

6/7/2011 11:50:16 AM

With the fall of Weiner, Paul is the only politician with any balls left. Too bad he's an abortion-opposing nutjob that will NEVER be a viable candidate.

We're doomed.

6/7/2011 11:55:56 AM

Quote :

"Too bad he's an abortion-opposing nutjob that will NEVER be a viable candidate."

if i'm not mistaken, eventhough he is against abortion personally, he is of the opinion that it should be legislated at the state level.

That's one of the major things that i like about paul, his personal views on any given subject don't supersede his constitutional beliefs

6/7/2011 12:17:17 PM

LISO

Libertarian In Supporters Only.

6/7/2011 12:36:42 PM

Obama, Romney, Paul: who is more likely to reduce the amount of killing done on your behalf?

6/7/2011 12:40:57 PM

a Paul/Kucinich ticket would make me a happy man

6/7/2011 12:57:09 PM

I don't know, how many people will die in the severe economic contraction? or do you just not care about the people on government support, immigrants who suddenly have to pay their way back to where ever they came from or where ever they're going after losing jobs, people in nursing homes supported by Medicare/aid who will see support go way down (certainly not sustained or increased to handle new loads), I could go on....

I don't see how an ideology that says so little about actual solutions for unemployment will be a success even in a straight up battle of ideas. You can only get so far on your well-worn criticisms of policies. You need solutions eventually, and the Austrian solution for unemployment is...just not really there in a concrete sense. It just sort of assumes stuff that is in no way proven and justifies it by saying "oh YEAH! YOU come up with a better plan!"

[Edited on June 7, 2011 at 1:22 PM. Reason : c]

6/7/2011 1:20:56 PM

Quote :

"I don't know, how many people will die in the severe economic contraction? or do you just not care about the people on government support, immigrants who suddenly have to pay their way back to where ever they came from or where ever they're going after losing jobs, people in nursing homes supported by Medicare/aid who will see support go way down (certainly not sustained or increased to handle new loads), I could go on...."

This is coming regardless. We can enact policies now to soften the blow, or we can pretend that there is no problem and watch as elderly people starve to death at some point in the not so distant future. The stated policy of Ron Paul has never been "fuck 'em," it has been "let's do the responsible thing now before it's too late." The responsible thing, in this case, is to start reducing costs where it's the easiest: military spending. Then we start eliminating unnecessary federal departments, and then we talk about restructuring/phasing out entitlements.

Quote :

"You need solutions eventually, and the Austrian solution for unemployment is...just not really there in a concrete sense. "

That's absolutely false. The solution for unemployment is allow wages to fall in a recession. The goal of Austrian economics has never been to escape recessions, though, it has been to avoid the boom. You avoid the boom by not having inflationary monetary policy or government policies that encourage speculation/expansion of credit. When a bunch of bad debt is created, it has to be cleared from the market, which isn't fun. The Austrians were talking about this in the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s, but hardly anyone was listening.

[Edited on June 7, 2011 at 1:44 PM. Reason : ]

6/7/2011 1:38:07 PM

^^ you have a complete misunderstanding of Austrian economics. It's almost entirely opposite.

Put in some more research before you oppose viable solutions

6/7/2011 3:11:31 PM

Quote :

"hat's absolutely false. The solution for unemployment is allow wages to fall in a recession. The goal of Austrian economics has never been to escape recessions, though, it has been to avoid the boom. You avoid the boom by not having inflationary monetary policy or government policies that encourage speculation/expansion of credit. When a bunch of bad debt is created, it has to be cleared from the market, which isn't fun. The Austrians were talking about this in the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s, but hardly anyone was listening."

Like I said, long on criticism, short on concrete solutions. You're depending on an absolute faith in the idea that if we abolished any intervention in everything, including monetary supply, whatsoever, that the cost of living and wages would fall, and yet the concentration of wealth would somehow be spread and people's purchasing power would, I guess, stay equal or go up? The industrial revolution increased lower class purchasing power through the provision of jobs. Are you assuming these jobs will all come rushing back from Asia to the new wild west of American monetary policy? I feel like I could carry this scenario out further, but I tend to watch the analyses of actual economists (right or left) and not philosophers who think certain things about the economy can be assumed to be axiomatic (and you can prove them...how?). Social science isn't perfect, but at least knows its not a science AND doesn't pretend to be some philosophy that describes the absolute laws of the universe and won't even consider the irrationality of groups and individual decision making (I know you're going to say "and you expect government to make those decisions!", which is just a ridiculous straw man fallacy since that assumes that any form of mixed economy is somehow aimed at central planning, which is just silly and makes no sense unless you see the world in such a dichotomy that every government not abolishing all functions except courts or defense or whatnot is an oppressive central planner).

Shit, I even buy some of Hayek's arguments with regards to the organization of economies (pretty sure most non-socialists do), but I don't have absolute faith in the rationality of all that, so I support the social safety net and evil central banking systems (how was Friedman duped into supporting that stuff, anyway?)

^ Why should I assume any authority on anything from the troll alias of the worst poster in sports talk?

abolishing the fed and essentially drastically remaking the entire world of monetary matters through a chaotic jump into the unknown= VIABLE POLICY (if only those idiots would believe my true genius!).

[Edited on June 7, 2011 at 5:24 PM. Reason : c]

6/7/2011 5:13:00 PM