Watch This If You Can Handle The TRUTH As It Relates to Economics

[Just Win]

I wish I had about 10% of this guy's IQ. Why was this man not given a Nobel prize? Think about that one for a while. CAUTION!!! This is Holy Water to you libs. I am sure it will burn you if you listen.



The Truth As It Relates to Economics LINK = http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/01/14/sowell_government_does_not_understand_basic_economics.html

[NCVol]

It was as I thought it would be a way too simplified view of economics from the perspective of a right winger.  His book might be better, but the interview was a good picture of why news is so pathetic these days - it has to be reduced to a series of about 4 or 5 one minute segments in this case, bullet points really, which is about 30 minutes too short, for each segment, to learn anything of any importance at all. 

For example, he dismissed the Fed based on, I guess, he didn't say, its performance during the Great Depression when it didn't open up the spigots and we had a collapse in the money supply and deflation, and all the harm that came of that.  He also mentioned, I think, since he didn't say really, the inflation of the 1970s as the second big failure, proving we should abolish the Fed.  In both cases, the deflation of the depression and the inflation of the 70s are much more involved than just the Fed failed its mission.  Just as an example, Bernanke learned, or so he said, from the depression that the response to deflation, what we had a couple years ago, was to print money, deflation averted.  So is the increase in money supply, that has barely moved M2 and M3 a good thing or a bad thing to Sowell.  Other conservatives see the increase in money, and predict hyperinflation.  So what is the right answer?  What should the Fed have done, or what would have happened without a Fed if we didn't have a central bank to print up those trillions and BARELY keep M2 stable during the last two years.  If not the Fed, what comes in and prevents deflation.  Maybe Sowell would argue we wouldn't have had a bubble.  Who knows.  A minute is too short to tell us ANYTHING of any value.

[GRAY]

at least you didn't call him a "hack" 6 trillion times.

[Just Win]

It was as I thought it would be a way too simplified view of economics from the perspective of a right winger.  His book might be better, but the interview was a good picture of why news is so pathetic these days - it has to be reduced to a series of about 4 or 5 one minute segments in this case, bullet points really, which is about 30 minutes too short, for each segment, to learn anything of any importance at all.  

For example, he dismissed the Fed based on, I guess, he didn't say, its performance during the Great Depression when it didn't open up the spigots and we had a collapse in the money supply and deflation, and all the harm that came of that.  He also mentioned, I think, since he didn't say really, the inflation of the 1970s as the second big failure, proving we should abolish the Fed.  In both cases, the deflation of the depression and the inflation of the 70s are much more involved than just the Fed failed its mission.  Just as an example, Bernanke learned, or so he said, from the depression that the response to deflation, what we had a couple years ago, was to print money, deflation averted.  So is the increase in money supply, that has barely moved M2 and M3 a good thing or a bad thing to Sowell.  Other conservatives see the increase in money, and predict hyperinflation.  So what is the right answer?  What should the Fed have done, or what would have happened without a Fed if we didn't have a central bank to print up those trillions and BARELY keep M2 stable during the last two years.  If not the Fed, what comes in and prevents deflation.  Maybe Sowell would argue we wouldn't have had a bubble.  Who knows.  A minute is too short to tell us ANYTHING of any value.

This is simply too rich. Only an extreme lefty would make such a claim. Get this folks. We have a DemLib poster that purports he voted for Reagan (I bet you thought we forgot about that whooper NVC) telling us a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute  of Stanford University (see link ---->http://www.hoover.org/ )and a PhD  graduate of the University of Chicago is simple. Folks, you simply can't make this stuff up. The extreme left on the board is coming unglued. Thanks for the laugh as this has been a difficult week. I had to write some rather sizable checks paying various taxes due this past week. The humor helps much.


 

[NCVol]

Hey, I am embarrassed about Reagan, and even the first term for W., but I really did vote for republicans pretty much exclusively until sometime around 2004.  I was a slow learner.  I actually believed what the republicans told me for over two decades.  Yes, I agree, that was stupid of me.  

As to Sowell, JW, sorry, but you can't explain any of what he said.  If you can, give it a go, but what he did in that five minute segment was simply repeat about five different right wing talking points with no evidence or actual argument to support them.  Against my better judgment, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and attributed the vapid nature of his responses to the format, which is our news has given us the attention span of gnats and TV segments like that PREVENT viewers from actually learning ANYTHING of importance.  

Fed = BAD!!!  Ok, great.  Now what would Sowell install instead?  Should we go back to the 1800s and early 1900s when bank runs and failures were a once in a 20 year occurrence and people routinely lost their entire life savings during periodic and regular bank crises?  

I'd also ask him was it the deflation of the 1930s that was the Fed's failure, or the Fed allowing/causing a massive debt and speculative bubble to form in the first place, the consequence of which simply was a deflationary period.   Was the Fed's failure in the last 10 years QE1 etc., what right wingers now find so easy to criticize, or the decades of Greenspan bailing out Wall Street EVERY SINGLE TIME there was a fall in asset prices, him becoming so predictable that the "Greenspan Put" was a given on Wall Street.  During the 2000s it was the easy money ZIRP that Greenspan maintained for over a year that preceded the MASSIVE and predictable debt bubble that made the collapse inevitable.   Sowell might talk about this, I don't know, but he didn't mention it in his piece and right wingers typically ignore that particular failure - both the bubble and their refusal to recognize a bubble when it was obvious to so many.  

[Just Win]

Hey, I am embarrassed about Reagan, and even the first term for W., but I really did vote for republicans pretty much exclusively until sometime around 2004.  I was a slow learner.  I actually believed what the republicans told me for over two decades.  Yes, I agree, that was stupid of me.  

As to Sowell, JW, sorry, but you can't explain any of what he said.  If you can, give it a go, but what he did in that five minute segment was simply repeat about five different right wing talking points with no evidence or actual argument to support them.  Against my better judgment, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and attributed the vapid nature of his responses to the format, which is our news has given us the attention span of gnats and TV segments like that PREVENT viewers from actually learning ANYTHING of importance.  

Fed = BAD!!!  Ok, great.  Now what would Sowell install instead?  Should we go back to the 1800s and early 1900s when bank runs and failures were a once in a 20 year occurrence and people routinely lost their entire life savings during periodic and regular bank crises?  

I'd also ask him was it the deflation of the 1930s that was the Fed's failure, or the Fed allowing/causing a massive debt and speculative bubble to form in the first place, the consequence of which simply was a deflationary period.   Was the Fed's failure in the last 10 years QE1 etc., what right wingers now find so easy to criticize, or the decades of Greenspan bailing out Wall Street EVERY SINGLE TIME there was a fall in asset prices, him becoming so predictable that the "Greenspan Put" was a given on Wall Street.  During the 2000s it was the easy money ZIRP that Greenspan maintained for over a year that preceded the MASSIVE and predictable debt bubble that made the collapse inevitable.   Sowell might talk about this, I don't know, but he didn't mention it in his piece and right wingers typically ignore that particular failure - both the bubble and their refusal to recognize a bubble when it was obvious to so many.