Ron Paul Wins in Colorado!

Republicans cannot win without Conservatives. Their big government statist policies, combined with their attacks on civil liberties and atrocious FP has no appeal to conservatives.

Republicans love their statistism.

 

Are you familiar with the law of non-contradiction?
Not voting is not voting. It's not voting, instead it's not voting. It's not not not voting, it's not voting.

 

Write in ballot.

 

That was when they didn't have someone challenging the status quo getting as much attention as Paul in the past. Paul being elected means Faux has no more faux wars to report on. They lose profits.

Paul is getting the delegates, Romney is scared.

 

i doubt romney is scared of ron paul

do you really think ron paul will get the gop nomination?

 

You just cannot accept change in this country being fed the same bull(*)(*)(*)(*) from the satus quo and power elite. Funny british said when the Americans started their revolution was a joke. Americans would never win their independence and it would end in a few weeks. Against overwelming odds the super power of the world at time lost. Now we are in a other peaceful revolution to take back what our ancestors and founding fathers fought and died for. The federal reserve is not only unconstitional but a tool for the elite to rob the wealth of this country.

 

Not to mention perpetual inflation, which is a direct result of actions of the Federal Reserve, gives us all a yearly 4%-10% pay cut.

 

that situation in the 18th century isn't even remotely similar to the current situation

ron paul is exploiting ignorance, greed and racism, not what he says he's doing

show me your source for that information

 

What do you doubt? The fact of inflation or the fact that a central bank is a direct cause of it?
If you doubt either of those, you should probably start with Wikipedia, and go deeper from there. I subscribe to the Austrian school, so I read authors such as Luwig von Mises, Frederic Heyek, Henry Hazlitt, Hans Herman Hoppe Murray Rothbard, ect.

The 4%-10% is my conservative estimation given conflicting statistics and the problems with measuring, and not accounting for the perpetual deflation which would be the norm in the absence of a central bank.

 

it has already been done, i have an advanced degree in economics

just show me a link to your source for the information

 

Since you're such an astute economist it should be easy for you to tell me why you think I'm wrong.
And no, I won't be digging up any links.

 

The Federal Reserve is required to fulfill a dual mandate of low inflation and full employment. However, inflation is not perpetual. In fact, the CPI inflation rate for October 2011 and December 2011 was 0 percent.

http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/data/us-inflation/mcpi.cfm

 

Thanks, but I don't mean perpetual in the sense that it is chronologically contiguous, but in the sense that it always happens over a significant period of time(more than two non-consecutive months). Like what you would mean if you say perpetual problem. I think that, if you look at the context of what I said (yearly pay cut), it should be obvious. Also, if you define inflation as what it really is, an increase in the supply of money, that may not be true. I don't know what the fed was doing for those two moths, but if it was easing anything quantitatively, it wouldn't be true. For the sake of discussion though, I usually accept the prevalent definition, rising prices. By that definition it's still at least 4% per year average. We'll watch it rise in the near future. You don't think that all the money that's being pumped into the economy will not see a decrease in the value of that money and the consequent increase of prices, do you?

 

Actually, over the past few years, inflation has been under 4%. In 2011, inflation was 3.2%. In 2010, it was 1.6%. In 2009, we had deflation, indicative of what typically happens during a recession.

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid09av.pdf

In addition, in regards to quantitative easing, none of the money created from such a process is actually being lent out. This is partially because banks are reluctant to do so due to the economic climate, and because the interest rate spread between the rate on excess reserves and the federal funds rate is great enough to convince banks to stockpile their excess reserves. This is why according to Fed data, excess reserves have increased from almost nothing in 2009 to about $1.6 trillion.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EXCRESNS

Inflation only ensues when the money multiplier is put into action. If banks are not lending out their excess reserves, there is no inflation due to QE. Inflation has increased over the past few years as aggregate demand has increased, a necessary phenomena of any government stabilized economic recovery of which many do not like. Many prefer the classical self-correction theory, which requires that short-run aggregate supply increases as nominal wages decrease. This means that aggregate price level decreases as well.

 

i knew you wouldn't provide a link, you're a fraud

 

What you're saying is that I'm a liar, that I don't believe what I write. But you know that's not true. I asked you to tell me which part of what I said it was that you took issue with. A very reasonable request. You spurned it. You should know that there is no one link I could post that would confirm everything I said. If I did learn everything I wrote from one single webpage, then I think I would be a fraud, but i didn't. I told you where I got my general knowledge of economics. If you wanted to have a discussion, where you use your superior knowledge of to refute what I said, I would gladly engage you, and, believe it or not, admit it, if you prove me wrong. But that's not what you want. You don't seem to care about what I believe. You're just attacking me. I'll eagerly wait for you to overwhelm me with your vast store of superior knowledge. That would be much more interesting than this silly ad-hom tack you're taking now.

 

either show me the link i requested or admit you're a fraud

 

Sorry, I already promised that I wouldn't be providing you with any links, and I'm a man of my word whether you like it or not.
I told you where the information came from. I invite you to behave in a more mature fashion and stop the personal attacks.

 

what a joke, you didn't name a specific source or provide a link

are you embarrassed, because you know it's pure misinformation and propaganda?

 

The figures you cited only exist in the government's fantasy land. Anyone that isn't living under a rock knows the real inflation rate is MUCH higher.

Ever since the Carter administration, the government has not used food nor energy costs in computing the CPI. This is a sham and if those figures were used, the inflation rate would have been in the 9%-10% range for those years. Of course, since we all have to eat and have some type of energy, these price increases are REAL and should be included in the CPI.

The Fed's goal is to have an annual inflation rate of 2%. They have only achieved that through keeping food and energy costs out of the equation. It's not only good for PR purposes, but allows the government to not give seniors their COLAs, which are tied to the inflation rate. It is a ripoff of our seniors that rely on SS benefits as their primary source of income.

Your logic fails in using the official numbers in figuring the CPI. An increase in the money supply without an increase in underlying wealth always devalues our currency (inflation) and is a tax on all of us. Inflation, like water finding level, will always find a means of expressing itself and has done so in commodities prices. That is evident in the price increases that all of us must cope with. Perhaps you are unaware of this, being a high school student that doesn't have to fend for yourself yet. You will find as you enter the real world that there is a huge disconnect between official figures and reality.

This problem is exacerbated by the government using this flawed math to formulate economic policy. Until they start using real numbers that reflect real life, there will be no policy that is of any real benefit to the public.

 

obviously you have little understanding of how statistical measures and indexes work, but

have you ever even looked at the cpi?


Food...................... .4 .2 .1 .2 .2 .0 .2 3.3
Food at home............. .6 .2 .0 .2 .0 .0 .1 3.6
Food away from home (1).. .2 .2 .3 .2 .4 .1 .2 3.0
Energy.................... 1.5 -1.8 -.5 -1.3 .2 3.2 .9 4.6
Energy commodities....... 1.9 -2.6 -.6 -2.0 .9 5.7 1.7 8.7
Gasoline (all types).... 2.0 -2.8 -.9 -2.1 .9 6.0 1.7 9.0
Fuel oil (1)............ -.7 -.5 2.7 -1.0 1.4 2.8 2.7 5.3
Energy services.......... .8 -.4 -.4 -.2 -.8 -.8 -.4 -1.8
Electricity............. .6 .2 .2 -.1 .0 .0 -.8 .6
Utility (piped) gas
service.............. 1.5 -2.6 -2.6 -.6 -2.9 -3.4 .9 -9.1

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm

 

In this matter, I will trust my own lying eyes before I will believe lying government statistics. I KNOW how much food costs are up and I KNOW how much energy costs are up.

All one needs to do is google 'real inflation rate' to validate the fact that inflation is higher than the government admits to.

Below is just a sampling.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Implications for the GDP
The GDP, as an indicator of economic growth and the strength of an economy, is an important input for investors. The CPI plays a role in the determination of the real GDP; therefore, manipulation of the CPI could imply manipulation of the GDP because the CPI is used to deflate some of the nominal GDP components for the effects of inflation. CPI and GDP have an inverse relationship, so a lower CPI - and its inverse effect on GDP - could suggest to investors that the economy is stronger and healthier than it really is.

Looking Deeper
Governments also use the CPI to set future expenditure. Many government expenses are based on the CPI and, therefore, any lowering of the CPI would have a significant effect on future government expenditures. (To learn about other economic indicators, see Economic Indicators To Know.)

A lower CPI provides at least two major benefits to the government:

1. Many government payments, such as Social Security and the returns from TIPS, are linked to the level of the CPI; therefore, a lower CPI translates into lower payments - and lower government expenditures.

2. The CPI deflates some components used to calculate the real GDP - a lower inflation rate makes the economy look better than it really is.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/consumerpriceindex.asp#axzz1tLtQGA8H

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another measure of inflation comes from John Williams’ Shadow Stats. Williams calculates the consumer price index (CPI) using the same model as the government did prior to 1990. Williams also calculates the CPI using the same model as the government did prior to 1980. In each case, the government changed the way it calculated inflation in order to give the appearance of less inflation.

If we calculate the inflation rate the exact same way the government did prior to 1990, the inflation rate is averaging around 6.5%, which is basically double the official rate. However, if we measure inflation the same way the government did back prior to 1980, the inflation rate clocks in at a mind-numbing 11%.

In the current official model, the state makes widespread use of hedonics and substitution to hide real inflation rates. It must do so in order to keep the interest it pays on Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) and Social Security cost of living adjustments low. If the government used real consumer inflation rates, it would become readily apparent that the U.S. is completely insolvent in much the same way Greece is insolvent today.

If other nations should catch on to this, they would begin dumping U.S. treasuries in order to protect themselves from a U.S. default, the same situation Greece is facing today. People don’t want to hold Greek debt because they fear they will not be paid back with money that has any value. In other words, they fear that the Greek state will simply print money to make the interest payments.

It appears that this situation may already be taking place with some major U.S. creditors. The Chinese have dumped over $100 billion worth of U.S. treasuries in the month of December, which is a continuation of a trend that has been going on since April of 2011. Chinese holdings of U.S. treasuries are down $300 billion since April of 2011.

This creates a dangerous situation for inflation. If enough governments dump U.S. treasuries because they fear the U.S. is insolvent, the interest rates will skyrocket unless the Fed prints the money to buy those bonds. However, if the Fed buys the bonds, domestic inflation rates will skyrocket.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/4...e-and-could-the-u-s-be-as-insolvent-as-greece

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...and some commodity price index numbers from 2011:

http://www.escapetyranny.com/2011/0...rice-increases-on-this-commodity-price-index/

 

you also said, "…the government has not used food nor energy costs in computing the CPI."

which is not true, so i have little trust of your veracity

your personal energy costs may not be typical of the whole country

first of all, john williams is selling a product

second, where's a link to the data he uses? i spent several minutes on the site looking for it, all i see are the graphs

 

In addition to the All Items CPI, BLS publishes thousands of other consumer price indexes. One such index is called "All items less food and energy". Some users of CPI data use this index because food and energy prices are relatively volatile, and these users want to focus on what they perceive to be the "core" or "underlying" rate of inflation.

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A short article from Harper's, published in 2008, reinforces and expands on some of what I've already mentioned.

http://harpers.org/archive/2008/05/0082023

You didn't comment on the rise in the Commodities Price Index, but it's as telling as anything. To think that prices of so many raw goods can rise so much without being reflected in the consumer marketplace is beyond delusional, yet that's the BS the government is peddling with their cooked statistics.

 

including volatile items like gasoline can skew the index and make it useless for revealing trends

really, harper's bazaar?

and kevin phillips is known to be politically biased