Gay Patriot Header Image

From Whence We Came

Um, when do we get to exercise our rights given to us in the very first clause under our Founding Document?

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Just askin’.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

92 Comments

  1. Sooner than anyone believes, I fear.

    Comment by TRO — February 19, 2009 @ 9:47 am - February 19, 2009

  2. Do you play chess? Chess is fascinating game.The pawns are the subjects. They are of little value, and the kings, the queens, the rooks, the knights, the bishops all view them as expendable. Throughout human history, this has been the prevailing order, and it is so in much of the world today.

    In 1776, the pawns rebelled, and overthrew the kings. They set up a system where the pawns held power, and they made rules to make sure the kings and the rooks and the knights would never rule over them again.

    But the kings have chipped, and chipped, and chipped away at the laws that gave the pawns the opportunity to run their own lives. And it would seem, 233 years later, the pawns are being put back in our place.

    It may be time to upset the chess board again.

    Comment by Gregory of Yardale — February 19, 2009 @ 9:55 am - February 19, 2009

  3. Great analogy G of Y. I completely and resignedly agree.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — February 19, 2009 @ 10:18 am - February 19, 2009

  4. Also, if you read in the Declaration about all of the abuses of the British Crown towards the colonies, they sound almost exactly like what the federal government is doing to us now.

    Just sayin’.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 19, 2009 @ 10:50 am - February 19, 2009

  5. As Laura Ingraham says, “Just put a sweater on O, and you have Jimmy C.”
    Except that O puts the heat up to 80 because he is from Hawaii. He has forgotten Chicago (who gave him all his training) so quickly.

    Comment by PatriotMom — February 19, 2009 @ 11:03 am - February 19, 2009

  6. For me, the best line from this great document comes a tad later:

    “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 19, 2009 @ 11:20 am - February 19, 2009

  7. Thanks, MM. That was actually the clause I was thinking of originally!!

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — February 19, 2009 @ 11:42 am - February 19, 2009

  8. Not a problem, Bruce… the kids have it memorized from a famous scene in the 1st “Natl Treasure” movie. I wish more people actually read that document on Independence Day.

    I wonder if the scriptwriters knew they were teaching a generation of young kids about a core value in the American Experience?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 19, 2009 @ 11:50 am - February 19, 2009

  9. So what are you saying here, guys? That it’s time to overthrow the government?

    For what reasons (in your minds), and by what means? And with what type of new government in mind? For example, would the new government (that you envision) practice border security?

    In my mind, I don’t think it’s time to overthrow the whole government – but it’s certainly time to overthrow the Federal Reserve, which is ‘printing’ (in layman’s slang) the new funny-money that enables most of the abuses we’re seeing.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 12:06 pm - February 19, 2009

  10. (i.e return to sound money, and a lot of other budgetary and financial abuses will cease soon after, or must cease just to get it done)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 12:15 pm - February 19, 2009

  11. Which to incorporate a ‘gay trope’ ILC, it’s time to start following the Yellow Brick Road again?

    Comment by The Livewire — February 19, 2009 @ 12:19 pm - February 19, 2009

  12. Ron Paul is looking better and better by the day. Too bad the Republicans establishment wouldn’t give him much consideration and worked so hard to shut him out of the process. The only reason he was able to go as far as he did was his incredibly noisy Internet fan-base. That said, I’m still not convinced that abolishing the Fed Reserve or going back to the gold standard would do any good, as we had plenty of recessions and depressions before those things changed to their current state.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 19, 2009 @ 12:35 pm - February 19, 2009

  13. I’m sure you guys saw THIS? Awesome!!!!

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 19, 2009 @ 12:43 pm - February 19, 2009

  14. I’m still not convinced that abolishing the Fed Reserve or going back to the gold standard would do any good, as we had plenty of recessions and depressions before those things changed to their current state.

    First, I didn’t call for a gold standard. Maybe it’s the answer, or, maybe there are better answers. I just know that the Fed continually boosting the money supply (in excess of population and productivity growth) is the foundation of our debt-driven economy – that fake economy which is finally collapsing under its own weight, because we’re all tapped out. Yet, Obama and Bernanke, like junkies, are trying to “stimulate” us forward with even more debt and funny money. What’s that saying about people who keep repeating the same bad actions, expecting a magically different result?

    Second, the Federal Reserve was established in 1913. They are generally considered to be a *cause* of the Great Depression, so the GD surely isn’t one of the ones included in your comment. There were recessions, panics and depressions before 1913, that’s true. And the country generally recovered pretty well from them. That’s the point. Periodically the economy gets unbalanced; bad investments need to be cleaned out. Recessions, depressions and panics are that process; the process of cleaning out / rebalancing the economy. They aren’t a thing to be stopped by government (or “Fed”) intervention; they’re a thing to be gone through bravely *and as quickly as possible*. Again, Obama and Bernanke’s policies have us on the road to ruin. It won’t be exactly like Japan in the 90s; it won’t be exactly like the Great Depression; it wont’ be exactly like the 1970s. It might eventually combine the worst aspects of all three.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 12:49 pm - February 19, 2009

  15. P.S. And the period when the U.S. was on the gold standard was, taken all in all, THE GREAT period of U.S. economic progress. In 1912, the U.S. alone accounted for something like more than half of the world’s total GDP. The rest of the world learned from us through the remainder of the 20th century. Again, I’ll gladly take the economic policies – and record – of the 19th century over that of the last 80 years, and what is to come.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 12:52 pm - February 19, 2009

  16. NP, ILC, just getting a better handle on your thinking.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 19, 2009 @ 12:52 pm - February 19, 2009

  17. Actually, in my opinion, returning to the gold standard is a bit extreme.

    The reason the gold standard works is because the government is unable to manipulate or overvalue gold; it is what it is on the world market, and the value of what you hold goes up and down with it. The insanity of our current governmental system of backing money is that it is based on projection of future tax revenues, not on any sort of tangible product or value. It’s like asking a bank to give you a mortgage based on your most optimistic projection of what you’ll be earning in ten years.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 19, 2009 @ 12:57 pm - February 19, 2009

  18. The reason the gold standard works is because the government is unable to manipulate or overvalue gold; it is what it is on the world market

    Exactly. But, as I said, I know of no reason why it has to be a gold standard, or whether some other form of sound-money standard couldn’t be invented that would do just as well, or better.

    I only know that our current governmental system prints money whenever it feels like and hands out giant gobs of cash to the undeserving for political gain; and that is the root cause, underneath all other causes, of our crazy bubble-debt-crash-bubble-debt economy that now wants to die, and arguably should be allowed to die.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 1:26 pm - February 19, 2009

  19. …in four years.

    Comment by Mitchell Blatt — February 19, 2009 @ 1:49 pm - February 19, 2009

  20. The reason the gold standard works is because the government is unable to manipulate or overvalue gold; it is what it is on the world market, and the value of what you hold goes up and down with it.

    The problem with the gold standard is that you leave your entire economy vulnerable to manipulators such as Gould and Fisk in 1869, and our dear friend George Soros, who took down the Bank of England by manipulating gold futures. More on the Pro’s and Cons of the Gold Standard. Each system has its faults.

    Yes the Great Depression was perhaps the worse in our history, but it may not be fair to compare those of previous eras, since the standard of living and lifestyle expectations was so much higher in the 1920’s and 30’s than they were in the century before. Like this current crisis, easy unsecured credit, combined with crappy lending practices (investments bought on rediculous margins in the 1920’s, stupid sub-prime mortgages combined with derivatives in the last ten years) are the root cause of our problems. Plus, in the past century we have had three severe downturns, 30’s 70’s and now. Before that, we had four, in 1837, 57, 70 and 90. So the new ones may have been longer, but we had more under the gold standard.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 19, 2009 @ 2:00 pm - February 19, 2009

  21. Interesting information gentlemen.

    So what should a currency be based on?

    Comment by The Livewire — February 19, 2009 @ 2:04 pm - February 19, 2009

  22. Oh, and BTW, we were still on the gold standard until 1933.

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not blaming the GD on the gold standard, I’m just saying it wouldn’t make much of a difference.

    PS. Looks like a good time to revisit “The Forgotten Man”.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 19, 2009 @ 2:21 pm - February 19, 2009

  23. Interestingly, if you read the original Wizard of Oz, the shoes were “silver slippers” showing support for a silver standard, one of many of Baum’s commentaries on the economic times. I thought I’d bring this up, since the connection to Wicked might get the gay community interested in American economics.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — February 19, 2009 @ 2:35 pm - February 19, 2009

  24. Sorry fellas, but you’ve got to earn your seats at the table, and the way you do that is by winning elections. There are lots of parties and groups in this country that aren’t part of the process, and that’s because they can’t organize into a party that nets them enough seats to wield any sort of power. The Green Party doesn’t get to offer their input for the same reason that you don’t — Republicans simply don’t have enough control of the government to matter. Just because you have a few seats doesn’t mean anyone has to listen to you, you have to have enough seats.

    Comment by Levi — February 19, 2009 @ 2:43 pm - February 19, 2009

  25. #21 – LW, right now the U.S. currency is based upon “full faith and credit” in the US government. (Try not to hurl too loudly.)

    When Nixon took us completely off the gold standard in 1973, there was nary a peep in the media. And why not? We had been partially off the gold standard since FDR devalued the price of gold in order to increase the Federal treasury.

    So today, we have a dollar that is “worth” a dollar because Uncle Sam tells us so.

    To illustrate, I use this analogy when explaining it to the students I tutor on the weekends:

    Pretend you are on Gilligan’s island. The Professor creates a working freezer to keep water cold and create ice cubes (he made it out of coconuts, palm trees, wire etc. – but couldn’t repair the hole in the SS Minnow). It is a small freezer but will hold a dozen ice cubes per castaway per week.

    In order for everyone to have a share of the ice cubes, the Skipper creates “tickets” made out of tree bark to use in redeeming one ice cube at a time. At first everyone has a daily ice run, then weekly, then monthly, and after a year or two nobody opens the freezer anymore. Since everyone knows that the ice cubes will always be there, nobody is concerned about making an “ice run” to preserve the commodity.

    Pretty soon everyone is using these “cube tickets” as barter and currency throughout the island – for example, if Mary Ann wanted to sell a coconut pie to the Howells, she would accept tickets.

    Everything goes smoothly until one night Gilligan gets his usual share of ice and forgets to close the door (messing it up for everyone as he is wont to do). The ice melts and the freezer shorts out.

    After the Skipper gets finished whacking Gilligan over the head, he calls a conference of himself, Gilligan and the Professor to decide what to do. The Professor, in his wisdom, tells the Skipper to pretend that the freezer is still working so that the tickets do not lose their value. Besides (as the Professor reasoned), nobody goes to the freezer anymore, so why disillusion the remaining castaways by telling them their tickets are worthless?

    In the end, the Skipper keeps his word, Gilligan keeps his mouth shut and the island’s primitive economy keeps humming along. After all, everyone “believes” that their money is worth something because it says so.

    Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to share.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 19, 2009 @ 2:51 pm - February 19, 2009

  26. #24 – “Just because you have a few seats doesn’t mean anyone has to listen to you.”

    Then Levi, I guess you and the other libtards on this site will keep your collective pie holes shut after 2010 when the GOP takes back Congress.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 19, 2009 @ 2:55 pm - February 19, 2009

  27. Then Levi, I guess you and the other libtards on this site will keep your collective pie holes shut after 2010 when the GOP takes back Congress.

    You really think you can win 80 seats in the House and 20 in the Senate in a single election? With your approval ratings? With your recent record of government control?

    Meh, I wouldn’t put it past you, actually.

    Comment by Levi — February 19, 2009 @ 3:02 pm - February 19, 2009

  28. Levi (#24) — it is clear you are clueless about American liberty and the Founding Fathers.

    This has nothing to do with which POLITICAL PARTY is in power. Although that has everything to do with your side.

    I’m fed up with the entire system of government as it has evolved, Republican and Democrat alike.

    Our government’s founding principles must be adhered to, not one Leader or Party.

    Fool.

    Comment by GayPatriot — February 19, 2009 @ 4:12 pm - February 19, 2009

  29. #27 – Oh, too easy:

    “You really think you can win 80 seats in the House and 20 in the Senate in a single election?”

    Uh, yes, given the fact that none of the GOP members of the House and only 3 RINOs in the Senate (one of which who will probably lose in his own primary) voted for this porkulus package. Besides, we’ve been discounted before – back in 1994, when the previous Clinton porkulus package was passed – and look what happened.

    “With your approval ratings? With your recent record of government control?”

    According to RealClearPolitics.com, here is your answer:

    “One month into Obama’s term, 60 percent of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president, DOWN from 65 percent three weeks ago (27-28 January 2009). Similarly, the portion of people that disapproves has increased to 26 percent, up from 16 percent.

    “Views of Obama as a person have also DIPPED. Today 68 percent have a favorable opinion of him and 25 percent unfavorable. Last month Obama had his highest favorable rating to date when 76 percent of Americans said they had a positive opinion and 15 percent unfavorable.

    “The poll finds 48 percent think it is good that Obama has a Democratic Congress to increase his power and an equal number — 46 percent — wish there were more Republicans in Congress to provide a check on Obama’s power. Moreover, 16 percent of those voting for Obama in the general election wish there were more Republicans in Congress.

    “And a 42 percent plurality thinks the press is being too easy on the Obama administration — more than twice as many as say the press is being too tough (20 percent).”

    “46 percent approve of the job Democrats in Congress are doing and 34 percent approve of Republicans in Congress.”

    Match, set, game. You lose. Thanks for playing. We have wonderful consolation prizes for you backstage.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 19, 2009 @ 4:18 pm - February 19, 2009

  30. The problem with the gold standard is that you leave your entire economy vulnerable to manipulators such as… George Soros, who took down the Bank of England by manipulating gold futures.

    The statement is self-contradicting. England, and the rest of the world, haven’t been on a gold standard since World War I. Maybe Soros used gold futures in some fashion, but to cite him as an example of problems with the gold standard is absurd. Whatever Soros got away with would, by definition, be an example of problems with our current *fiat money* standard.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 4:22 pm - February 19, 2009

  31. Before that, we had four [depressions or panics], in 1837, 57, 70 and 90. So the new ones may have been longer, but we had more under the gold standard.

    sonic – First of all, you left out 1907. Second, I already gave an answer to that point. Here it is again:

    There were recessions, panics and depressions before 1913, that’s true. And the country generally recovered pretty well from them. That’s the point. Periodically the economy gets unbalanced; bad investments need to be cleaned out. Recessions, depressions and panics are that process; the process of cleaning out / rebalancing the economy…

    P.S. And the period when the U.S. was on the gold standard was, taken all in all, THE GREAT period of U.S. economic progress. In 1912, the U.S. alone accounted for something like more than half of the world’s total GDP. The rest of the world learned from us through the remainder of the 20th century. Again, I’ll gladly take the economic policies – and record – of the 19th century over that of the last 80 years, and what is to come.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 4:26 pm - February 19, 2009

  32. So what should a currency be based on?

    Fair question, the more so because my views aren’t well-developed. I only know, there has to be something better than fiat money.

    Money is supposed to have 2 key functions: (1) as a means of exchange, (2) as a store of value. What we’re seeing today is the destruction of the second, under a regime of negative real interest rates. In other words, show me someone who saves their cash in a bank savings account, and I’ll show you a chump. She’s a chump because the zero interest she’s getting won’t be enough to keep up with long-term inflation. (Let’s not talk about “deflation”: if it’s real then it is only temporary, and possibly it isn’t real, or may be ending.) She’s a chump because the Feds are just printing gobs of cash and handing it out to their friends, implicitly away taxing her purchasing power, in the name of supposedly “stimulating” the economy. There has to be a better way.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 4:38 pm - February 19, 2009

  33. #25 Peter – Great analogy! 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 4:41 pm - February 19, 2009

  34. Um, when do we get to exercise our rights given to us in the very first clause under our Founding Document?

    When you can win on the battlefield. Until then everything is up for negotiation and the long, hard slog of politics.

    Comment by John — February 19, 2009 @ 4:58 pm - February 19, 2009

  35. I’d still like to know the answers to my questions:
    —————————————————–
    So what are you saying here, guys? That it’s time to overthrow the government?

    For what reasons (in your minds), and by what means? And with what type of new government in mind? For example, would the new government (that you envision) practice border security?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 5:01 pm - February 19, 2009

  36. Peter, I think you hurt Levi’s brain today with your knowledge and experience.

    Go easy on the guy. He is probably a fellow viktim of the publik skrewl system.

    Comment by GayPatriot — February 19, 2009 @ 5:08 pm - February 19, 2009

  37. ILC — I will have to avoid answering your questions directly due to a sincere fear that the Obama’s Justice Department will show up to my house and imprison me on charges of treason.

    I will have more thinly-veiled posts on this subject, though, over the coming weeks. 🙂

    Comment by GayPatriot — February 19, 2009 @ 5:10 pm - February 19, 2009

  38. Bruce – OK 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 5:11 pm - February 19, 2009

  39. Could you redo the Gilligan’s Island analogy using Spongebob and Patrick? With Mr. Krabs as the President of All Banks and Squidward as the Angry Consumer?

    Comment by Ashpenaz — February 19, 2009 @ 5:32 pm - February 19, 2009

  40. Peter, I think you hurt Levi’s brain today with your knowledge and experience.

    Go easy on the guy. He is probably a fellow viktim of the publik skrewl system.

    Knowledge and experience? All he did was copy and paste a bunch of polls that said that Obama is insanely popular. I’m not understanding the point. Do you know what Republican approval ratings are? That’s not something to be excited about.

    You guys are a joke. This presidency is only starting to materialize and you’re already counting on being in control again. The only seat you guys have been able to flip in the past 2 elections was Jim Jeffords, do you realize that? And now, one month in, you’re measuring the drapes because Obama’s approval ratings are now only in the 60s? This from a group of people that think Sarah Palin is the next great hope for the GOP. Ha!

    Way too early people. Way too early.

    Comment by Levi — February 19, 2009 @ 5:36 pm - February 19, 2009

  41. So what are you saying here, guys? That it’s time to overthrow the government?
    —————————————————————————

    I think we’re saying that if the first month is any indication of what will happen over the next four years, we should prepared to do whatever is necessary to stop this country from turning into Cuba or Venezuela.

    Comment by V the K — February 19, 2009 @ 5:48 pm - February 19, 2009

  42. #25: You could also use that as an analogy for communism.

    Comment by Attmay — February 19, 2009 @ 6:32 pm - February 19, 2009

  43. #40 – It’s obvious you didn’t get the point of my posting – that Count Chocula’s ratings are dropping faster than a hooker’s underwear in a Motel 6. At the rate it is going, he’s going to make GWB look popular by comparison.

    You also are either too young or too dense to recall the Carter era. Here, let me sum it up for you:

    1. Half the voters remember Jimmy Carter’s presidency
    2. The other half will soon find out what it was like

    Checkmate.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 19, 2009 @ 6:41 pm - February 19, 2009

  44. #40 – It’s obvious you didn’t get the point of my posting – that Count Chocula’s ratings are dropping faster than a hooker’s underwear in a Motel 6. At the rate it is going, he’s going to make GWB look popular by comparison.

    I got your point and I responded to it.

    Guess you’re not getting my point.

    Comment by Levi — February 19, 2009 @ 7:12 pm - February 19, 2009

  45. 1. Half the voters remember Jimmy Carter’s presidency
    2. The other half will soon find out what it was like

    Hey! That was my quote:

    There are two kinds of people in the Electorate:

    1. People who remember how horrible the Jimmy Carter years were.

    2. People who are about to find out.

    I made the quote at in the comments Gatewaypundit, it got picked up by Powerline, and… wow… it’s all over the blogosphere now. Neat!

    Comment by V the K — February 19, 2009 @ 7:49 pm - February 19, 2009

  46. ILC said:

    And the period when the U.S. was on the gold standard was, taken all in all, THE GREAT period of U.S. economic progress. In 1912, the U.S. alone accounted for something like more than half of the world’s total GDP. The rest of the world learned from us through the remainder of the 20th century.

    Yes, but it wasn’t because we were on the gold standard. Everyone was on the gold standard. It was because we had more national resources and weren’t afraid to use them. We became the manufacturing leader of the world. By the 80’s we were well on a path that would surrender both advantages. I re-emphasize the point that I don’t think you can compare one era to another. There are too many differences between them. My main point is that returning to the gold standard is no panacea. It would relieve some economic pressures, but it would add others. It would be a wash.

    Again, I’ll gladly take the economic policies – and record – of the 19th century over that of the last 80 years, and what is to come.

    Not me. Without those policies we may not have all the wonderful advantages of modern life.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 19, 2009 @ 7:53 pm - February 19, 2009

  47. Interesting information gentlemen.

    Livewire – I don’t know if you’ve seen this before, but you can find many interesting commentaries, both written and video, from Peter Schiff and his associates:
    http://www.europac.net

    I don’t agree with Schiff 100%. I think he underestimates the importance of the U.S. military position / might in making the dollar a ‘safe haven’ for investors. I think the dollar will, accordingly, unravel rather more slowly than Schiff predicts. But I think he’s right on the financial and economic fundamentals. I think he’s right that economic and financial actions have already been taken which, unless they are drastically reversed, dictate that the dollar must collapse eventually.

    Schiff is informed by the “Austrian School” of economics. You may have heard of names like Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek and, more popularly, Thomas Sowell or Henry Hazlitt. They’re basically Austrian School. Schiff may be inspired partly (or to a lesser extent) by the writings of Ayn Rand. All the preceding are writers I find very interesting and informative.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 8:02 pm - February 19, 2009

  48. Yes, but it wasn’t because we were on the gold standard.

    Yes it was… in part, that is.

    For capitalism to flourish, you need 3 things, which form a mutually supportive complex with one another: (1) human rights / freedom under the Rule of Law, (2) property rights, (3) sound money.

    Everyone was on the gold standard.

    …led by the U.S. and Britain. And, it was the greatest century of economic progress in human history, a century that, among other things and for the first time, abolished human slavery.

    It was because we had more national resources and weren’t afraid to use them.

    Nope. Or rather, “not quite”. A given feature of the natural environment becomes a noteworthy or valuable “resource” when, and only when, there is a *human mind* to put it to some use. Oil wouldn’t be a valuable resource today, if Rockefeller and Ford and Carnegie and Mellon and various others hadn’t created the U.S. industrial complex – in a context of, again, human freedom, property rights and sound money.

    Not me. Without those policies we may not have all the wonderful advantages of modern life.

    I find the statement nonsensical. The economic policies – and record – of the 1789-1912 period *created* what we now know as “modern life”. They created so much forward momentum that even the bad policies of 1913-2009 couldn’t wholly overcome it, so yes, we have had even more progress since then. But the present crisis, and the worse ones to come, will reap the whirlwind of those bad policies.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 8:13 pm - February 19, 2009

  49. The economic policies – and record – of the 1789-1912 period *created* what we now know as “modern life”. They created so much forward momentum that even the bad policies of 1913-2009 couldn’t wholly overcome it, so yes, we have had even more progress since then. But the present crisis, and the worse ones to come, will reap the whirlwind of those bad policies.

    OK. Quick economics history lesson.

    GDP from 1800 to 1930 = about 1.5% sustained positive growth. On gold standard.

    GDP from 1930 to present = about 2% sustained positive growth. Off gold standard.

    The Great Depression happened BEFORE we went off the gold standard for good.

    The stock market crash of 1929 happened while on the gold standard.

    The current stock market crash happened while off the gold standard.

    Yes we are seeing a very bad downturn at the moment, and yes things look crappy now, shit happens, and people always find ways to screw up the financial system, intentionally and unintentionally. But I’m sorry, you provide NO evidence that the economic system 100 years ago was BETTER than the system now. There is no difference between the two outcomes.

    I liked Ron Paul, but he had the same problem. Every time he made the argument for abolishing the Fed, research showed no real benefit.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 19, 2009 @ 9:05 pm - February 19, 2009

  50. I’ve seen rather different statistics. U.S. in the 19th century was more like today’s China (ultra-high growth rates in good times; outstandingly high growth rates with the bad years averaged in). This graph speaks for itself:

    http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/09/milken-on-world-economy.html

    It would be **impossible** if U.S. growth rates, 1800-1930, were only 1.5% a year. The statistic is fundamentally implausible or likely to be in error.

    As for the Great Depression, it happened AFTER the creation of the Federal Reserve system – with the Federal Reserve itself widely recognized as a leading cause – and which was one of my major points. (refer to #14)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 9:20 pm - February 19, 2009

  51. A variant of the graph, this time including Europe in the picture, and more years of history:
    http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2008/01/20/share-of-world-gdp/

    Of course the U.S. still had considerable growth after 1913; I haven’t claimed otherwise. Let’s not change the grounds of the discussion. Here’s what I have said:

    – The U.S. has had 80-100 years of gradually-worsening economic policy, *starting with* the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, which made itself a major factor in the Great Depression. And, as a total side point to that, the absolute greatest period of economic progress in all of human history (and U.S. history) happens to have been the 124 years prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve.

    – We’ve seen the effects of worsening Fed policies most dramatically in the last 15 years, where the Fed has been the fundamental, and generally unacknowledged, author of our debt-bubble-crash-debt-bubble-crash system that now, arguably, wants to die and should die.

    – I don’t know if a gold standard is a mandatory part of ‘the answer’. I do know that sound money, along with human freedom and property rights (implying considerable deregulation), is the larger answer. I also know that Obama-Bernanke are going in the exact wrong direction, and will, over the next several years, reap the whirlwind for their pains (and rightly so).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 9:33 pm - February 19, 2009

  52. Every time he made the argument for abolishing the Fed, research showed no real benefit.

    The argument is to restore sound money… abolishing the Fed would only be one aspect of a larger program on that… having said that, my main answer is: Look around you! Look at the fundamental problems in our economy – too much debt, built up over generations! If that isn’t enough to make you want sound money, how much “research” ever could?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 9:41 pm - February 19, 2009

  53. (i.e., sound money *and* market interest rates rather than centrally planned / artifically low interest rates, which intensify debt-bubble cycles)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 9:56 pm - February 19, 2009

  54. Sidebar – More on our supposed current “deflation”: Wholesale inflation takes biggest jump in 6 months.

    Also, not to beat this to death, but on further reflection: sound money and market interest rates would be virtually the same thing. The whole point about unsound money is that it becomes unsound because the central bank prints / creates more and more of it (more than is needed to match productivity & population growth) in order to finance debts and deficits and to make, or to keep, interest rates artificially low. The extra money / low rates fuel create a bubble somewhere in the economy, be it stocks (late 90s) or real estate (last few years) or commodities (the 1970s) or what have you. When the bubble inevitably bursts, the bust is unnecessarily deep and/or long. Anyway, to have artificially low interest rates is to have unsound money, because the basic mechanism of pushing interest rates below-market is: excessive money creation itself. To have market interest rates instead is to skip all that, and hence to have either “sound money”, or at least somewhat sound-er money. What I’m really arguing against is centrally planned interest rates and, since centrally planned rates are *usually* planned to be artificially low, the artificially intensified credit-bubble-debt-burst cycle. This is basic Austrian economics. I could as easily have written my above comments calling for “market interest rates”, rather than calling for “sound money”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 10:39 pm - February 19, 2009

  55. I find this post rather amusing. From a conservative who appears to support the “party of Lincoln”, and yet now lives in North Carolina and espouses what exactly? Secession? The very thing Lincoln staked his presidency on defeating. And during Lincoln’s birthday month, no less.

    Another good reason never to live in the Carolinas. You must be breathing the fumes from the leaded gas exhaust at NASCAR races.

    Comment by Breakers — February 19, 2009 @ 11:22 pm - February 19, 2009

  56. sonic – You got me interested in checking historical GDP growth. Check this out:

    http://www.ggdc.net/Maddison/Historical_Statistics/horizontal-file_03-2007.xls

    It provides historical GDP in something called “million 1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars”. For the US, it says:

    1830 – 18,219
    1840 – 27,694
    1850 – 42,583
    1860 – 69,346
    1870 – 98,374
    1880 – 160,656
    1890 – 242,758
    1900 – 346,869
    1910 – 518,044
    1913 – 582,941

    Now, just eyeballing it, that makes 40-60% GDP growth per decade. No way could that map out to 1.5% average per year. No possible way.

    Just eyeballing the later decades very roughly, it looks like US GDP growth slowed down to 30-40% per decade. A spreadsheet whiz could make it calculate and prove me wrong, heh. (If I’m wrong, I’m wrong.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 20, 2009 @ 1:18 am - February 20, 2009

  57. It would be **impossible** if U.S. growth rates, 1800-1930, were only 1.5% a year. The statistic is fundamentally implausible or likely to be in error.

    The error is on your part. First, on the Milken graph. It’s not pertinent to the discussion. The tremendous advantage China and India have in GDP are due to a combination of both age of country and colonization. China had been active in world trade since at least the first century BC with the trade route known as the silk road. India also benefited from this trade. Later, India, and to some extent China, benefited from European colonization. The US peaks in about 1950 due to two factors – That was when we reached the maximum efficiency in the conversion process from an agrarian economy to an industrial one, and WW2 had decimated the rest of the world and we were basically the only man standing. The reason we decline after that is due to the rest of the world – Europe, Russia, and other countries shown on the second graph – catching the wind of economic renewal and by a new resurgence of global trade. Keep in mind that some of that growth in World GDP has been fueled directly by our own investments in other countries. We helped many of the “Other” countries adopt capitalistic economies, so we actually have a greater share in world GDP than is shown on the graph.

    Your use of these graphs not only don’t show a causal relationship, but they don’t even show a coloration between Fed policy and GPD. This is almost as sloppy as the way Al Gore throws around statistics and anecdotal evidence to convince the unwashed the world is going to end due to Global Warming!

    OK. That was a low blow. Sorry.

    You also point to a fact that destroys your own argument – that after the creation of the Fed, the economy continued to grow at the same rate. for another fourteen years.

    I absolutely agree that lax money policy and easy credit has greatly contributed to this current downturn (though it’s not the only reason), but clearly, if you look at the economic history there are just as many economic problems without the Fed as their is with. Once again, it is a wash.

    There is more to this that can be explained, but I have to go to bed now. Maybe I write more if the need arises.

    PS. I really do apologize for the comparison to Al Gore. That was low. But I do see this kind of twisting of statistical information from the AGW alarmist crowd all the time.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 20, 2009 @ 2:39 am - February 20, 2009

  58. Dude. What are you doing! The figures you posted in # 58 are meaningless and out of context! You don’t even know what the million 1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars is. It”s not a widely recognized time-to-value conversion. I can’t believe a true capitalist such as yourself would pull a UN / IMF backed spread sheet into this.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 20, 2009 @ 3:11 am - February 20, 2009

  59. Sonic, he could be like me on this topic, flailing for information. I don’t know much about how to grow GDP, jsut to seehow much of it is eaten by the goverment.

    So far this has been enlightening.

    As for Breaker (GI Joe fan?) I’ve this quote. “Was on the losing side. Don’t mean it was the wrong one.”

    Comment by The Livewire — February 20, 2009 @ 7:01 am - February 20, 2009

  60. Obama’s ACORN BFF’s are now breaking into private homes and claiming them in the name of the Revolution. Do you still think we’re that far from Zimbabwe?

    Comment by V the K — February 20, 2009 @ 9:34 am - February 20, 2009

  61. Dude. What are you doing! The figures you posted in # 58 are meaningless and out of context! You don’t even know what the million 1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars is. It’’s not a widely recognized time-to-value conversion. I can’t believe a true capitalist such as yourself would pull a UN / IMF backed spread sheet into this.

    Sonic, that’s a bogus reply. To remain generous with you, I must assume you meant it as a joke.

    First, on the Milken graph. It’s not pertinent to the discussion.

    Yes, it is. I’m afraid your simply declaring it “not pertinent” is insufficient to make it so. The Chinese and Indian economies weren’t exactly shrinking in the period we’re talking about; which means the U.S. economy vastly outgrew them – making, again, your 1.5% a year statistic intuitively implausible, or likely to be in error.

    Your use of these graphs not only don’t show a causal relationship

    They illustrate my point, a point I later reinforced with actual number: that your 1.5% a year statistic – for which you gave no reference, btw – is intuitively implausible.

    Look – You’re doing a poor job here, there’s no getting around it. I’m the one who has actually bothered to offer graphs, and links to things, and data. You haven’t. I may indeed be wrong, on this MINOR side issue to my actual main points, but pretty far from proving it.

    Sonic, he could be like me on this topic, flailing for information.

    Livewire, I don’t know everything – I’m learning as I go – but as far as I can tell, I would be the one here who (thus far) has offered information.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 20, 2009 @ 10:36 am - February 20, 2009

  62. spamfilter

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 20, 2009 @ 10:37 am - February 20, 2009

  63. #45 – V, I tip my hat to you for that wonderful quote! I will remember to do so in the future to give you the props you deserve.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 20, 2009 @ 10:38 am - February 20, 2009

  64. #55 – “Another good reason never to live in the Carolinas. You must be breathing the fumes from the leaded gas exhaust at NASCAR races.”

    Ah, another enlighted elitist libtard. You must be a friend of boob’s – you know, the kind that “fears” conservatives but doesn’t know any personally.

    PS – My mother was born in NC. Don’t mess with the Tarheel State.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 20, 2009 @ 10:40 am - February 20, 2009

  65. It’s called a passport, Bruce. Look into it.

    Don’t let the door hit ya on the way out.

    Comment by Rusty Shackleford — February 20, 2009 @ 10:57 am - February 20, 2009

  66. Peter, your analogy in #25 is exactly the situation we are in. I wonder how many people remember what our currency looked like before Nixon allowed the dollar to float with no precious metal to back it up. The serial numbers and seals were blue where they are now green. On the top header after the denomination it read, ¨Silver Certificate,¨ it now reads, ¨ Federal Reserve Note.¨ Below the seal of the Federal Reserve it used to read, ¨Pay bearer on demand One (Five, etc) Dollar in silver.¨ It now reads, ¨this note is legal tender for all debts public and private.¨ I for one agree that we need to return to precious metal standard to limit the Fed in the amount of paper it circulates. Right now our money is n better than monopoly money or as you so aptly said ¨cube tickets.¨

    I liked Ron Paul´s position on the Fed and his defense of the Constitution. During the debates he sounded foolish as to how and why there is the war on terror.

    Comment by Roberto — February 20, 2009 @ 12:18 pm - February 20, 2009

  67. My filtered one has appeared at #61. To fix a typo:

    I’m the one who has actually bothered to offer graphs, and links to things, and data. You haven’t. I may indeed be wrong, on this MINOR side issue to my actual main points, but *you are* [I had meant to say] pretty far from proving it.

    And to make some additional points:

    The US peaks in about 1950 due to two factors

    But the US share of world GDP doesn’t necessarily peak in 1950; the graphs don’t say that, and you haven’t checked it from some other source. 1950 is just a point that the graphs happened to have used. Oh, and why are you using them, sonic, if they are so “not pertinent”? Heh. 🙂 Again, the bottom line is that you’re talking out of your rear end, without numbers. I’m the one, thus far, who has come up with a source of GDP numbers to talk from. You haven’t, thus far, and aren’t availing yourself of mine.

    You also point to a fact that destroys your own argument – that after the creation of the Fed, the economy continued to grow at the same rate. for another fourteen years.

    Bullcr*p. I already anticipated and answered this point at #48 and #51:

    The economic policies – and record – of the 1789-1912 period *created* what we now know as “modern life”. They created so much forward momentum that even the bad policies of 1913-2009 couldn’t wholly overcome it, so yes, we have had [continued growth] since then. But the present crisis, and the worse ones to come, will reap the whirlwind of [generations of] bad policies….

    – The U.S. has had 80-100 years of gradually-worsening economic policy, *starting with* the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913… [emphasis in original]

    – We’ve seen the effects of worsening Fed policies most dramatically in the last 15 years, where the Fed has been the fundamental, and generally unacknowledged, author of our debt-bubble-crash-debt-bubble-crash system that now, arguably, wants to die and should die.

    In short, I’ve been talking about policies that by nature build over decades – and whose whirlwinds we are all reaping, and about to reap more in the 5-10 years to come. *Of course* we would have continued to have periods of growth since 1913. I haven’t maintained otherwise.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 20, 2009 @ 1:12 pm - February 20, 2009

  68. I will have more thinly-veiled posts on this subject

    Gee, Bruce, now that I’ve seen what you look like I’d strongly suggest a MUCH THICKER veil.

    Comment by SomeNYGuy — February 20, 2009 @ 1:15 pm - February 20, 2009

  69. To sum up – What would those bad policies be? Fiat money. A.k.a. unsound money. A.k.a. non-market interest rates. A.k.a. a central bank that usually prefers to force interest rates to below-market levels – creating massive financial bubbles, and consequently, larger and longer recessions than would otherwise be needed to heal and rebalance the economy. First exhibit: The Roaring 20s, followed by the Great Depression. Even “establishment” economists now agree the Fed was to blame for both. Most recent exhibit: The tech bubble, followed by the real estate bubble, followed by today’s crashes. The Fed is a mess, and we need to get rid of it AS PART OF a broader program to restore market interest rates / sound money. And are Obama-Bernanke doing that? Hell, no. Tighten your seat belts, girls, the next 5-10 years are going to be awfully bumpy.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 20, 2009 @ 1:19 pm - February 20, 2009

  70. And, because sonic doesn’t seem to be able to remember all my points at once, I am going to further repeat: Of course we will still have recessions and panics, even under a sound money / market-interest regime. But we will be able to get through and grow ahead that much more. As we did before the Fed, when growth averaged 40-60% per decade, instead of its more recent 30-40%.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 20, 2009 @ 1:24 pm - February 20, 2009

  71. So after a fair and democratic election, if you don’t like the results it’s OK to declare war against your nation. So if you do that and then put in a president that I don’t like then I can declare war I assume. Wouldn’t it just be easier to go find a country that suits you better? Why not try Tristan da Cuhna? There’s about 250 people there (all white I believe) and they pay no taxes. Go have a good time.

    Comment by Tom — February 20, 2009 @ 1:32 pm - February 20, 2009

  72. 2003 would’ve been a really good time for just that.

    None of you bothered to do it when Bush wiped himself on your habeas corpus rights or made torture an official US policy or tapped your phones or monitored your e-mails or set up “Free-Speech Zones” (an obscenity straight out of Kafka’s worst nightmares) or used an archaic States Privilege law to silence an FBI whistleblower or waged an illegal war based on lies or judicially colluded with financiers in the wholesale gang-rape of your economy.

    So whatever you’ve got twisting your knickers now had better be a LOT worse than ALL of that put together.

    Declare your causes or STFU.

    Comment by jim — February 20, 2009 @ 1:46 pm - February 20, 2009

  73. This is one of the finest forums for parody on the web!

    What do you mean this isn’t a parody? You mean you really mean this stuff?!? Oh….

    This is one of the finest forums for psychosis on the web!

    (h/t SadlyNo!)

    Comment by kindness — February 20, 2009 @ 1:53 pm - February 20, 2009

  74. I didn’t think it were possible, but this website has just made me laugh harder than it already did yesterday during my “debate” with ND30, V the K, etc. You people make SN the fine humor website that it is, and we thank you for it.

    Comment by Apikores — February 20, 2009 @ 2:16 pm - February 20, 2009

  75. Bruce, just make sure you let the rest of us patriots know that the black helicopters are coming for you before Obama X spirits you off to his secret sultan’s palace to subject you to the most arcane of Mooslim tortures. Just listen for the “choppa-choppa-choppa” and post every time you hear it–it’ll be funnier for us that way.

    Comment by Apikores — February 20, 2009 @ 2:20 pm - February 20, 2009

  76. So, any criticism of the Dear Leader or his policies is now considered insanity? Isn’t that just exactly how it worked in the USSR?

    Comment by V the K — February 20, 2009 @ 2:52 pm - February 20, 2009

  77. Welcome to all of the nutroots! We are proudly holding up a mirror to your insanity since Dec. 12, 2000 here at GayPatriot.

    You are just too dumb to realize it.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — February 20, 2009 @ 3:08 pm - February 20, 2009

  78. Holding up a mirror to our insanity. Wow, man, I bet you’re pissed W didn’t give you a medal for your heroic efforts fighting America’s enemies. I’m sure you have a detailed fantasy about the ceremony…and about how he approaches you afterward to talk about some deeply held secrets he’s kept inside himself since he was a boy at Yale…and then we all know where it goes from there. Wow. I’ve just myself sick to my own stomach.

    Comment by Apikores — February 20, 2009 @ 3:50 pm - February 20, 2009

  79. I don’t understand. Why are you “just askin”? Are you waiting for some kind of clearance or permission to impel your separation? How pussy. Jesus, either do it or don’t. You’re aware, right, that the authors of the document you so flippantly quote above actually put their lives on the line by writing and publishing those words, right? Or are you hoping someone else will come along and do all the dirty work for you?

    Also: Us libtard lefty traitors responded to 8 wretched years of the GREATEST PRESIDENT EVAH by supporting candidates, voting, protesting, petitioning the government… all that stuff the authors of the document you quoted in your post designed for us to do, and we WON, fair and square. So now, what — that isn’t good enough for you guys? Jesus Christ, that is SO fuckin’ lazy.

    Also: once you secede, what happens to all the infrastructure in whatever territory you decide to claim? You don’t expect the United States taxpayers to keep kickin’ in for that, do you? So what are you gonna do, hand Michelle Malkin a shovel and a bucket of tar and have her fix them highways, or what?

    Lastly, let’s settle something in advance: You may NOT claim our flag, our history, our monuments, our anthems and you certainly may NOT claim the name of OUR country (that’s the United States of America, just so we’re clear). You get that, right? You get that if you dissolve the bonds, YOU dissolve the bonds, and you are on your own, right? Because pulling stuff like claiming the majority of the country broke away from you just because we elected a guy you don’t like doesn’t mean you get to be the USA. Just wanna be clear on all that.

    Beyond that, good luck with whatever you set out to do, or don’t do!

    Comment by Grazzman — February 20, 2009 @ 6:51 pm - February 20, 2009

  80. Wow, the moon must be full, because the lib trolls are more frequent and emptier than ever.

    I did say ‘may’ ILC. Macro-economics is new terrain for me, though watching e-bay of late gives some interesting empirical data.

    Well, Dan can now have his looks added to the things he’s been insulted on.

    Watched Glen Beck tonight. Like him or hate him, his comment on ‘the Bubba factor’ was interesting.

    People worry about an Iranian nuke going off in NY or LA. I’m more worried about it going off -above- NY or LA.

    I know what we should base the dollar on. Depleted Uranium, optionally with the willingness to use it.

    Finally, I just have to comment on the post by Grazzman. His post seems to indicate he’s living in some parallel world where conservatives didn’t complain and disapprove of some of the last president’s policies, and the current President has rolled them all back, rather than enhance them.

    Welcome to our reality Grazzman, oh great traveller from another world!

    Comment by The Livewire — February 20, 2009 @ 9:24 pm - February 20, 2009

  81. Thought you might like to know how much fun your HONEST, HONORABLE host has been having over at Sadly, No! today:

    Bruce (GayPatriot) said,
    February 20, 2009 at 22:36

    Tintin– don’t be foolish…. we don’t censor over at GayPatriot.

    All of your nutroots’ comments are getting through.

    If they aren’t, it is because of foul language…and they are waiting for moderation.

    .

    Bruce (GayPatriot) said,
    February 20, 2009 at 22:46

    Tintin — please retract as there are no comments in moderation at GayPatriot.

    So you were lying.

    .

    Bruce (GayPatriot) said,
    February 20, 2009 at 23:48

    And Simba, to show you don’t know anything about me — anyone who reads my blog knows I haven’t the faintest clue about the technical side.

    .

    Bruce (GayPatriot) said,
    February 20, 2009 at 23:54

    commie – yep, I did release a bunch of comments from moderation today.

    .

    Bruce (GayPatriot) said,
    February 20, 2009 at 23:59

    Have you no honor?

    These days, “conservatism” is less a politically ideology and more a reliable marker for mental pathology (and “gay” conservativism should make it into the next edition of DSMV.)

    Comment by SomeNYGuy — February 20, 2009 @ 10:12 pm - February 20, 2009

  82. SomeNyGuy, I don’t get it. Looks like some comments were held up today, as everyday, by the GP spamfilter (which is just that – a spamfilter – not intentionally censoring anyone except spammers) and then were released. What’s the problem?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 20, 2009 @ 10:39 pm - February 20, 2009

  83. ILC,

    SomeNYGuy’s just upset that he’s not handsome and successful like Bruce or Dan.

    Seriously, we all hate the filter, but we don’t consider it a conspiracy.

    Plus, what’s this about censorship? It’s Bruce’s site after all.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 20, 2009 @ 11:41 pm - February 20, 2009

  84. The problem is that SomeNYGuy and his fellow libbies are desperately trying to draw attention away from what their Obama Party believes and supports.

    Meanwhile, listening to libbies who demand that Rush Limbaugh and others be taken off the air whine about censorship is beyond amusing and well into theater of the absurd.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 20, 2009 @ 11:41 pm - February 20, 2009

  85. In addition, we should remember that the Obama Party doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with violent overthrow of the government and terrorism against US citizens, as we see with their endorsement and support of Bill Ayers and their open collusion with Islamic terrorists.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 20, 2009 @ 11:47 pm - February 20, 2009

  86. The problem is that SomeNYGuy and his fellow libbies are desperately trying to draw attention away from what their Obama Party believes and supports.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty

    You’ve already used this nonsensical diversionary tactic elsewhere on this site, and I’ve already responded:

    I am a gay man and a Jew. I neither endorse nor support Farrakhan, nor do any liberals (including black liberals) I’ve ever known.

    And, of course, neither Farrakhan nor his followers are liberals; they are religious fundamentalists.

    But he makes a spectacular straw-man for wingnuts.

    Comment by SomeNYGuy — February 20, 2009 @ 11:50 pm - February 20, 2009

  87. Here is a source for the 1.5 and 2.0 percent annual GDP respectively.

    1950 is just a point that the graphs happened to have used. Oh, and why are you using them, sonic, if they are so “not pertinent”? Heh. 🙂

    Umh. If you would kindly re-read my post you would see that I am showing why those graphs that YOU BROUGHT TO THE TABLE were not relevant to the discussion and do not help your case. But then again, nevermind. It’s obviously pointless, as you don’t seem to understand the actual info on the graphs you presented.

    I leave this conversation with an invitation to study the main reason why the Fed was created in the first place – the near collapse of the United States financial system in the 1907 panic and recession. Complete ruin of the national financial system was only averted because J. P. Morgan had the wealth to step in and prop up the banks. Notice this happened BEFORE there was any such thing as a Federal Reserve. It took four years for the economy to recover. If this can happen when the U.S. is 100% tied to the gold system, then your argument falls flat. The gold system is no economic panacea.

    PS. If we were on the gold standard in 1980, then Paul Volker can’t raise interest rate that break the back of 1970’s inflation, allowing the Reagan led economic recovery to proceed.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 20, 2009 @ 11:54 pm - February 20, 2009

  88. And I also responded elsewhere by demonstrating how the icons of the Obama Party that you worship, including The One himself, fully endorse and support Louis Farrakhan — plus Sean A’s great work showing how liberals are intimately involved with Farrakhan.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 21, 2009 @ 12:19 am - February 21, 2009

  89. Gazzman in #79 should take some time and read (or have someone help him read) the annexation of the Republic of Texas to the Union in 1845. Our state, a former sovereign nation, was ceded to the USA on a treaty which was ratified by the Senate. Therefore, if we wish we can revoke the treaty with our own elected Legislature in Austin.

    So if we do secede from the Union and reclaim our title as Republic of Texas, we would have the following:

    – a GDP which would rival some other nations
    – all the petroleum in the Gulf of Mexico as part of our resources
    – NASA
    – independent treaty with Mexico to secure our borders, language and culture
    – declare ourselves a “sanctuary nation” for other conservatives who wish to flee from the United Socialist States of Obama.

    Checkmate.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 21, 2009 @ 12:42 pm - February 21, 2009

  90. #81 – “These days, “conservatism” is less a politically ideology and more a reliable marker for mental pathology (and “gay” conservativism should make it into the next edition of DSMV.)”

    SomeLibtardNYGuy should get a clue. Michael Savage has already defined liberalism as a mental disorder. And this post of his expands upon that theory beautifully.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 21, 2009 @ 12:43 pm - February 21, 2009

  91. Ah ha!

    Mallard Filmore has the answer as to what we base our currency on…
    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/strips/mallard/2000/mallard1.asp

    Raman! We’ll be the new Raman Empire!

    Comment by The Livewire — February 23, 2009 @ 8:55 am - February 23, 2009

  92. Good one Livewire! Now I’m hungry.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 23, 2009 @ 9:02 pm - February 23, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.