Doing ourselves a huge favour and honouring the great minds who have given us the superb toolkit of Austrian economics, in using the instrument we should be as critical of it as we possibly can.
Since printing $2 trillion did not spur credit expansion, pray tell why would $50 trillion? [...]
Indeed, if $50 trillion printed tomorrow sat as excess reserves (the
most likely event), it would have the same effect as if it was buried in
the ground, or not printed at all. Such is the nature of a credit-based
economy, and a point that has caused hugely inaccurate inflation
forecasts from many Austrian economists. [...]
I do not think the Fed itself can cause hyperinflation and more importantly I am sure they would not if they could. The reason is "Hyperinflation Would End The Game"
Hyperinflation by definition would destroy the currency and thus the banks
Hyperinflation would destroy the wealthy and all their corporate bond holding
Hyperinflation would destroy the Fed
Hyperinflation would destroy the wealthy political class
To understand how powerless the Fed is, one needs to understand the difference between credit and money, how much the former dwarfs the latter, and what the Fed's role is in getting banks to lend.
every modern case of hyperinflation the decision to inflate was a
political one, not an economic one. In almost every case hyperinflation
followed a war or a coup or some massive political change such as the
end of the Soviet empire or the rise of a dictator or a
populist-socialist takeover, and other political unrest.
20th Century there were quite a number of hyperinflationary events. I
used the Wikipedia list of modern hyperinflations (Since WWI) and
researched the political circumstances of each country. The
circumstances can be put into three rough categories: post-war
disruption, post-Soviet collapse, and socialist-populist regimes. [...]
These hyperinflations all had one common denominator:
during a period of instability, spending was used as a political tool
and it got out of hand. I understand that the circumstances of each
country were different and that it is perhaps unfair to say, lump Israel
in with Argentina. But each country faced political factors that
created instability or a national crisis; the government spent heavily
to gain popular support, and resorted to the printing presses to pay for
Therefore, Mish concludes
Those calling for hyperinflation are extremely misguided. It is not going to happen in any timeframe worth discussing.
Make sure to read the entire argument at the source.
I’m grateful that the RNC ran this very good tribute to Ron Paul—but given some of the other things that have happened surrounding the convention, I’ll admit that it triggered a little bit of cognitive dissonance for me. Still, it’s great!
The world does not revolve around Nebraska. I know that. Nebraska is rarely a difference maker in much of anything (other than football). Actually, we sort of like it that way, I think. But today an old rhyme keeps going through my mind:
Last month, I wrote a rather extended tale of Republican Liberty Caucus-Nebraska’s efforts to gain delegates to our county and then state conventions (and ultimately, to the national convention). In the month or so since I finished that multi-part story, a number of us have given money to Republican candidates (and some of us have given to the Nebraska Party); many of us have been out walking in parades and volunteering for candidates—including the Republican U.S. Senate Candidate here in the state; all of us were looking ahead to the rest of the fall campaign and continuing involvement in the Republican Party.
Last night, the Nebraska Republican Party kicked us in the ass. Sorry, I’m not sure how else to say it.
Back in July, the chair of the Nebraska GOP and myself came to what I thought was an agreement that would last. The GOP called off their plans for “extra security” at our state convention, and we agreed that we wouldn’t engage in “any kind of dilatory or disruptive tactics that could interfere with the mutual goal of an orderly and efficient convention.”
Oh, and we said that we believed in “The Nebraska Way” (defined in our joint statement as: honesty, cordiality, neighborliness, practicing the Golden Rule—and when differences occur “shaking hands and agreeing to disagree in a respectful way”).
And we behaved at the convention. We didn’t engage in any of the practices that the Party had heard about in 49 other states before us, and was fearful that we were going to do. We called for exactly TWO counted votes, which we lost. We didn’t challenge the platform. We let things flow. We elected TWO of our folks out of the 35 total delegates. We were generally pretty subdued, and let chips fall where they would. We got a standing ovation from the convention for our involvement. I’ve even got a handwritten note from the Governor, thanking me for “the manner in which you and your supporters conducted yourselves” at the convention. He said he “looked forward to everyone’s involvement in moving the Republican Party forward.”
Gosh, that seemed o.k. It seemed like the “Nebraska Way.” We all knew that we weren’t going to agree with each other on everything, but surely we had proven that we could treat each other with respect, in spite of our differences, and that we just might be able to show the rest of the country that the liberty movement was welcome in the GOP.
And then last night. The roll call vote. Nebraska, as you’ll recall from a few paragraphs back, had TWO Ron Paul committed delegates. Just TWO of our 35 total. The other 33 were Romney Committed.
We listened to the roll call. States were calling out their total, including those for Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachman. None of those had the necessary states to have their names put into nomination, so the calling of names didn’t represent numbers on the tally—only Romney’s names were formally recorded. But the delegations all seemed to be willing to show a modicum of respect to the supporters of other candidates who showed up, worked the system, and got themselves elected to the National Convention. Awesome!, I thought. There must not be direction from on high to completely shut down any non-Romney delegate. Good will by the winners will get us a long way toward healing some of the divisions.
Michigan. One of Mitt Romney’s home states. His brother, Scott Romney, announced the vote, which included 4 votes for Ron Paul. YES! If Scott Romney can say “Ron Paul”, our folks will at least get their efforts acknowledged, and then we can move on.
Nebraska. The usual Nebraska is the home of ____ stuff, and then: Madame Secretary, Nebraska casts 33 votes for Mitt Romney (not a direct quote). And then the crickets started chirping. And…..? Nothing. TWO Delegates (including Jon, who hasn’t yet had an opportunity to post here) were there, standing on camera, behind the Nebraska Chair, and Nebraska didn’t say that those two delegates abstained, didn’t say that they had cast their vote for Ron Paul…. They just pretended that they didn’t exist.
And then my e-mail and Facebook messages started to light up from my RLC/Paul colleagues. Why didn’t our votes get mentioned? What are we going to do? Can we fix this? I saw Jon there! I can’t believe they did this! Everyone else mentioned their Paul votes, why not us?
I have no answers; I have some suspicions. I don’t believe it was accidental. I believe that someone wanted to make sure that the Nebraska Republican Liberty Caucus folks didn’t get their votes cast.
I sent out a press release last night expressing my disappointment in this, after our earlier agreement about the “Nebraska Way.” And establishment hacks started attacking me on *their* blogs, and Facebook, and Twitter—telling me I should stop whining—we lost. Yep, we did. And then, the comments started in. My favorite: “You Paultards should shut up and just vote for Romney.”
Oh. I missed that lesson in the “How to Win Friends and Influence Enemies” class—call the people whose help you want names, and then make rude demands of them…
For want of two votes, what’s going to happen in Nebraska? I don’t know, but I’ll bet we’ll have some fun things to report in the next few months.
During the course of my research concerning the conditions of freedom, I keep reverting to the question why liberty emerged uniquely in Europe. I have recently chanced upon two fascinating accounts that go a long way towards explaining the special European path.
Both deal with "papal revolutions" that have changed the course of history. Both provide evidence that the Roman Church acted as the perhaps most decisive pioneer of liberty and capitalism, by effecting the breakthrough of individualism in Europe and introducing the foundational institutions of a market-based society.
Around 300 A.D. European patterns of marriage and kinship were turned on
their head. What had previously been the norm - marriage to close kin -
became the new taboo. The same applied to adoption, the obligation of a
man to marry his brother's widow and a number of other central
practices. With these changes Christian Europe broke radically from its
own past and established practices which diverged markedly from those of
the Middle East, North Africa and Asia. In this highly original and
far-reaching work Jack Goody argues that from the fourth century there
developed in the northern Mediterranean a distinctive but not
undifferentiated kinship system, whose growth can be attributed to the
role of the Church in acquiring property formerly held by domestic
groups. He suggests that the early Church, faced with the need to
provide for people who had left their kin to devote themselves to the
life of the Church, regulated the rules of marriage so that wealth could
be channelled away from the family and into the Church. Thus the Church
became an 'interitor', acquiring vast tracts of property through the
alienation of familial rights. At the same time, the structure of
domestic life was changed dramatically, the Church placing more emphasis
on individual wishes, on conjugality, and on spiritual rather than
Most Eurasian civilizations ... had similar family values, for agrarian civilizations required stable settled families to operate their settled agriculture. To maintain this stability all these cultures sought to limit the common human but ephemeral passion of love as the basis of marriage. Their values were communalist. It was the first papal revolution of Gregory the Great in the sixth century which changed these hitherto communalist values to the individualist ones which have come to characterize and distinguish the West from the Rest. This papal revolution, by promoting love as the basis of marriage and advocating the independence of the young, led to the rise of individualism in the West.
The first papal revolution made the Church rich and powerful to such an extent that it dared to challenge the secular powers-that-be in a second papal revolution instigated in 1075 by Pope Gregory VII, when he proclaimed: "Let the terrestrial kingdom serve - or be the slave of -the celestial," which inaugurated the church-state.
Deepak Lal summarises on page 6 of his Reviving the Invisible Hand:
Berman has shown how the whole Western legal tradition derives from the development of both canon and secular law during the eleventh to thirteenth centuries under the aegis of the Roman church. For the rise of the market economy the most important was the development of the "law of the merchant" - the lex mercatoria. "The church state set an example for the city-state, and church law set an example for city law and for commercial law."
... the yellow of the egg, used in the German idiom: Das ist nicht das Gelbe vom Ei - meaning, this is not
this not exactly
(a) the right thing,
(b) the best way of doing it,
(c) the best that can be achieved.
While "das Gelbe vom Ei" does imply "the best", I am not sure the phrase is properly used without negation - notwithstanding the above advertisement for a popular brand of eggnog. In other words, I don't know if it can be used in the sense of "This is the real McCoy", "This is really neat".
If it can, this here is pretty much das Gelbe vom Ei: