Faber: The momentum in the market suggests that something is really wrong, maybe we'll see some very major geopolitical or economic events in the next 2 to 3 months.
Clayton -
Everything is sunshine and lollipops with the NYTimes:
YOU may have heard that the federal government wants to limit your choice of light bulbs, starting in January. If only.
Thanks to regulations taking effect that month under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, shopping for light bulbs is fast becoming akin to choosing a spouse: the options are almost endless, and the object of your affection might last longer in the house than you.
The misconception about limited choice is, specifically, that the new rules outlaw incandescent lights. But they don’t. They just place efficiency standards on incandescents. Starting in January, any bulb that can generate the amount of light produced by a conventional 100-watt bulb, but do so with roughly 30 percent less energy, will be eligible for the market. The new law is gradual — in 2013, the rule will be extended to 75-watt bulbs, followed, in 2014, by 60- and 40-watt bulbs — but the point is that nothing is outlawed if it meets the new mandated efficiencies.
Seriously when was the last time you could even call this a "newspaper"?
Whiny, Selfish 8-Year-Old Always Wants His Parents To Stop Yelling At Each Other
This one actually made me chuckle...
Why does Ron Paul have to be so libertarian?
@The New York Times: "The News For All People and Freedom of the Press Act of 2011 doesn't outlaw print news, it just mandates that print news be delivered with 50% less paper pulp. The transition is gradual and will require a 10% reduction in paper pulp usage the first year, then 20% and so on. The point is that nothing is outlawed if it meets the new mandated pulp requirements."
There's a lot like this, but this one is particularly good. Something you can (and should) send to anyone and everyone...
Ron Paul -v- the neo-cons
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Wow. This is not the same Ron Paul from 2008. Dude's on fire.
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000038647
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Clayton:Wow. This is not the same Ron Paul from 2008. Dude's on fire.
Are you serious? He's exactly the same. He was always on fire. Even when they were railroading him. Were you even paying attention in 2008?
"It has long been the conservative view that there is only so much freedom out there and if government grows in size then this necessarily diminishes freedom," Bartlett said. "Thus if spending is 25 percent of GDP, then we are three-quarters free, and if it grows to 40 percent, then we have lost 15 percent of our freedom and are only 60 percent free. This, of course, is nonsense, because it implies that the greatest freedom exists in anarchy … and that freedom is the only thing anyone cares about."
if government grows in size then this necessarily diminishes freedom
yes, government = coercion
Thus if spending is 25 percent of GDP, then we are three-quarters free, and if it grows to 40 percent, then we have lost 15 percent of our freedom and are only 60 percent free
Not too far from the truth
This, of course, is nonsense, because it implies that the greatest freedom exists in anarchy
Anarchy has gotten such a bad, bad rep.
it implies that ... freedom is the only thing anyone cares about
Finally he hits something there: people like convenience, not justice.
Raw footage of Peter Schiff Interview from The Panic of 2008 film
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/ron-paul-ad-invokes-reagan-imprecisely/
Raw footage of Roger Garrison Interview from The Panic of 2008 film
Roger Garrison is, by far, my favorite economist from the Mises Institute, good find
This Panic of 2008 movie looks really promising. There've been a few others with good elements, but looking at this cast, it's like a who's who of Austrians.
ThePanicof2008.com
Okay so it looks like the site goofs sometimes and displays the wrong video. I have no idea how this occurs, but it makes for some funny blog entries. The last time I noticed this it was obviously a mistake...but this time I thought it was a Tom Woods genuinely trying to be funny. I was actually kind of disappointed when I discovered it wasn't intentional. Thought it was a pretty good gag...
Federal Appeals now has also struck down health insurance requirement:
http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-strikes-health-insurance-requirement-173543503.html
Doug Casey: Gold, US Dollar And The Greater Depression
FactChecking Iowa Debate
Those 30 American Soldiers Died for Nothing
"Romney also falsely suggested President Obama has never held a job, saying: "I think in order to create jobs, it's helpful to have had a job."
Student, community organizer, law professor, law firm associate, state senator, US senator, President. Come on Fact Check. I think we all knew what he was talking about.
"Ron Paul said the CIA told him that there is "no evidence" Iran is "working on" a nuclear weapon. There's no solid proof, but the International Atomic Energy Agency says there are "possible military dimensions" to Iran's nuclear program."
So basically, there's absolutely nothing wrong about what Ron Paul said. Thanks for backing him up, Fact Check.
"Newt Gingrich said that one of the moderators was "handpicking" quotes "that fit your premise." But the Fox News anchor quoted Gingrich's comments on Libya accurately."
Lemme get this straight, when someone says you are "handpicking" quotes, that means that you are quoting them innaccurately? Or is this another Fact Check backing up of what a candidate said?
"Rick Santorum exaggerated a bit in saying the U.S. borrows "42 cents of every dollar." The figure is currently 37 cents."
You have got to be kidding me. Seriously, just do a Google search for "42 cents of every dollar". Go ahead. Paul Ryan used that same figure a month ago. And what did PolitiFact have to say?:
"Conor Sweeney, Ryan’s budget committee spokesman, cited two reports:
That puts Ryan’s claim of 42 cents smack in the middle."
Fact Check is really starting to disappoint me.
Such a great anti-IP quote from Jorge Luís Borges (whom I consider the best fiction writer of the XX century)"If the pages of this book contain some successful verse, the reader must excuse me the discourtesy of having usurped it first. Our nothingness differs little; it is a trivial and chance circumstance that you should be the reader of these exercises and I their author."
Bachmann won Iowa straw poll. It's actually not as bad as it sounds. This was huge surprise when i read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann#Global_economy
"On economists who have influenced her views, Bachmann told The Wall Street Journal,
... the late Milton Friedman as well as Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. "I'm also an Art Laffer fiend—we're very close," she adds. "And [Ludwig] von Mises. I love von Mises," getting excited and rattling off some of his classics like Human Action and Bureaucracy. "When I go on vacation and I lay on the beach, I bring von Mises."[158]"
1) Old news, chief.
2) You believe that phony? Who calls him "von Mises"?
3) Yes Bachmann winning is not as bad as it sounds. But not because she knows what names to drop to pander to free-market advocates...But because the winner of the straw poll has only gone on to win the primary once in the whole history of the poll (since 1979). (And gone on to win even only the Iowa caucus twice).
Bachmann winning (the way she won) is probably the best possible thing for Ron Paul.
It's a lot like the 2010 elections in a way. There was a strong enough showing to win a majority in the House and get rid of Pelosi, and a strong surge in the Senate, but not enough for a majority. It was enough of a shift to make for an undeniable "Tea Party" presence, so that no one could deny the backlash against the Democrat policies, and the fact that there actually is a grassroots movement underway. But, at the same time, it's still a split Congress. This way when things are even worse next year, there isn't an opportunity to fall back on the predictable laurels of blaming a "Republican Congress".
In the same way, if Paul had won the poll, all we would have heard was how the poll doesn't mean anything, supporters are bused in to help sway to the vote, a straw poll is just a straw poll, etc. (Even though only Iowa residents are allowed to participate, as Justin T. P. Quinn pointed out in this excellent piece detailing exactly the kind of "black swanning" that is going on. Seriously, read that. It's awesome.)
But since an establishment candidate won, they haven't been doing that. They've been talking about how it shows a strong Tea Party mood in the country, the fact that there's such a big turnout (2nd highest in its history), and that Bachmann is the (self-declared) Tea Party candidate and founder of the House Tea Party Caucus)....and they were even using it to make determinations about the future of some campaigns, such as saying it solidifies that Pawlenty's out of the running. So you have the legitimacy of the poll supported, but at the same time, Paul came in second by less than 1 point. A difference of 150 votes in a poll of 17,000. It gets him the attention, but at the same time we're not bombarded with the overwhelming effort to marginalize him. Plus, like I said, the winner of the poll has only gone on to win the primary once in the whole history of the poll...which isn't so good for the winner...and would have provided plenty of ammo for those who would want to shove Paul to the side.
It seems like a loss at first, but I don't think it could have gone better for Paul.
Moderator note: profanity removed. -Nielsio
'Vigilante groups protect London streets'
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/08/11/uk.riots.vigilantes.looting/
Praising China-Mocking the West: Violence and Bloodshed
1) Old news, chief. 2) You believe that phony? Who calls him "von Mises"? 3) Yes Bachmann winning is not as bad as it sounds. But not because she knows what names to drop to pander to free-market advocates...But because the winner of the straw poll has only gone on to win the primary once in the whole history of the poll (since 1979). (And gone on to win even only the Iowa caucus twice).
Thank you for an informative post. I thought that Bachmanns "endorsement" has probably been dealt off but it was a surprise for me. Though I didn't know it was phony, but at least someone in Tea Party has now heard of Human Action. Good points about Iowa too.
Well, it's not like there's any conclusive proof that it was a phony endorsement, but it seems to be the feeling. It just seems pretty hard to believe that woman has ever read any of those things...let alone that Mises is her vacation beach chair pleasure—which freeradicals supported with his quick list of economic statements she's made. Not to mention the point brought up in that other thread about the phrasing of "von Mises". I think that's a pretty decent rule of thumb that anyone who calls him that isn't very familiar with his work, and certainly not the Austrian community. (Which, I'm not real sure how you could be very familiar with the first without being at least somewhat familiar with the second). She may actually agree with some of the ideals, but that whole statement sounded like nothing more than just an attempt to drop any name that's somewhat well-known and associated with free market thinking.
I mean, I can excuse the slight contradiction of mentioning Friedman and Mises in the same comment, as everyone who has studied free markets has read some Friedman and his influence is undeniable. Not to mention, even Rothbard said he was right on 90% of things. But Art Laffer? Seriously? It seemed pretty evident to me she just knew that that was another name people might recognize...and of course associate with everyone's favorite Conservative, Reagan. Laffer was thrown in there because she knows that even if someone doesn't recognize any of the other names she spit out, they'd remember Laffer, and less than a second later they'd think "supply siders, Reagan, 80's recovery). It seems like total politicing to me. It's like throwing out as many different things as you can to appeal to as many people as possible. It's what politicians do. It's what she does. This is the woman who couldn't even give an answer to the stupid "this or that" style question posed to all the candidates in the last debate. Hers was "[Johnny] Cash, or Elvis?" Her answer: "Both."
The range of views expressed in that list she rattled off is really as close you can get to simply naming popular people with diametrically opposed views and saying you're a fan of all of them...without actually getting there. She's just one more "say what they want to hear" politician who happens to pander to the Tea Party crowd. It could just as easily have been the rich folk crowd (if Romney hadn't taken it) or the downhome Republican crowd (if Palin hadn't taken it), or any other political flavor.
Of course that's not to say I'm not happy with the publicity. Believe me, I'm thrilled about any mention we get. (Notice the majority of posts in that thread are mine). And the LvMI seems to be in the same boat. But that doesn't mean I'm fooled by a simple politician's pandering.
Bachmann is managed dissent.
Diary of a statist
I would pay big money to have a reporter ask her why people should vote for her instead of any of the other candidates, and then after she gives her answer which will probably have to do with less government, Tea Party pandering, have the reporter reply "What about Ron Paul?" Seriously. I don't even know how much I would give to see that.
President Barack Obama launched a rare direct attack Monday on the GOP presidential field, criticizing Republican hopefuls for their blanket opposition to any compromise involving new taxes. "Think about that. I mean, that's just not common sense," Obama said
President Barack Obama launched a rare direct attack Monday on the GOP presidential field, criticizing Republican hopefuls for their blanket opposition to any compromise involving new taxes.
"Think about that. I mean, that's just not common sense," Obama said
This just made me throw up a little. Non-aggression is just not common sense? It seems it is not common enough, yeah, but it makes some nice sense.
Geez, these forums have made me hate almost any political news.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbDIkDsR8Ws&feature=player_embedded
Are those two commentators serious? Are they parodying themselves? It seems like Ron Paul wasn't even quoted completely. Does anyone have a link to the whole thing?
He dealt with distortions of that comment all weekend the week he made it.
Here's the version edited for just the Ron Paul parts.
That first video amazes me.
1) Ron Paul essentially saying he's voluntaryist
2) The host acts completely stupid: "but we're spending the money on nice causes! Isn't that what being in a community is about?" (paraphrasing)
1) Oh you haven't seen this?
2) Yeah but what else do expect from a guy who was dumb enough to get caught with his teenage callgirl?
I have a request: Can someone post the graph showing work related safety incidents before and after OSHA was started? I remember they were declining at about the same rate.
John James: Fact Check is really starting to disappoint me.
"By the way, the Annenberg Public Policy Center, and its so-called fact check, is indeed a decidedly leftist organization." -Walter Block
Nothing too special, but still good to know: Chris "thrill up my leg, I actually forgot he was black for an hour" Matthews of MSNBC actually insulting Obama by...wait for it...comparing him to G.W. Bush.