posted
Well, the border between Texas and Mexico wasn't officially decided, despite Texan claims, until after the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, so you could semantically claim it was part of the Mexican Cession in some ways, but I see your point, that was a misspeaking on my part. A lot of the territory you're referring to, though, like New Mexico, might have been claimed by Texas, but that claim wasn't recognized by Mexico, and it wasn't decided until after the war. And for that matter, when Congress was discussing the Mexican Cession in session, New Mexico and Colorado were a part of those discussion, so they certainly thought it was part of it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Romney has been declared the winner of the New Hampshire primary...big surprise!
An interesting note - New Hampshire was penalized by the GOP for holding their primary before their assigned date. Interesting since that didn't happen four years ago when the calendar got moved up. Only Michigan and Florida got penalized.
The race now will be for second and third, and it looks like that will be Paul and Huntsman. I wonder if Perry's dismal showing here will mean he finally drops out, or if they all put their chips on South Carolina.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Perry will hold on until South Carolina, the South is a different dynamic. Though I wonder what advanced polls are there. *dig* *dig* *dig*
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I fail to understand the political commentary from people like David Gergen at CNN who say that South Carolina is make or break, and that if Romney wins there, he wins the whole thing. Talk about being trapped by their own media-created spin and rhetoric. How is it possible that Romney can claim any sort of a "win" from winning three states? One by the barest of margins, and two of which are absolutely tiny in their number of delegates. He's won but he still has more than a thousand delegates to get to actually win? Preposterous.
So long as the anti-Romney vote is split, it stands to reason that he's in a good position to win, but both Perry and Gingrich are making noises about dropping out if they don't win in South Carolina. That turns it into a four man race between Santorum, Paul, Huntsman (who is also likely to drop out with a weak finish) and Romney. I have to imagine at that point that the conservative anti-Romney vote rallies around Santorum, and then it's a real horse race.
The logic used by political pundits is stunning, and at the moment, they seem to be Romney's biggest asset because they're framing his victory for him before it's even close to being in the bag.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're trying to keep things exciting and act profoundly insightful for a camera for something like four hours a day. I couldn't do it. I would reach a critical timestretch threshold where I would say "This is the best of our estimations, and the rest of it is — and bear with me on this one — something we have to wait and see about. Well, gee. Let's go talk about more important things, like SOPA. What? I'm already fired for mentioning that? Okay, back to manual labor I guess."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm baffled that people who are too conservative for Romney are not radical enough for Ron Paul. I mean, sure there's not not Romney element, but there's equally a not Paul element. I dunno, maybe they're like me, they don't want a President who wants to cut bait on Israel even if he's unlikely to be able to do so. I suspect that's probably a big deal for a lot of evangelicals.
The thing is, everyone thinks they are conservative. Everyone thinks they know what Reagan II would look like, but none of us agree on what Reagan would do with the current world scene. This is assuming that a conservative is someone who wishes for a Reagan II.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The element which is 'too conservative for Romney' are not as radical as ron paul, because ron paul is both
1. radical in ways that that terrify even them, and 2. 'radical' in ways they greatly disapprove of
To (1), for instance, Ron Paul is doggedly convinced that the United States needs to switch to the gold standard. This is a joke on the internet, but it is terrifying in real life.
To (2), for instance, Ron Paul opposes our foreign wars, which is direly incompatible with the the attitude that has pervaded the conservative core since 9/11 came about to fulfill the wishes of neocons everywhere. There's no kinder way to term it other than 'cowboy warlust.' Most of them despise Ron Paul because he adamantly disagrees with the wars and wants to turn the united states wholeheartedly isolationist.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if the gold standard is as scary to the average conservative as you think. I find it ludicrous, but most guys I've talked to argue that in principle it's not a bad idea.
And now that Obama is the commander in chief a lot of conservatives say war is bad again. Though I suppose I could get a better vibe if I were willing to look around at conservative pundits. I guess I'm really not that curious.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've spoken to bankers who explain why returning to the gold standard while extremely painful will ultimately be a better thing than the current system.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I though Paul was deeply pro life. Though I guess his medical background may have exposed him to medically necessary instances.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Did you ask them to define "painful"?
Our currency would crash because we've printed far more currency than we have gold reserves. But ultimately currency dollar for dollar would be worth much more once it recovered.
I don't know how correct the idea is, IANAB.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am talking about the consequences of having our currency crash. How many people will lose jobs, lose homes, lose savings, go hungry before the recovery? What kind of pain are we talking about and for whom? (I am assuming not much for the banker.)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess Paul is not for a federal intervention to force us to a Gold standard. He just says a lot of our problems come from departing from it. He apparently wants to remove tax encumberances from trade in gold and he thinks the invisible hands will figure something out.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: (I am assuming not much for the banker.)
Because obviously, since he's a banker, he's deeply selfish and greedy and would never advocate anything that might cause him any discomfort, only discomfort to other, lesser people.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am talking about the consequences of having our currency crash. How many people will lose jobs, lose homes, lose savings, go hungry before the recovery? What kind of pain are we talking about and for whom? (I am assuming not much for the banker.)
This crash would almost certainly hurt the banking industry, we would expect much smaller banks than currently exist today, that means fewer employees. Bankers thrive on certainty, and holding onto the current system for many of them is a much safer bet than something radical like the gold standard. My own father (an investment banker) believes we should return to the gold standard, and he definitely espouses it as a "better to cut off a limb than to lose the body" with all the sober reality that entails.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am assuming that it wouldn't be as much "pain" for the banker because I am assuming that the banker is well off. Are you disputing that an economic crash is more likely to cause poor and almost poor people to lose houses, jobs, savings, and go hungry than to cause wealthy people to do the same?
ETA: It is easier to contemplate cutting off a limb when you are not living on that limb.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [But ultimately currency dollar for dollar would be worth much more once it recovered.
Why would we want this?
Isn't Paul's preference for the gold standard due to the fact that a return to the gold standard would remove a fairly significant tool by which government can influence markets?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering the impact such a dramatic change to our currency would have on the banking industry, I'm not as confident that he would come out without suffering a great deal of financial pain.
Also, there are a lot of bankers in the US, and they're not all well off.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am assuming that it wouldn't be as much "pain" for the banker because I am assuming that the banker is well off. Are you disputing that an economic crash is more likely to cause poor and almost poor people to lose houses, jobs, savings, and go hungry than to cause wealthy people to do the same?
ETA: It is easier to contemplate cutting off a limb when you are not living on that limb.
Of course that's something to consider. But we also allow a doctor to advise on whether or not we require treatment regardless of that treatments effect on their personal income.
Are their doctors who prescribe things because they are getting paid to do so, yes. But there are also doctors who believe in what they are doing. Same goes for bankers.
---------
NM: Returning to the gold standard to say my father isn't the only thing that needs to be done. He very much believes that NAFTA and most favored trade status with China has traded our jobs and job security in exchange for cheaper products. We've gone too far in that direction and need to back pedal.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not saying that your banker doesn't believe he is right. I am not even saying that he isn't right. I am saying that the "pain" needs to be well and thoroughly understood and plans made to mitigate that "pain" before we blithely decide to crash our currency. We need to figure out how we are going to deal with the actual men, women, children, elderly who are severely feeling that "pain".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
JaredPolis Not only played League of Legends and posts there but is also fighting SOPA and PIPA. He also posts in a very goony fashion.
quote: u would only use a Justin Beiber avatar anyways
I want this guy to be a Rep. there forever.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I don't know if the gold standard is as scary to the average conservative as you think. I find it ludicrous, but most guys I've talked to argue that in principle it's not a bad idea.
And now that Obama is the commander in chief a lot of conservatives say war is bad again. Though I suppose I could get a better vibe if I were willing to look around at conservative pundits. I guess I'm really not that curious.
Conservatives had a very difficult time coming up with a language plan for how they felt about war during Obama's foray into Libya.
They're for it, then they're against it. They think it's a good idea, but Obama is doing it wrong. They like that he's saving money, but doesn't like that he's allowing other nations to pick up so much of the slack. They like that he wants to get rid of Ghadaffi, but feels he isn't going far enough, but they're pre-pouncing on him for going too far!
Anyone who was watching could see that they were objecting just for the sake of objecting. Hell, half of them would say something one day, and then Obama would agree with it, and they'd immediately be on the other side the next day. They didn't really have a doctrine for Obama's use of force other than "we don't like anything he does because he's doing it."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Did you ask them to define "painful"?
Our currency would crash because we've printed far more currency than we have gold reserves. But ultimately currency dollar for dollar would be worth much more once it recovered.
I don't know how correct the idea is, IANAB.
I'm pretty sure that isn't the way the gold standard works. The US couldn't conceivably have gold reserves equal to all the currency needed in circulation without making the price of gold so exorbitantly high, relative to other commodities, that it could never be used for anything. There simply isn't enough gold on the planet for that.
Under the gold standard, a country sets a fixed exchange rate between an once of gold and their currency. By doing so, they agree to sell and buy gold at that rate (either to anyone or only to foreign governments, it's not clear which Paul is proposing). If the market price is higher than the exchange rate, people will want to exchange their dollars for gold. To prevent depletion of the reserves, the government then has to buy gold at the market price and sell it at a loss. If the market price is lower than the set point, then people will want to sell gold to the government in exchange for dollars. Either way, it costs the government money, which means either raising taxes or issuing bonds. If the bonds are at a high enough interest rate, investors will prefer them over gold. So effectively, the government has to set interest rates on bonds at the level that will put the dollar at the agreed set point.
It's actually a lot more complicated than that because gold and government bonds aren't the only two possible ways to use dollars. That means trade, the stock market, banks and every sector of the economy is involved. When the US buys something from China in US dollars, the Chinese either have to use those dollars to buy goods from the US, trade them to someone else who wants to buy goods from the US, or invest in something that is sold in dollars. If we have a trade balance, there is no problem. If the US stock market is doing well, then investors are happy to have US dollars to invest. Problems arise when the economy is doing poorly and that's when investors tend to want to buy gold. If you look at the market price of gold, it always rises during a recession when other investments become higher risk.
That means that under the gold standard, whenever the economy tanks the government will have to raise interest rates to prevent a run on gold. It severely limits how government can respond to an economic crisis. (I guess they could tax all sales of gold to balance the books, but that would completely negate having the gold standard).
[ January 12, 2012, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Nature's first green is gold, Her hardest hue to hold. Her early leaf's a flower; But only so an hour. Then leaf subsides to leaf. So Eden sank to grief, So dawn goes down to day. Nothing gold can stay.
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king.
quote:Gold! Gold! Gold! Gold! Bright and yellow, hard and cold Molten, graven, hammered and rolled, Heavy to get and light to hold, Hoarded, bartered, bought and sold, Stolen, borrowed, squandered, doled, Spurned by young, but hung by old To the verge of a church yard mold; Price of many a crime untold. Gold! Gold! Gold! Gold! Good or bad a thousand fold! How widely it agencies vary, To save - to ruin - to curse - to bless - As even its minted coins express : Now stamped with the image of Queen Bess, And now of a bloody Mary.
quote:Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.
---William Jennings Brian
I'll get to your post in a bit Rabbit.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: All that is gold does not glitter
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king.
- JRR Tolkien.
I would like to be the first to announce my support for moving US currency to the Mithril Standard.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: All that is gold does not glitter
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king.
- JRR Tolkien.
I would like to be the first to announce my support for moving US currency to the Mithril Standard.
I'm sure the Central Bank of Moria would approve.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'm sure there is tons of scholarship being compiled regarding this election, what with Citizens United in full force.
I hope this leads to reform, but somehow I doubt it, or at least not before a whole lot of damage happens first.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I don't know if the gold standard is as scary to the average conservative as you think. I find it ludicrous, but most guys I've talked to argue that in principle it's not a bad idea.
There's a little cult of faith surrounding the idea, as implacable and stubbornly locked down as when college marxists fiercely believe that society should run on a centralized communistic needs-based barter system. Which, presumably, won't impede Ipod production or prevent their parents from paying for their 90% liberal arts electives course load, car, and student housing close to campus.
And, while not as wholly ridiculous as Student Worker dreams of a communitarian barter economy future to free us from the hegemony of evil capitalism, their vision of a gold-backed free market american standard is as reality-challenged and as likely to even be attempted.
I forget who here said it, but it's really true: It's extremely handy to know when someone is for the gold standard, because it's a very potent and direct way to know that they can be safely disregarded in economic matters.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I guess we can now peg Gingrich as a flip flopper, after he swore he wouldn't do negative campaign ads. Or is it not negative if the ad consists of quotes by the person?
Though I don't know, I find some of those things quite endearing. The dog on top of the car, will that hurt him in the south?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka: My favorite line was Milibank's "Having fully recovered from his pledge last month to run a “relentlessly positive” campaign, he arrived in South Carolina on Wednesday with renewed defiance of those Republicans who have called on him to soften his attacks on Romney." (emphasis mine)
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I forget who here said it, but it's really true: It's extremely handy to know when someone is for the gold standard, because it's a very potent and direct way to know that they can be safely disregarded in economic matters.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: All that is gold does not glitter
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king.
- JRR Tolkien.
I would like to be the first to announce my support for moving US currency to the Mithril Standard.
Now I want to see video footage of a Balrog or a cave of Trolls against, say, a Seal team.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: All that is gold does not glitter
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king.
- JRR Tolkien.
I would like to be the first to announce my support for moving US currency to the Mithril Standard.
Now I want to see video footage of a Balrog or a cave of Trolls against, say, a Seal team.
How much outfitting and support do the Seals get?
Also, since we're not spelling it SEAL, are we talking about a seal team? Wait, no, because we capitalized the first letter. It's a proper noun, then. So, a team of Seals?Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah modern weapons wouldn't even work on Smaug according to Tolkien himself, (small arms anyways) though I imagine it would depend on whether we're going by his Mythologicalism or we're going by Nasuverse rules (which explicitly details the interactions of magic and science).
Under Nasuverse rules, science can beat magic and gods but under specific circumstances and requiring the logical amount of firepower. So this would be consistent a bit with Tolkien, who only specified machine guns as being ineffective against smaug and hasn't afaik discussed heavier armament.
So I would suspect Smaug and likely a Balrog to shrug of even light anti tank weapons such as recoiless rifles and shape charges. But a full blown cruise missile and a direct hit from a sabot anti tank depleted uranium round I believe should be effective though likely not a one hit kill. Denying this would be treading upon the well known "No Limits Fallacy".
For example Mage Armor/Stoneskin I would rule would work against small arms but be ineffective against precision heavy explosive weaponry like light AT and shape charges.
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
