Which CFR candidate are you voting for?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYP6Sgn3cW8

Looks like the CFR is over represented by both Republicans and Democrats. Proof that both sides of the coin are representing the same interests.

The time I start voting is the time the electorial college is disbanded. The time I start voting is when "3rd parties" are taken seriously as a presidential canidate and have the possiblity of being an independent and becoming the President. I find the electorial college an archaic institution. I understand the reasoning behind it originally, easier and quicker communication to cast the 500 or so votes in the electorial college, than, it was to communicate a couple million votes a couple hundred years ago.

Nowadays, irrelevant.

I would very much like presidential canidates to have a chance for the presidential elect in multiple parties and be taken seriously. But, the current democratic and republican setup and monopoly just does not seem to work all that well(meaning not a whole lot gets done, example Social Security was a big issue when I was born, 28 years later nothing has been done to fix the underlying problems), so, some new blood might be good for a change. The constitution does state eligible canidates must be 35 years old, born in the United States, and a few other things. In no way do I see Republican and Democrats only for the commander in chief.

Look at Ron Paul he is the only one offering something completely different.

With the huge powers Bush and his predecessors have given the president an independent would have a greater impact than previously.

NO more Income tax? An actual plan to save the economy?

http://blog.unbrain.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/RON%20PAUL.jpg

I would have preferred that Ron Paul had run with his party he helped found with Ross Perot, which he still can but, looks to be slaughtered in the actual election anyways just based off the delegate voting in the Primaries and the popular polling. But, he ran as a Republican. There is just not enough diversity in the canidates for my liking and very few choices for a presidential canidate, not that I could elect one anyways. The only thing I could accomplish with my vote is enough dummies like me manage to keep enough votes flowing in to keep minority parties going with allittle federal funding.

Completely different isn't necessarily better (though I'm glad it's an option, even if I disagree with most of his views).

"They" are cheating on both voting and polling. When they don't bar him from taking part in debates, they don't include him in polls. His campaign is gaining momentum and he is a viable candidate.

Source (http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=1675)

Why I Joined the ‘Ron Paul Revolution’
by Daniel Sheehy
January 14, 2008

During the CNN-YouTube Republican presidential debate on November 28, a man sarcastically asked candidate Ron Paul if he believes in “this conspiracy regarding the Council on Foreign Relations and some plan to make a North American Union by merging the United States with Canada and Mexico.”

On stage with the seven other candidates and in front of a live audience and national television viewers, Paul smiled and responded:

“The CFR exists. The Trilateral Commission exists. It’s a conspiracy of ideas. This is an ideological battle. Some people believe in globalism, others of us believe in national sovereignty. There is a move on toward a North American Union, just like early on there was a move on for a European Union and it eventually ended up. So we had NAFTA and are moving toward a NAFTA highway. These are real things. There was legislation passed in the Texas legislature unanimously to put a hold on it. They’re planning on taking millions of acres by eminent domain for an international highway from Mexico to Canada, which is going to make the immigration problem that much worse…. I don’t like this trend toward international government….. Our national sovereignty is under threat.”

Even though Paul was given just 90 seconds to respond, the 10-term U.S. congressman from Texas did an excellent job answering the question. Globalists used “free trade” and open borders to integrate the countries of Europe and create the European Union, with a single government and currency. Europeans are increasingly wondering what happened to their countries and freedoms. The same approach is being used to erase America’s borders, independence, and Constitution to create a North American Union.

Having been a guest on numerous radio talk shows, I know how difficult it is to describe this diabolical scheme in just a minute or two, especially to Americans who have never heard of the North American Union (NAU) or believe “our government would never do such a terrible thing.” However, when I have time at speaking engagements to connect the dots and show documented proof, audiences understand and become extremely troubled.

Among the pieces of evidence I show audiences is the Council on Foreign Relations’ (CFR) May 2005 report titled “Building a North American Community.” (I detailed the report in the June 2006 edition of my book “Fighting Immigration Anarchy.”)

The CFR report, on page 3, calls for “the creation by 2010 of a North American community…. Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter.” A common external tariff means common taxing for the three countries, and an outer security perimeter means no more U.S. borders, by the year 2010.

Billionaire banker-industrialist David Rockefeller, chairman emeritus of the New York-based CFR, admitted on page 405 of his 2002 autobiography “Memoirs” that for decades he and his family have been “conspiring with others around the world” to sabotage America and create a world government. Among the many CFR members in the Bush administration are Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

For decades, CFR globalist elites from banking, industry, government, academia, and the corporate media have been working to convert America into a socialist state, on the path to world government. The CFR has backed both political parties in every presidential race since the late 1940s. With the exception of Ron Paul, virtually all of this year’s presidential candidates in both parties are approved by the CFR.

If you watch the entire clip of Paul answering the question about the North American merger, you will see something interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE8FKPH8t0g. Standing to Paul’s immediate right are Senator John McCain, Hollywood actor and former Senator Fred Thompson, and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. See how uncomfortable they look and how they avoid looking at Paul. Why are they acting that way? Because McCain, Thompson, and Giuliani are open-borders globalists and in on the plot to dissolve America.

(Virtually all of the remaining presidential contenders also are open-borders globalists: Republicans Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, whose foreign policy advisor is CFR President Richard Haass, and Democrats Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barak Obama, and Dennis Kucinich. Republicans Tom Tancredo, who dropped out in December, and Duncan Hunter are strong on U.S. border security. However, their zealous support for the now 5-year-old Iraq war expressed during the debates and votes supporting massive expansions of executive authority and domestic police powers cost them my support.)

Returning to the clip, McCain is a member of the CFR and was one of the 12 senators behind the treacherous Bush-Kennedy guestworker amnesty bill that Americans defeated in June 2007. McCain, Bush, Kennedy, and many others in Washington have kept our borders open, pushing amnesty for illegal aliens to quickly merge our nation into a North American Union. Why did Congress quietly gut the border fence just before Christmas 2007? These bureaucrats sabotaged the fence for the same reason: to destroy our sovereignty and create the NAU. (See my exposé “Why did Tancredo and Gilchrist Endorse Globalists for President?“)

Fred Thompson also is a CFR member. He is best known for playing a lawyer on the television series Law & Order. A former high-priced Washington lobbyist, Senator Thompson voted to expand the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to expand the NAU.

The first President Bush introduced NAFTA during his term (1988-1992). At that time, Bush publicly stated his goal for a “New World Order,” a phrase used for generations by individuals seeking to control the world through tyranny via a deceptive, gradual process. President Clinton, another New World Order player, as is presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, signed NAFTA in 1993, joining the U.S. with the governments of Canada and Mexico in a developing economic and political union.

Incredibly, John McCain says that NAFTA “was a good idea. It’s created millions of jobs and helped the economies of all three nations.” He makes this absurd comment in a short November 2007 video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86QwI-6TWic&feature=related

If NAFTA was such “a good idea,” why have millions of Mexicans left their country for America. Why have millions of Americans lost jobs? Why have wages steadily declined in the U.S.?

On Ron Paul’s campaign website, www.ronpaul2008.com, the congressman says so-called “free-trade” deals such as NAFTA “are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites…. I believe in being friends and I like as much free travel as possible and I like free trade, but I don’t like more government management because it essentially protects big industry.”

As for Rudy Giuliani, his law firm, Bracewell & Giuliani, represents Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte, S.A., the Spanish investment group working with Zachry Construction Company on the Trans-Texas Corridor project, the first leg of the NAFTA Superhighway system. That’s why Giuliani looked so uneasy onstage when Paul was talking about the superhighway, which is so key to the North American merger. The government will use the Supreme Court’s June 2005 eminent domain ruling to seize millions of acres of land from Americans to build these international, borderless routes. The roads will allow in more illegal aliens, terrorists, and criminals, ruin our economy, and replace American law with “trade” law.

Giuliani’s senior foreign policy advisor is CFR member Norman Podhoretz, who promotes perpetual war and is described by the New York Times as “one of the founding fathers of neoconservatism.” In his new book “World War IV,” Podhoretz proudly declares that the Iraq war will spread to Iran and other countries in the Middle East and “will almost certainly go on for three or four decades.” That’s 30 to 40 years! What do you think about that?

Ron Paul says the war in Iraq “was sold to us with false information” and “the area is more dangerous now than when we entered it…. We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.” (www.RonPaul2008.com)

Podhoretz and others in the CFR-neocon cabal believe in global socialism, endless war, and destroying national sovereignty, which is why they have opened U.S. borders to a flood of millions of illegal aliens. The elites are using illegals to help destroy America’s middle class and merge the U.S., Mexico, and Canada.

At the same time, the CFR-controlled mainstream corporate media monopoly scares Americans 24 hours a day, babbling about the so-called “war on terror.” This phony “war” is an excuse for gradually establishing tighter government controls over every part of our daily lives through congressional and local police-state bills and Bush administration Executive Orders.

A month after Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in Nazi Germany in 1933, the Reichstag parliament building was set on fire. Hitler then quickly suspended civil liberties. Some believe the Nazis set the fire to give Hitler an excuse for his crackdown. Whether or not that is true, the fact remains that civil liberties were suspended. German soldiers then ordered citizens to “Show me your papers!”

Such orders are coming to America through the REAL ID-compliant driver’s license scheme, thanks again to Congress and the so-called Department of Homeland Security. Mandatory biometric ID cards will carry all sorts of personal data. Federal and state bureaucrats tell us the de facto national ID cards will “fight crime and prevent terrorism.” Yet these same public servants refuse to secure our borders and enforce existing immigration laws.

I know only too well how our liberties and privacy are being eroded by unelected enforcers. During a five-day period, I was interrogated by FBI and Secret Service agents while researching and writing my book on immigration anarchy. I was not charged with a crime or arrested, but FBI agents held me against my will and wouldn’t let me call a lawyer, thanks to the so-called “Patriot Act.” I wrote about the experience in my book’s epilogue, titled “My Vacation with the FBI.”

Ron Paul has fought for civil liberties for many years. “We must stop the move toward a national ID card system,” he says on his campaign website. “I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives.”

And please don’t tell me Bush “has kept us safe” and the “war on terror” is real. Since 9/11, more than six years ago, the administration and Congress (both Republicans and Democrats) have allowed millions of foreigners, including hundreds of thousands of known felons, dangerous criminals, and untold thousands of potential terrorists, to invade our nation and live among us, with impunity.

As I wrote in my book, T. J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, representing U.S. border agents, told a national conference of immigration experts in December 2004 that 10,000 illegal aliens cross our southern border every day and only about 3,000 are apprehended.

In October 2006, a congressional report titled “A Line in the Sand” stated that “as many as 4 million to 10 million illegal aliens crossed into the United States” from Mexico just in 2005. Based on that report, apparently thousands were from “countries that could export individuals that could bring harm to our country in the way of terrorism.” The report received virtually no coverage from the CFR-run mass media. I was one of the first to report the mind-blowing numbers in this article.

What legitimate government would let this happen to its own people and country, while repeatedly telling Americans through the “mainstream media” and phony talk-show hosts that we are in a “war on terror”? The answer can only be: A thoroughly corrupt government creating chaos and intent upon ending American sovereignty. The people running our government are not Americans. They are internationalists and only interested in greed, power, and control. In my opinion, many are psychopaths.

Returning briefly to the CNN-YouTube Republican presidential debate on November 28, I have wondered why candidates Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, onstage with Ron Paul, did not speak up and join Paul to oppose the NAFTA Superhighway and the North American Union.

Paul, Tancredo, and Walter Jones were the first congressmen to co-sponsor Representative Virgil Goode’s September 2006 bill demanding that Congress and the president prohibit construction of the superhighway or enter into a North American Union. (Read my news release.) Hunter became a co-sponsor of the bill in 2007. By the end of 2007, more than 40 congressmen had signed on, yet the “mainstream media” and many talk-show personalities still call the North American Union and superhighway a “conspiracy theory.”

Here’s what Ron Paul says on his campaign website about the North American Union:

“NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme. And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.”

It cannot be stated any clearer than that. No matter how one feels about any other issue, if this merger through so-called “free-trade” agreements and open borders is not stopped, America, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and our freedoms will be gone forever. Tens of millions of foreign nationals - including vicious criminals, terrorists, jobs thieves, future welfare recipients, and expectant mothers eager to deliver anchor babies - will destroy our America, and all we hold dear.

As for border security and immigration reform, Paul says on his website that as president he would oppose amnesty, physically secure U.S. borders and coastlines, end birthright citizenship, end welfare for illegal aliens, enforce visa rules, and restore the rule of law.

Those actions would have a monumental impact on the immigration crisis and the North American Union. I believe Paul’s promise to America. Throughout his 10-term service in the U.S. House of Representatives, Paul has never voted for a bill unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the U.S. Constitution, setting him apart from all other congressmen, senators, and presidents in recent decades. In other words, this is an American who actually takes his oath to the Constitution seriously. That proves to me that Paul is honest.

Paul should take even more steps to end illegal immigration, especially in regards to workplace enforcement. He should publicly state that he will enforce laws against the hiring of illegal aliens.

Also, Paul should acknowledge problems due to unprecedented high numbers of legal immigrants. Legal immigration is out of control, thanks once again to Congress, as approximately 1.3 million legal immigrants come to the U.S. every year, compared with America’s traditional level of about 250,000 a year. Paul should oppose chain migration, which generates an endless supply of uneducated, unskilled, high-fertility new immigrants to the U.S. National immigration expert Roy Beck, executive vice president of NumbersUSA, says this about chain migration:

“Ending chain migration is the single most effective action for reducing negative immigration impacts. Chain migration breeds all kinds of illegal immigration among extended family who feel they have an entitlement to immigrate and don’t wait their turn. Chain migration multiplies the harm of every immigration action by allowing each new immigrant and refugee to eventually import huge extended families and eventually whole villages.”

But remember this extremely important point: There would not be an illegal-alien invasion if the Council on Foreign Relations were not working through the White House and Congress to merge Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. into a social, economic, and political union. If the North American Union is not stopped, America will disappear forever.

Finally, have you noticed that the U.S. financial system is collapsing? This is because the U.S. has had a pure fiat (”on faith”) money system since the early 1970s, when the Nixon administration took us off the gold standard, in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The gold standard stood in the way of big government spending on welfare programs, wars, and empire.

The Federal Reserve, a private bank run by global bankers, prints dollars backed by nothing. Congress spends, and spends, and spends those dollars. The Fed prints more of this paper, with nothing to support its value, and the dollar continues to collapse. Talking heads now report that the U.S. is more than $9 trillion in debt. The day of reckoning is coming and it isn’t going to be pretty.

Ron Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve. He also wants to eliminate the income tax and replace it with reduced spending. (See Aaron Russo’s DVD, “Freedom to Fascism,” for more information: http://www.freedomtofascism.com/).

“We need a new method to prioritize our spending,” says Paul. “It’s called the Constitution of the United States.”

After spending years studying and writing about the takeover of America, and the CFR’s plans to destroy our beloved nation, I believe presidential candidate Ron Paul’s plan to restore the Constitution and Bill of Rights offers the only viable plan to save America.

I strongly endorse Ron Paul for President!

You know, I'd like a candidate that once in office doesn't just do a token domestic program of some sort then spends the next 3-7 years trying to manage the rest of the world. Our roads are falling apart, our jobs are going away (even the much touted service sector ones), our schools are awful, our research labs are being closed down, but its more important to worry about how the rest of the world runs their countries.

Which CFR candidate are you voting for?


Just out of curiosity, what does CFR stand for? (for us poor non USA folk who do not learn about all the latest and greatest acronyms).


Eri

I'm American and I don't know what CFR is either.

Council on Foreign Relations

The CFR and the Federal Reserve (which is a private bank not accountable to any government scrutiny) are ways big business get in bed with goverment. You probably haven't heard of the CFR, and know little about the FED, because they're very secretative, because well, both organizations are essentially out there to screw you over.

Big business, via the CFR, got NAFTA signed and via the FED, got them to make M3 money supply secret information.

Council on Foreign Relations

Thank you for explaining.


Big business, via the CFR, got NAFTA signed and via the FED, got them to make M3 money supply secret information.

And answer a question about acronyms with more acronyms ;)

NAFTA, FED and M3?

Actually, I think I may have heard of NAFTA but I can not remember if it had to do with oil or trade.


Eri

NAFTA = North American Free Trade Agreement. Pretty much what its name suggests.
FED ("the Fed") = Federal Reserve, the central banking system of the US.
3 appears to be one of several measures of the money supply in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply#United_States

The Fed isn't completely indepedent from the federal government.

The chairman is appointed by the president and confirmed by senate.

Honestly I don't know enough about the monetary, fiscal, and economic sciences and policies to gauge the effectiveness of the fed (but please for god sakes don't give me the arguements, I've heard them)

As for Ron Paul?

He has zero chance of becoming president, short of a third party run.

Even if he won every single pledgeddelegate, from now and got every single republican superdelegates (yea yea I know its a seperate term, I'm lazy) he wouldn't have more than mccain.

The US constitution is fundalmentally unfriendly towards third parties. To win the presidency you have a majority, NOT just a plurality of electorate college votes.

(Personally I think one of the biggest flaws of the constitution, besides the whole slavery and 3/5 person thing is that it wasn't designed for politicians to be part of parties, which I think was niave on the part of the founding fathers.)

If no canidate gets a majority, it gets thrown to congress to vote on.

also think you are confusing people who are members of CFR, and people who have given a speech of CFR.

finally, perosnally I hate the word Neo-con, it means nothing today except something vague.

It's sorta like the word fascist, its meaning has been drained by the constant use of it as a polticial Epithet

Well, he is taking 10 to 12% of the Republican votes, even now.

At the very least, that is a good barometer for how many of them are Libertarian. And, could influence policy for any potential Rep nominee.

Though that is doubtful, as McCain will lose to either Obama or Clinton in a general. Obama, even when trailing Clinton, was getting more total votes than Rep candidates combined.

That said, Ron Paul, is less likely a John Anderson or Ross Perot, and does not even have the power to split votes, as a spoiler. For McCain will not have enough votes in the first place, for them to BE split. Bush already spoiled the Republican chances for 08.

PS, there is nothing in the Constitution regarding parties.

And the fact that we have parties has nothing to do with the Constitution.

The Fed isn't completely indepedent from the federal government.

The chairman is appointed by the president and confirmed by senate.

The president can't choose anyone to be chairman, he can only choose someone off of a list the FED gives him.

The president can't choose anyone to be chairman, he can only choose someone off of a list the FED gives him.

Still, it is generally considered a good idea to have the central bank to be mostly independent of the government. Their job is to protect a stable economy, not to facilitate the economic policy of the current government.
Look at e.g. Zimbabwe (inflation of several 1000 percents) for an example of where the government let politics determine economic policy. Or try to imagine the damage Bush could have done if he had free reign over the money press and decided that 25pct inflation was a good way to get rid of the national debt.


Eri

Still, it is generally considered a good idea to have the central bank to be mostly independent of the government. Their job is to protect a stable economy, not to facilitate the economic policy of the current government.
Look at e.g. Zimbabwe (inflation of several 1000 percents) for an example of where the government let politics determine economic policy. Or try to imagine the damage Bush could have done if he had free reign over the money press and decided that 25pct inflation was a good way to get rid of the national debt.

The US had ~150% inflation from independance to the FED. From 1913 (ie, when the FED was made) til now, the US has had ~2400% inflation (IE, $1 in 2008 has the buying power of 4cents in 1913.) But even the inflation scale is pretty sketchy. How can you compare the price of a product from the 1960s to a product from 2008 when you consider the improvements in distribution, economies of scale, technology, and gloalization (outsourcing)? It becomes easier and easier to make the same products overtime, so inflation rate for the past XX years have been understated due to the rapid improvements in those fields.

Either way, the FED was the ultimate special interest project. Big time bankers like J. P. Morgan championed the idea to Wilson, and Wilson bought it since was a liberal with big ideas and liked the idea of having credit availible to the government. The bankers were interested in it because they wanted an ulimited source of credit outside of their customers money.

And that's essentially what the FED is, a credit machine. Maybe you may like the idea of governments and banks having access to unlimited credit, but I think the idea that $1=$1 is a good one. Our government can borrow unlimited funds from the FED and never pay them back. That may sound good because it's money that doesn't come from taxes, but it simply just added to inflation. If the gov spends $300B on VA/MD/DC area private defense contractors, that's $300B pumped into the local economy, and will eventually trickle through the whole economy. Since that money was printed out of thin air, it has no value, therefore will just add to inflation.

If the money came from taxes, it would have value added to it because all non-government workers earn money from doing value-creating activities. The value behind the dollar is the activity someone did to earn it. This works in a true free market because the market determines how much value each acitivity adds to soceity. However, when you have big government and big loans out of thin air, there is no free market, therefore the value of the dollar is distorted.

------------------

Recession/depression

The infinite credit line that is the fed is a unlimited source of credit. While 'credit' sounds like a good thing, it isn't. Falsly expanded credit lines create boom-bust cycles of business. The 1920s was such a boom because it was credit on credit on credit on credit, or, fractional gold reserve loans crediting FED loans crediting private bank loans crediting stock shares, and since stocks = money to businesses = money to employes = some money to stocks and banks, the credit line partially repeated over and over. The 1930s was such a bust because when one part of this equation fell, all parts fell. The ideal economy is one where people live within their means, because when that is the case, the country can absorb downfalls in parts of the economy without destroying the economy.

orgage

The FED is responsible for the subprime crisis. In the early 2000s, they kept on dropping the interest rate, even all the way down to 1%. In otherwords, lenders could borrow unlimited funds with little cost to them. They pushed loans larger than what people could handle onto them. Prices inflated like mad because if XX% of the people looking to buy a house have a crazy loan, than everyone will need a crazy loan.

You may think "Well my house rising in value is a good thing." But your house wasn't rising in value, it was faslely rising in value. House prices were far out-pacing wage increases, meaning, the % of a person's paycheck to pay their morgage rose while the % of their paycheck to pay for everyone else dropped, so the cost of living went up because the falsely inflated housing market was taking too much money out of their paycheck. Since the cost of living went up and people had less money to spend on other things, less money started circulating around other fields of the economy, and that's why (now) the Gov thinks we need an economic stimulus package.

Interest

If you think the system is Gov taxes > tax money to gov > Gov spends, you're mistaken. The system is, Fed loans to gov > gov taxes > gov pays off loans > Fed takes interest. This will be the case as long as there is a national debt.

But the fact a private bank taxes interest off of our taxes is an absurd notion. Since there is no value behind the money at the FED, they really don't care if the government actually pays it off or not, so they don't mind locking us into this system.

Yes, we still borrow money from foreign nations, but that should be the only money we borrow. Since that money has true value and has to be paid back (with interest as well), it limits how much the government borrows. But unless there is an extreme need for money, the government shouldn't 'need' to borrow any.

Oh well, Reagan killed this era. He taught us how stupid voters are. You can raise spending as much as you want, and still be considered an economic conservative if you cut taxes.

Inflation beneficiarires

Banks love inflation. Government loves inflation. Corporations love inflation. Banks and government love inflation because inflation is organic. Inflation doesn't occur onto the primary spender of inflated money. Inflation occurs only after the inflated money circulates around the economy. Since the banks and government get it first, they love it.

Corporations love it for the same reason to, because they're the ones who get big loans from the bank at top priorty. But businesses love inflation because inflation sparks productivity. While that sounds like a good thing, what it really means that people need to work harder and harder to keep the same standard of living.

Government loves inflation.

I wouldn't have thought so. The quickest way to lose control of economic policy is to build it on a shifting platform. Many governments have low and stable inflation as the absolute cornerstone of their economic policy.

Banks love inflation.

I wouldn't have thought so. The primary asset of a bank is money. Having that primary asset devalued seems counterproductive, despite any extra profit through the loans system. Moreover from an international perspective, problems arise if assets held in your nation devalue faster than assets abroad.

But businesses love inflation because inflation sparks productivity.

I wouldn't have thought so. Inflation is usually guaranteed to increase costs and increase wages but it is certainly not guaranteed to increase sales revenue, especially in an international marketplace. I can't ever remember business leaders asking for higher inflation in my country.

That is one of the good things of having an economy based upon the gold standard that was popular, it gave value to the economy. The more gold a country had the more ,they could print, and the more value to foreign governments for purchasing power, as they, could immediately exchange for gold. So, spending was curbed as goverments had to really consider what they were spending gold on, as they had to account for the notes for gold.

I believe Woody(hehe), later responded what a colossal mistake it was to convert over To the Fed. Reserve.

The funny thing about the deficit, is if, you took all the money(Err, US currency) in circulation that would not pay off the deficit, as the deficit draws interest. There would still be an 8 trillion dollar shortfall in theory. With what Reagan did taking the US as the largest creditor, he turned The US into the largest debitor. So, in another depression situtation, we could not borrow our way out to fuel the economy, which really created the deficit in the first place. Say what you want about Franklin Roosevelt, while, he did pull the country out of a depression, he also created the deficit. It is actually better to borrow from other goverments that have finite resources, and pay those shortfalls back, than to be using the Fed Reserve in the first place.

Eventually, the United States will have to allocate tax dollars to pay off the deficit(which will be a very long process) just to get off it and then, once more buy, sell, and trade with other governments to become a creditor once more.

Of course no one likes insane inflation, I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the 2% 'ideal' (nominal) inflation rate that those three parties aim for.

And my entire point was that the people who get to use the money first love inflation. Like I said before, inflation isn't organic. It's not like they say "This year we'll have X% inflation." They expand or contract the national credit line (by changing interest rates), and let the money circulate around the economy. The people who get the money first experience virtually 0 inflation. It's not until the money is used in many transactions that the macro-market reacts.

And you're wrong about wages being indexed to inflation. Wages are very slow to respond to changes in the macro-market. This comes back to inflation being inorganic (and improperly recorded.) If you don't believe me, feel free to show your boss inflation graphs and ask for a raise.

And corporations love inflation because the increased capital they get from banks makes their stock go up, and inflation "fluffs" their stocks. Why do you think wall street goes nuts when the FED lowers the interest rate? As far as the productivity argument, that was an argument used in the late 1800s when the country was experiencing deflation, and people who had lots of money saved up didnt have to work as much to keep the same standard of living.

The arbitrary 2% 'ideal' inflation rate is something economists back in the day decided would be the best mix between productivity and standard of living. However, as improvements in business occured, a 2% rate falsely represents the market, since it's far easier to make X item in 2008 than it was to in 1913.

This brings me Palamin's point about the Gold Standard.

Gold actually has value, and its value changes little with market varibles.

I think a gold standard would be a bad idea, but a virtual gold standard would be a great idea. By a virtual standard, I mean to have the Fed aim to keep the dollar's value consistant vs gold, rather than use the arbitrary 2% inflation indexed based off of items you can't compare one year to the next.

That is one of the good things of having an economy based upon the gold standard that was popular, it gave value to the economy. The more gold a country had the more ,they could print, and the more value to foreign governments for purchasing power, as they, could immediately exchange for gold. So, spending was curbed as goverments had to really consider what they were spending gold on, as they had to account for the notes for gold.

The gold standard did not exist to support national economies, but to shore up the trust of the people in the paper and later giral (intangible) money. The exchange of dollars for gold was never more than theoretical (and only had any meaning because people still thought of gold as being intrinsically valuable instead of it being a tradeable commodity just like everything else).
Its historical value had more to do with the fact that it was ideal for making coins (rare, easily controlled source, sufficiently malleable and hard to counterfeit), rather than with some inherent property.


I believe Woody(hehe), later responded what a colossal mistake it was to convert over To the Fed. Reserve.


By the time the gold standard was abandoned it was already all but untenable. The sheer size of the combined world economies had grown such that either the gold price had to be raised to millions per kilogram or the gold standard had to be lowered so far that its purpose of backing the paper and giral money was meaningless. When people no longer -could- legally exchange their money for gold it became pointless to have vast reserves of gold burried somewhere. And if the amount of gold a country had was just worth a certain amount of money then a system of fixed exchange rates based on that amount was no longer useful but stiffling. And make no mistake, the USA was the largest benefactor of abandoning the gold standard as it suddenly could expand its economy at the rate of its industrial growth instead of at the rate it could buy gold.


The funny thing about the deficit, is if, you took all the money(Err, US currency) in circulation that would not pay off the deficit, as the deficit draws interest.


The amount of debt a country has is only important in so far it is able to pay the interest of its loans. As long as it can, or is expected to be able to, pay the interest then the rest of the world is not overly worried about the deficit. Problems arise when that trust decreases or vanishes completely. That is what is happening with the American economy. The threat of a recession casts doubt over the ability to pay the interest owed, and the increasing interest rates (i.e. inflation) in the USA increases the risk that the USA is going to effectively devalue the dollar so it can pay off the debt owed in money that is not worth the same as when the loan was extended. (i.e. if the USA government would print 800 billion dollar it could, legally pay off its deficit, but that money would have only a fraction of the purchasing power of the dollars that were initially loaned by the USA government).
(Nobody really expect that to happen, but the inflation in the USA is allowed to rise higher than the rest of the world is comfortable with and it is feared that the devaluating effect is part of the reason. The other part of course being that the USA government has little choice if it does not want to completely crash its economy).


There would still be an 8 trillion dollar shortfall in theory. With what Reagan did taking the US as the largest creditor, he turned The US into the largest debitor. So, in another depression situtation, we could not borrow our way out to fuel the economy, which really created the deficit in the first place. Say what you want about Franklin Roosevelt, while, he did pull the country out of a depression, he also created the deficit. It is actually better to borrow from other goverments that have finite resources, and pay those shortfalls back, than to be using the Fed Reserve in the first place.


Yes and no. It is of course best not to borrow at all, since you always pay more for a loan than if you use your own money. It is certainly easier to borrow money, but never cheaper or better.


Eventually, the United States will have to allocate tax dollars to pay off the deficit(which will be a very long process) just to get off it and then, once more buy, sell, and trade with other governments to become a creditor once more.

Historically the USA has been notoriously bad about allocating tax dollars to pay off loans, simply because it has a long history of reducing taxes. Since the necessary expenses do not get away that leaves less money for paying off the national debt. But yes, sooner or later the USA will have to start pay back some of the money it owes other countries or they will refuse to continue its spendings without being paid considerably more interest (which actually will cause inflation in the usa and raise all interest rates).


Eri

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Q14HOBThM

Head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) David Walker says that the U.S. economy is unsustainable and as the baby boomer generation begins to retire medicaid will destroy the economy.

If you don't believe me, feel free to show your boss inflation graphs and ask for a raise.

Trade unions certainly do exactly that. Come live in the UK; every wage rise is compared to inflation.

If you're still arguing that inflation is better than deflation then you're preaching to the converted. Almost everyone is aware of the perils of deflation, even if they don't understand the economics. It's a surprise to see someone wanting to revist the argument.

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/

There are certainly advantages and disadvantages with most every currency standards, as are with different govermental methods such as democracy, representitive democracies, dictatorships, communism and such. With a Gold standard there is alot of curbed stability. The downside, the inability to react to crisis such as depressions and wars.

Then, the fiat system we are currently running. The idea behind the debt owed is at some point the economy will see rapid growth with inflation leading to more money being printed, making more money and such, and then there will be a deflating period in which economies stabilize and public debts are paid on.

With the issue of social security instead of diverting more of the states taxes to pay off the shortfalls, or prepare for the shortfalls incoming with the baby boomers, in addition to slashing benefits, raising qualification ages, they seem intent upon making large amounts of money instead, creating more public debt, then, using the growths and deflations to effectively pay the benefits. But, the problem there is mainly the devaluing of the money. This is where other goverments are starting to get alittle antsy. I pretty much agree with you, Eri.

But, I would rather see steady growths or steady losses at least, in the economy of the US, and the ability to pay down public debts owed to various governments as well as the ability to account for such things like the social security crisis that has been known about for since, I was born some 28 years ago. That would make the US dollar have more value and purchasing power.

People love inflation, and government/the FED gives it to them.

People like making more money, than perhaps their parents, or themselves when they were younger.

I remember when making 25 bucks an hours was something to be striven for.

50 thou a year will buy a lotta beer...

But 25 an hour now?, you got to be kidding me.

It keeps the workers, the drones happy and complacent. When they get the appearance of forward progress that inflation affords them.

Slow regulated inflation is designed to grease the cogs of the system, by keeping the workers fat and happy, and complacent.

Inflation is good.
Ignorance is strength.
Freedom is slavery.
War is peace.

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/


Ooooh, can I do links too? Like

http://www.knights311.org/ron.html (KKK for Ron Paul)

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-revolution-388512.html (white-supremacist )

If Republicans want to retain the whitehouse it's not going to be with a guy who has this sort of backing.

If the KKK is FOR clean water...

...Do you drink sewage?

Here are the things the Klan is FOR:

American Independence and Sovereignty
Border Security and Immigration Reform
Debt and Taxes
Health Freedom
Home Schooling
Life and Liberty
Privacy and Personal Liberty
Property Rights and Eminent Domain
Social Security
The Second Amendment
War and Foreign Policy

Here are things I am all for:

American Independence and Sovereignty
Border Security and Immigration Reform
Debt and Taxes Reform
Health Freedom Reform
Home Schooling
Life and Liberty
Privacy and Personal Liberty
Property Rights and Eminent Domain Reform
Social Security Reform
The Second Amendment
War and Foreign Policy

And I like drinking clean water too.

He is far from a Klan member/white supremest and really if that's the best you have why don't you try digging up equivalent on the Clinton's ties to the mob and cocaine smuggling. I'll get you started ... here (http://www.larrynichols.com/). You can call that guy.
FYI Bill pardoned a bunch of coke dealers (http://www.nysun.com/article/66761) on his way out of office.

My post on McCain was about how he basically told the Vietnamese everything they wanted to know and more in exchange for better treatment than the other prisoners. He is not so much a POW hero, as a POW survivor. He's being helped along intentionally to lose against Shillary. They are both CFR.

" U.S. documents proving
POW McCain seriously "collaborated" . . . listed below are 5 transcripts of approximately 20 interviews McCain gave the communist."

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/cin_mccainfiles.htm

KKK members are racist.
KKK members support Ron Paul.
Therefore, Ron Paul is racist.

KKK members are racist.
KKK members like to win the lotto.
Therefore, winning the lottery is racist.

Logic - it's fun!

Because, you know, countries that don't like us never lie to us about anything....