Another incredibly worthwhile watch that concerns our foreign policy. Startling to learn that the link between foreign occupation and suicide terrorism is tighter empirically than smoking is to lung cancer.
From The University of Chicago website: Dr. Robert Pape is professor of Political Science and director of the Program for International Politics at The University of Chicago. Dr. Pape specializes in international security affairs.
His current work focuses on the origins of suicide terrorism and the logic of soft balancing in a unipolar world. His commentary on international security policy has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, New Republic, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, as well as on ABC, the BBC and NPR.
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
I post this because other than Ron Paul, I really don't have an understanding of where the nominees stand on their foreign policy. I'm only familiar with Rick Santorum, who has directly debated with Ron Paul on his foreign policy, and is convinced that the Muslims hate us because of our freedom and prosperity. These videos prove that assumption entirely and completely false. Where do the other nominees stand? If none of them seriously consider our current situation in the middle east, I don't think any reasonable person could vote for them, after having watched these videos.
and is convinced that the Muslims hate us because of our freedom and prosperity. These videos prove that assumption entirely and completely false.
I believe there is no need for videos to prove that kind of chauvinist idiocy is false. I'm French so maybe I do not understand enough American politics - but seriously ? Did he say that seriously ? It's like, so stupid and offensive to say. I can't believe that kind of man can still be taken as a serious, presidence-challenging politician.
and is convinced that the Muslims hate us because of our freedom and prosperity. These videos prove that assumption entirely and completely false.
I believe there is no need for videos to prove that kind of chauvinist idiocy is false. I'm French so maybe I do not understand enough American politics - but seriously ? Did he say that seriously ? It's like, so stupid and offensive to say. I can't believe that kind of man can still be taken as a serious, presidence-challenging politician.
and is convinced that the Muslims hate us because of our freedom and prosperity. These videos prove that assumption entirely and completely false.
I believe there is no need for videos to prove that kind of chauvinist idiocy is false. I'm French so maybe I do not understand enough American politics - but seriously ? Did he say that seriously ? It's like, so stupid and offensive to say. I can't believe that kind of man can still be taken as a serious, presidence-challenging politician.
Yeah, during Santorum vs Paul at the CNN debate.
Santorum They want to kill us for who we are and what we stand for. And what we stand for is American Exceptionalism. We stand for freedom and opportunity for everyone around the world...
Paul As long as this country follows that idea, we're going to be under a lot of danger. This whole idea that the whole Muslim world is responsible for this. (some claps) And they're attacking us because we're free and prosperous. That is just not true. (boo's begin.)
Honestly it makes no sense. I posted earlier, but it's like assigning the political motivations of the Underminers from the film The Incredibles to the Muslims. "I declare war on peace and happiness!" Who does that? No-one does that and yet that seems to be the operating belief for some amongst the Republicans including right wing talk show hosts.
It's a little bit easier to say now, but in the wake of 9/11 there were a few people that voice the same thing Ron Paul is saying and were declared unpatriotic by right wing talk shows.
^^^ it's an image that they need upheld: that america's military interests ARE the same as our security interests. this is simply not the case. if we pulled out all the troops from all the bases around the world today, (almost 1000 bases in 63 countries, brand new bases in 7 countries sine 9-11) we would not be nuked, or underwear-bombed, or anything of the sort tomorrow or into the future. they don't like ron paul b/c he wants ALL the troops home (we have more important things to spend money on than bombing would-be terrorists, or fighting against dictators that we set up decades in advance...), he wants to end (at least audit) the federal reserve (who controls most of the other candidates), and the right side of this two-party-dictatorship doesn't think that fits into their false duality paradigm of left/right cons/lib american/terrorist...
he also mentions the bombing of other countries. think about it like this: you are going about your daily routine, when all of a sudden, w/o much warning, planes are flying overhead and chaos ensues. in one day, most people you know are wounded or dead. your mother, your children, your siblings... are you happy? no. do you THANK the people that did that? no. wether or not you know your leader was set up by the same people or not, you are enraged by these actions. how many people in the middle east must die before we consider it a fair trade for our 3500+ people in one day? 100,000? 10,000,000? is OIL worth THIS? would you expect THEM to be a bit ticked off? still don't care?
remember these people are human beings with families and childhoods and friends like ALL of us. just because our media tells us they HATE us for who we are, doesn't mean they are demons from hell. next time you hear someone say they hate americans, or anyone for that matter ask yourself, "do they really know who i am, and do they care about the truth? do i know them, and should i care about the truth?"
On September 17 2011 02:23 xDaunt wrote: Gingrich, Santorum, Cain, Paul, and Huntsman were never competitive/relevant.
I frankly, beg to differ.
Nice video. It does touch on the reason why MANY people on both sides like him as a person and politician. He is marvelously consistent and has a very good understanding of where he stands. However, I think most of his policies are ridiculous. His ideas on monetary policy, taxation, and social programs are a century behind, and that's meant as a demeaning statement.
We have very tough 21st century problems which take 21st century solutions. Going back to 1900 for a selection of policies will not help us.
Why do people seem to believe that Ron Paul is off base when it comes to monetary policy, taxation, and social programs? If anything, he's the only one that will realistically cut spending (unnecessary wars, bloated government programs, removing the system that prints the money and devalues our currency... to name a few). His economic advisor in the last election (2008) was Peter Schiff, who predicted the housing bubble, and many of our financial problems before they occurred. Have a listen to this 2 part video, and explain to me how his (and Ron Paul's) ideas won't work.
If these ideas are 1900's, give me the 1900's.
This is part of what bothers me. People have this ill-conceived notion that devaluation of currency is one of the ways we "suffer" in this day and age. Healthy amounts of inflation is one of the many things that helps an economy grow. There's a LOT of documentation out there as to why and how this is, and Paul finds himself on the wrong side of this fence.
I'll go ahead and agree with you about the aggressive foreign policy that we're currently engaged in. I'd much rather see a shrinking/elimination of combat personnel contracting, which would obviously be a consequence of ending our "wars."
As for Schiff, it's many of the same things Paul lambastes consistently. To at least address his "credibility" of predicting a bubble, it's an easy thing to do. You doomsday predict as a financial strategy, you're bound to get one of the many scenarios correct. Engineers do it all the time when designing products.
There are also times where he is flat out wrong. It happens to every economist, politician, and regular Joe. However, the fact that he blames the cause on government interference is laughable. It's well known at this point that many investors didn't have the information or the diligence to investigate what their money was going in to.
As for his claims about interest rates and borrowing. If we borrow when rates are low, and spend that money to employ the #1 sector out of work on possibly the biggest immediate concern, then cut back on borrowing/spending when private sector investment follows, we will be in the clear. Bonds are auctioned at a steady rate, it's the auctioned price that changes daily. You pay $X for $Y over Z time span. As those bonds come due, you have to pay them off with more bonds, but if you service your deficit when those prices rise, you can greatly reduce the impact those higher rates will have. We can fund stimulus at record low rates, that even the private sector can't get.
His statements about being a high tax nation are correct when you take into account countries which are either 3rd world or subsidized by some abundance of a natural resource. However, when you look at the developed world, we have relatively low taxes. Schaffer talks about his income being effectively taxed at 35%, then you add on all the specific taxes, but that is probably far from the truth. He makes his money with investments and financial advice. A lot of his assets gains are bound to be in capital gains, which only draws a measly 15%. His income from financial advising and cash bonuses will likely be effectively taxed at ~45-50%, but that's hardly all (or most) of his money. If I'm wrong, then I must wonder how he's a CEO who doesn't invest his money.
Finally, since he IS a CEO of a financial investment firm, his doomsday prophecies must always be taken with the concern that he profits from people being scared. Commodities (and gold) are what you invest in when you're scared. The only other investment at this time is U.S. debt, and that's because real estate collapsed. Notice these are the 2 investment strategies (or 1 now) he lambastes, which are the ones he directly competes with. If he can sell fear for even half a decade, he is rewarded handsomely for it, regardless if it's substantiated or not. Compare this to a doctor of economics or publicly appointed experts. Their vested testimony and actions are to their own credibility. "Selling" an idea that is even possibly incorrect in the long term could be devastating to their career, with long term monetary issues.
Nice video. It does touch on the reason why MANY people on both sides like him as a person and politician. He is marvelously consistent and has a very good understanding of where he stands. However, I think most of his policies are ridiculous. His ideas on monetary policy, taxation, and social programs are a century behind, and that's meant as a demeaning statement.
We have very tough 21st century problems which take 21st century solutions. Going back to 1900 for a selection of policies will not help us.
Those ideas that are "a century behind" predicted the economic crises. Your "21st century solutions" caused it.
Yea, I'd much rather live in the decades where the market would lose half it's value every 3-8 years. Where boom-and-bust were market strategies instead of bear-and-bull.
Nice video. It does touch on the reason why MANY people on both sides like him as a person and politician. He is marvelously consistent and has a very good understanding of where he stands. However, I think most of his policies are ridiculous. His ideas on monetary policy, taxation, and social programs are a century behind, and that's meant as a demeaning statement.
We have very tough 21st century problems which take 21st century solutions. Going back to 1900 for a selection of policies will not help us.
Those ideas that are "a century behind" predicted the economic crises. Your "21st century solutions" caused it.
Yea, I'd much rather live in the decades where the market would lose half it's value every 3-8 years. Where boom-and-bust were market strategies instead of bear-and-bull.
This is what Ron Paul was using when he correctly predicted the bubble in 2002
**edit** This is is Ron Paul trying to explain it. (not sure what the other shit in the clip is about)
and is convinced that the Muslims hate us because of our freedom and prosperity. These videos prove that assumption entirely and completely false.
I believe there is no need for videos to prove that kind of chauvinist idiocy is false. I'm French so maybe I do not understand enough American politics - but seriously ? Did he say that seriously ? It's like, so stupid and offensive to say. I can't believe that kind of man can still be taken as a serious, presidence-challenging politician.
thankfully he is very low in polls
Honestly that's not much comfort because it's the typical Republican position. Even if the candidates do not express that view in such stark terms, the policies will follow from that position. Perry leads the field by double digits right now and is as close to a Bush clone as you'll find in politics.
Nice video. It does touch on the reason why MANY people on both sides like him as a person and politician. He is marvelously consistent and has a very good understanding of where he stands. However, I think most of his policies are ridiculous. His ideas on monetary policy, taxation, and social programs are a century behind, and that's meant as a demeaning statement.
We have very tough 21st century problems which take 21st century solutions. Going back to 1900 for a selection of policies will not help us.
Those ideas that are "a century behind" predicted the economic crises. Your "21st century solutions" caused it.
Uhm, everyone knew the economic crisis was coming. The problem wasn't that no one knew the housing bubble would burst; the problem was that everyone knew the bubble would burst, so you had to get while the getting was good. Even in 2006 it was extremely profitable to be in the subprime business, and if behooved anyone there to move before the party ended (just look at all the accusations of fraud that have come out in the past year). It was an issue of the virtue of selfishness being goaded on by the Chicago school of economics (the only real theoretical body proposing "21st century solutions"). To advocate Ron Paul/Schiff as having the solutions because they knew what everyone knew in 2006/'07 is illogical (especially because Keynesians were also calling it); to support their solutions as if they're the same as their being broken clocks just once right on time re the Bubble is to commit to a cult posing as a political position.
The housing bubble was essentially a confluence of an artificially bloated market, risky assets, portfolio shifts, and an economic downturn. At its root, it was a simple problem of supply and demand.
Watching the republican candidates reminds me of why I'm sometimes embarrassed to be associated with the general image of an American. The fact that people with these absurd views exist is depressing enough. The fact that these people not only exist, but are American presidential candidates is just... word's can't describe.
Nice video. It does touch on the reason why MANY people on both sides like him as a person and politician. He is marvelously consistent and has a very good understanding of where he stands. However, I think most of his policies are ridiculous. His ideas on monetary policy, taxation, and social programs are a century behind, and that's meant as a demeaning statement.
We have very tough 21st century problems which take 21st century solutions. Going back to 1900 for a selection of policies will not help us.
Why do people seem to believe that Ron Paul is off base when it comes to monetary policy, taxation, and social programs? If anything, he's the only one that will realistically cut spending (unnecessary wars, bloated government programs, removing the system that prints the money and devalues our currency... to name a few). His economic advisor in the last election (2008) was Peter Schiff, who predicted the housing bubble, and many of our financial problems before they occurred. Have a listen to this 2 part video, and explain to me how his (and Ron Paul's) ideas won't work.
If these ideas are 1900's, give me the 1900's.
This is part of what bothers me. People have this ill-conceived notion that devaluation of currency is one of the ways we "suffer" in this day and age. Healthy amounts of inflation is one of the many things that helps an economy grow. There's a LOT of documentation out there as to why and how this is, and Paul finds himself on the wrong side of this fence.
I'll go ahead and agree with you about the aggressive foreign policy that we're currently engaged in. I'd much rather see a shrinking/elimination of combat personnel contracting, which would obviously be a consequence of ending our "wars."
As for Schiff, it's many of the same things Paul lambastes consistently. To at least address his "credibility" of predicting a bubble, it's an easy thing to do. You doomsday predict as a financial strategy, you're bound to get one of the many scenarios correct. Engineers do it all the time when designing products.
There are also times where he is flat out wrong. It happens to every economist, politician, and regular Joe. However, the fact that he blames the cause on government interference is laughable. It's well known at this point that many investors didn't have the information or the diligence to investigate what their money was going in to.
As for his claims about interest rates and borrowing. If we borrow when rates are low, and spend that money to employ the #1 sector out of work on possibly the biggest immediate concern, then cut back on borrowing/spending when private sector investment follows, we will be in the clear. Bonds are auctioned at a steady rate, it's the auctioned price that changes daily. You pay $X for $Y over Z time span. As those bonds come due, you have to pay them off with more bonds, but if you service your deficit when those prices rise, you can greatly reduce the impact those higher rates will have. We can fund stimulus at record low rates, that even the private sector can't get.
His statements about being a high tax nation are correct when you take into account countries which are either 3rd world or subsidized by some abundance of a natural resource. However, when you look at the developed world, we have relatively low taxes. Schaffer talks about his income being effectively taxed at 35%, then you add on all the specific taxes, but that is probably far from the truth. He makes his money with investments and financial advice. A lot of his assets gains are bound to be in capital gains, which only draws a measly 15%. His income from financial advising and cash bonuses will likely be effectively taxed at ~45-50%, but that's hardly all (or most) of his money. If I'm wrong, then I must wonder how he's a CEO who doesn't invest his money.
Finally, since he IS a CEO of a financial investment firm, his doomsday prophecies must always be taken with the concern that he profits from people being scared. Commodities (and gold) are what you invest in when you're scared. The only other investment at this time is U.S. debt, and that's because real estate collapsed. Notice these are the 2 investment strategies (or 1 now) he lambastes, which are the ones he directly competes with. If he can sell fear for even half a decade, he is rewarded handsomely for it, regardless if it's substantiated or not. Compare this to a doctor of economics or publicly appointed experts. Their vested testimony and actions are to their own credibility. "Selling" an idea that is even possibly incorrect in the long term could be devastating to their career, with long term monetary issues.
Your entire argument is based around the assumption that inflation isn't understated. It is.
The way the government calculates inflation isn't sound, because they try to roll in an unjustifiable constant increase of value of the products basket...
You want to look at the real inflation rate, look at commodities growth, and look at the gold growth. Some of what you see in gold may be over speculation, but only a very small percentage.
Stocks are up in terms of our falling currency, other inflationary currencies. They're down in terms of commodities.
For an average household the dollar has lost way more purchasing power per year than the 3-4% that the government suggests.
Nice video. It does touch on the reason why MANY people on both sides like him as a person and politician. He is marvelously consistent and has a very good understanding of where he stands. However, I think most of his policies are ridiculous. His ideas on monetary policy, taxation, and social programs are a century behind, and that's meant as a demeaning statement.
We have very tough 21st century problems which take 21st century solutions. Going back to 1900 for a selection of policies will not help us.
Why do people seem to believe that Ron Paul is off base when it comes to monetary policy, taxation, and social programs? If anything, he's the only one that will realistically cut spending (unnecessary wars, bloated government programs, removing the system that prints the money and devalues our currency... to name a few). His economic advisor in the last election (2008) was Peter Schiff, who predicted the housing bubble, and many of our financial problems before they occurred. Have a listen to this 2 part video, and explain to me how his (and Ron Paul's) ideas won't work.
If these ideas are 1900's, give me the 1900's.
This is part of what bothers me. People have this ill-conceived notion that devaluation of currency is one of the ways we "suffer" in this day and age. Healthy amounts of inflation is one of the many things that helps an economy grow. There's a LOT of documentation out there as to why and how this is, and Paul finds himself on the wrong side of this fence.
I'll go ahead and agree with you about the aggressive foreign policy that we're currently engaged in. I'd much rather see a shrinking/elimination of combat personnel contracting, which would obviously be a consequence of ending our "wars."
As for Schiff, it's many of the same things Paul lambastes consistently. To at least address his "credibility" of predicting a bubble, it's an easy thing to do. You doomsday predict as a financial strategy, you're bound to get one of the many scenarios correct. Engineers do it all the time when designing products.
There are also times where he is flat out wrong. It happens to every economist, politician, and regular Joe. However, the fact that he blames the cause on government interference is laughable. It's well known at this point that many investors didn't have the information or the diligence to investigate what their money was going in to.
As for his claims about interest rates and borrowing. If we borrow when rates are low, and spend that money to employ the #1 sector out of work on possibly the biggest immediate concern, then cut back on borrowing/spending when private sector investment follows, we will be in the clear. Bonds are auctioned at a steady rate, it's the auctioned price that changes daily. You pay $X for $Y over Z time span. As those bonds come due, you have to pay them off with more bonds, but if you service your deficit when those prices rise, you can greatly reduce the impact those higher rates will have. We can fund stimulus at record low rates, that even the private sector can't get.
His statements about being a high tax nation are correct when you take into account countries which are either 3rd world or subsidized by some abundance of a natural resource. However, when you look at the developed world, we have relatively low taxes. Schaffer talks about his income being effectively taxed at 35%, then you add on all the specific taxes, but that is probably far from the truth. He makes his money with investments and financial advice. A lot of his assets gains are bound to be in capital gains, which only draws a measly 15%. His income from financial advising and cash bonuses will likely be effectively taxed at ~45-50%, but that's hardly all (or most) of his money. If I'm wrong, then I must wonder how he's a CEO who doesn't invest his money.
Finally, since he IS a CEO of a financial investment firm, his doomsday prophecies must always be taken with the concern that he profits from people being scared. Commodities (and gold) are what you invest in when you're scared. The only other investment at this time is U.S. debt, and that's because real estate collapsed. Notice these are the 2 investment strategies (or 1 now) he lambastes, which are the ones he directly competes with. If he can sell fear for even half a decade, he is rewarded handsomely for it, regardless if it's substantiated or not. Compare this to a doctor of economics or publicly appointed experts. Their vested testimony and actions are to their own credibility. "Selling" an idea that is even possibly incorrect in the long term could be devastating to their career, with long term monetary issues.
Your entire argument is based around the assumption that inflation isn't understated. It is.
The way the government calculates inflation isn't sound, because they try to roll in an unjustifiable constant increase of value of the products basket...
You want to look at the real inflation rate, look at commodities growth, and look at the gold growth. Some of what you see in gold may be over speculation, but only a very small percentage.
Stocks are up in terms of our falling currency, other inflationary currencies. They're down in terms of commodities.
For an average household the dollar has lost way more purchasing power per year than the 3-4% that the government suggests.
So, my argument is wrong because I agree with an overwhelming majority of economists who insist that real inflation is measured by goods that everybody buys on a regular basis. Instead, inflation is REALLY marked by prices in gold, which has ONLY speculative value.
Now, if you want to show me where food, cars, and appliances are more than 3-4% more expensive than last year, I'll be glad to hear you out on your theories.
Nice video. It does touch on the reason why MANY people on both sides like him as a person and politician. He is marvelously consistent and has a very good understanding of where he stands. However, I think most of his policies are ridiculous. His ideas on monetary policy, taxation, and social programs are a century behind, and that's meant as a demeaning statement.
We have very tough 21st century problems which take 21st century solutions. Going back to 1900 for a selection of policies will not help us.
Those ideas that are "a century behind" predicted the economic crises. Your "21st century solutions" caused it.
Yea, I'd much rather live in the decades where the market would lose half it's value every 3-8 years. Where boom-and-bust were market strategies instead of bear-and-bull.
This is what Ron Paul was using when he correctly predicted the bubble in 2002 + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCmwRN5gjOo
**edit** This is is Ron Paul trying to explain it. (not sure what the other shit in the clip is about) + Show Spoiler +
And I was referring to the early 1900s before the central bank was created. In that time, we had full on depressions every few years. The market would crash and people would lose all of their money in banks. Austrian Economics don't have a working theory for what happened before central banks came about. Even if you do take them for their word in the current climate, you have to also realize that most of their views are founded in philosophy and not empirical evidence.
It comes full circle to what I said earlier, when they do nothing but predict doomsday, they are bound to get it right every once in awhile. Since wrong predictions are met with an air of "consequences just haven't caught up yet!" the view is never modified or improved on, just rehashed with the same vigor.
On September 19 2011 03:17 Tewks44 wrote: Watching the republican candidates reminds me of why I'm sometimes embarrassed to be associated with the general image of an American. The fact that people with these absurd views exist is depressing enough. The fact that these people not only exist, but are American presidential candidates is just... word's can't describe.
The politicians are smart, and they know that smart voters are going to vote either way, and they likely already have their mind made up, and they are going to hold their nose and vote for the lesser of evils. So the smart politicians all scramble to pick up the votes of the ignorant masses by saying whatever they think will win them over.
The smart people are the ones who understand the common sense truth that politicians simply say what it takes to get elected, they don't actually believe the things they say, except a select few like Ron Paul.
Smart people are the ones who understand that people who graduate with doctorates from top universities generally don't believe ridiculous things. Anyone who takes what these politicians say at face value probably isn't that smart, and you probably shouldn't care about their opinion or the image they have of you or your country.
Nice video. It does touch on the reason why MANY people on both sides like him as a person and politician. He is marvelously consistent and has a very good understanding of where he stands. However, I think most of his policies are ridiculous. His ideas on monetary policy, taxation, and social programs are a century behind, and that's meant as a demeaning statement.
We have very tough 21st century problems which take 21st century solutions. Going back to 1900 for a selection of policies will not help us.
Why do people seem to believe that Ron Paul is off base when it comes to monetary policy, taxation, and social programs? If anything, he's the only one that will realistically cut spending (unnecessary wars, bloated government programs, removing the system that prints the money and devalues our currency... to name a few). His economic advisor in the last election (2008) was Peter Schiff, who predicted the housing bubble, and many of our financial problems before they occurred. Have a listen to this 2 part video, and explain to me how his (and Ron Paul's) ideas won't work.
If these ideas are 1900's, give me the 1900's.
This is part of what bothers me. People have this ill-conceived notion that devaluation of currency is one of the ways we "suffer" in this day and age. Healthy amounts of inflation is one of the many things that helps an economy grow. There's a LOT of documentation out there as to why and how this is, and Paul finds himself on the wrong side of this fence.
I'll go ahead and agree with you about the aggressive foreign policy that we're currently engaged in. I'd much rather see a shrinking/elimination of combat personnel contracting, which would obviously be a consequence of ending our "wars."
As for Schiff, it's many of the same things Paul lambastes consistently. To at least address his "credibility" of predicting a bubble, it's an easy thing to do. You doomsday predict as a financial strategy, you're bound to get one of the many scenarios correct. Engineers do it all the time when designing products.
There are also times where he is flat out wrong. It happens to every economist, politician, and regular Joe. However, the fact that he blames the cause on government interference is laughable. It's well known at this point that many investors didn't have the information or the diligence to investigate what their money was going in to.
As for his claims about interest rates and borrowing. If we borrow when rates are low, and spend that money to employ the #1 sector out of work on possibly the biggest immediate concern, then cut back on borrowing/spending when private sector investment follows, we will be in the clear. Bonds are auctioned at a steady rate, it's the auctioned price that changes daily. You pay $X for $Y over Z time span. As those bonds come due, you have to pay them off with more bonds, but if you service your deficit when those prices rise, you can greatly reduce the impact those higher rates will have. We can fund stimulus at record low rates, that even the private sector can't get.
His statements about being a high tax nation are correct when you take into account countries which are either 3rd world or subsidized by some abundance of a natural resource. However, when you look at the developed world, we have relatively low taxes. Schaffer talks about his income being effectively taxed at 35%, then you add on all the specific taxes, but that is probably far from the truth. He makes his money with investments and financial advice. A lot of his assets gains are bound to be in capital gains, which only draws a measly 15%. His income from financial advising and cash bonuses will likely be effectively taxed at ~45-50%, but that's hardly all (or most) of his money. If I'm wrong, then I must wonder how he's a CEO who doesn't invest his money.
Finally, since he IS a CEO of a financial investment firm, his doomsday prophecies must always be taken with the concern that he profits from people being scared. Commodities (and gold) are what you invest in when you're scared. The only other investment at this time is U.S. debt, and that's because real estate collapsed. Notice these are the 2 investment strategies (or 1 now) he lambastes, which are the ones he directly competes with. If he can sell fear for even half a decade, he is rewarded handsomely for it, regardless if it's substantiated or not. Compare this to a doctor of economics or publicly appointed experts. Their vested testimony and actions are to their own credibility. "Selling" an idea that is even possibly incorrect in the long term could be devastating to their career, with long term monetary issues.
Your entire argument is based around the assumption that inflation isn't understated. It is.
The way the government calculates inflation isn't sound, because they try to roll in an unjustifiable constant increase of value of the products basket...
You want to look at the real inflation rate, look at commodities growth, and look at the gold growth. Some of what you see in gold may be over speculation, but only a very small percentage.
Stocks are up in terms of our falling currency, other inflationary currencies. They're down in terms of commodities.
For an average household the dollar has lost way more purchasing power per year than the 3-4% that the government suggests.
So, my argument is wrong because I agree with an overwhelming majority of economists who insist that real inflation is measured by goods that everybody buys on a regular basis. Instead, inflation is REALLY marked by prices in gold, which has ONLY speculative value.
Now, if you want to show me where food, cars, and appliances are more than 3-4% more expensive than last year, I'll be glad to hear you out on your theories.
quit trolling... i said commodities not just gold and silver.
and don't give me that most economists garbage... my family lives a pretty frugal lifestyle, and the inflation is way more than 2-3%... We can see it in the friggin bank accounts when comparing how much money we save at the end of each year.
The necessities have gone up in price way more than 2-3 % per year...
commodities in general don't change in value. Look at all the commodities, they have all been growing along side of gold, and silver.
I wouldn't believe this stuff if I didn't feel it having an impact on my everyday life.
Wheat in september of 2010 was 270.
Now it's 320... that's over 15% increase in cost.
crude oil was 76... now it's 100
commodity food price index was 150, now it's 180
soy beans were 380, now they're 500...
yes, why don't you tell me what the real rate of inflation is in this country.
Please enlighten all of us how the real inflation is only 2-3%, and those numbers are NOT reverse engineered by the government using Hedonic regression.
EPT
