I've already tried multiple times in the Ron Paul containment thread. To his credit leavesofliberty tried to reply, but as I think he'd acknowledge, he didn't really know the details. No one else cared that Ron Paul is railing against monetizing the debt at the same time that he is asking the Fed to forgive the debt owed by the Treasury.

You're welcome to take up that discussion there. Seriously, I'm happy to hear from someone who is a supporter of Ron Paul why this makes even a tiny bit of sense. Instead, people just post links to him saying this (over and over again) with little or no commentary ("Awesome!") even though I am pretty sure they don't know what it means.

But it's OK. That thread is for mindless cheerleading, links, and Max Raker.

So, if either of you two are willing to make an affirmative defense, go for it. Until then, I don't think it's incorrect to dismiss his position as nonsense, since I believe that to be accurate. I'm not saying I wouldn't change my mind if someone explained to me why it was a coherent position.

Until then, I don't see the problem in bringing it up when people are acting as if Ron Paul's views on the Fed, as a whole, make sense. They don't.

Eh, I think stylistically one is supposed to italicize foreign words. At least that's what they told me in my middle-school grammar class. Occasionally I remember to do this.

You get that finding links where Paul's name isn't mentioned is exactly what I'm talking about with respect to confirmation bias? If you want to do this right, you need to start, first, with your list of media outlets.

NYT headline: "Iowa Poll Goes to Bachmann; Paul Is Second"
WSJ blurb had basically the same thing last night.

Keep in mind that Pawlenty finishing third actually was more interesting, because it caused him to drop out.

This is what I understand of the logic behind Paul's plan:
1. Fed prints money, sends it to Treasury via buying T-Bonds.
2. Treasury returns the money owed+interest to the Fed.
3. However, the Fed can only accept enough money to pay for operating expenses.
4. The excess is returned to the government and...
5. Money supply has been increased.

Since the Fed merely prints the assets it loans out, the debt owed to the Fed by the Treasury is artificial. The whole scenario is just a way to monetize the government's real debt.

LirvA,

Do you know what confirmation bias means?

First, regarding "monetizing the debt": what would be the last step in such an activity? How does it differ from Paul's plan?

Second, why is forgiving the debt here a good idea? What does it accomplish?

it lessens the debt??

how is this not obvious

seems like if other candidates split the maintstream votes paul could sneak in and win the nom, no?

I think RP hinted at that in the debate when they asked what the candidates thought about Perry joining, RP said "he represents the establishment, so I welcome him to the race"

Isn't the question more why is the bias occuring? Is it because CNN/Fox/etc. is trying to run its business well aka appeal to its audience more or is it because they have an interest in making "their" candidates more appealing? Some other reason?

I think news networks just think that the vast majority of people who watch their network do not care about Ron Paul. I haven't seen statistics regarding whether they are right or not.

There's a media bias... it's not specifically against rp, it's against irrelevant candidates

No.

The last step would be for the government to introduce the newly created money into the economy, causing inflation. As long as this doesn't happen, the money can be destroyed (either physically or electronically) without deflationary risk.


I'm not an economist though, so check out this link for a better explanation:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...fusion-on.html

Ron Paul moves up to 16/1 to become president on sports-betting site. Bachmann at 14/1.

He was 40/1 for the past couple months. He was 40/1 last week, up until at least Thursday. Huge bump for him. Bachmann's odds barely went up from the straw poll win, iirc.

Video: CNN and Politico Admit Ron Paul Bias

OK. So why doesn't the government do this on a bigger scale. Just have the Fed print lots of money and give it to the Treasury to, say, pay down the debt. Seem pretty obvious, right? What do you think Paul thinks about that proposal?

First, let me say that I appreciate your taking the time to find me someone defending Paul on this. It's not the greatest source (if I wanted to read people calling each other names, I could do it here) but I'll take a closer look at this later.

A very brief read-through of that isn't very convincing (yes, the Fed can print money and still prevent inflation, but that doesn't make printing money good policy), but I'll try to write a more substantive reply when I have time.

(If this turns into a "what's the definition of inflation" debate, or an opportunity to talk about the evils of fractional reserve currency, though, I'm not interested.)

I don't think Paul is suggesting that the Fed print money to make up for the debt the US owes the Fed, I think he was saying the US just shouldn't pay the debt to the Fed.

Printing money to make up for the debt would lead to inflation, so I'd expect RP to be against this.

who's this ron paul guy? keep hearing him mentioned in this forum and nowhere else

about time I check him out?

Well time for Max Raker to mortgage his home and invest his life savings shorting this - after all, Ron Paul's chance of winning is 0.00%, right?

And this means he's like 3/1 or 4/1 to win the nom.

But you see, the problem is WE decide who is and who isn't relevant, and who wins elections. Not the media. Or that's how it's supposed to be at least.

I'm not really a green day fan, but I think this sums it up quite nicely.

don't want to be an American idiot
one nation controlled by the media

Hilary Clinton at 25:1 is a real head scratcher. Paul at 16:1 does not look like a good bet either.

And in b4 a paultard says you should put all your monies against paul for 5% APR if your so sure he can't win

Fail. Free money is free money.

If anyone's a lizard person it's Bachmann.

lol

Max,


Do you know what propaganda is? How about blind, ignorant, or deceitful? Or even trolling?

I don't know if you and the others are blind and ignorant, or just deceitful and trolling.