Some pen-pals may be interested the following dialogue, between myself
and an anonymous friend:
My friend sent me the following, about the bail-out:
>>September 27, 2008
>> Disaster is About to Strike /By Ron Paul
>> Dear Friend
>>Whenever a Great Bipartisan Consensus is announced, and a compliant media
>>assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being
>>taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is
>>about to strike.
>>The events of the past week are no exception.<<
I responded:
>Ron Paul is a fool. So-called "Austrian" economics is silly, a cover for a
>"feed the rich" policy. <
his response:
>>Nice to hear from you, Jim.
>>What do you propound and for whom do you recommend to vote?<<
me:
>Voting is a pretty worthless activity. Since CA is going for Obama no matter
>what, I voted slightly anti-corporate, i.e., for Nader. Ron Paul's stand on
>the war is great, but his other views seem nothing but Bigger Bush BS ("free
>markets").
>Gordon Brown's plan is (and was) better than Paulson's plutocratic
>"socialism": if the private sector is once again to have its losses socialized
>(this time on an epic scale), it should have its capital nationalized too. (It
>discourages moral hazard, among other things.) The Paulson plan was much more
>a rip-off in its early stages than the current version, which is a
>half-hearted version of Brown's plan. As Krugman makes clear in today's NYT
>column, the Paulson plan (or at least its implementation) is still cruddy.
>The so-called "Austrian" school would like the world economy to go through a
>recession to purge the imbalances which developed in the boom. There's some
>truth in that idea, but the last time we did that on the current scale (in the
>early 1930s, when "Austrian" economics was quite influential), the economic
>roller-coaster spun off the rails. Debt-deflation is not pretty, nor are the
>political ramifications (the rise of Nazism and the like). The "Austrians"
>assume that the economy oscillates around full employment, totally ignoring
>Keynes' lessons.
>The "Austrians" also like the gold standard, a snare and a delusion. The
>previous Depression was partly the result of the gold standard (cf. Barry
>Eichengreen's work), while US reflation was possible once the gold peg was
>broken. <
he responded:
>>Paul also wants to abolish the Federal income tax and the Federal Reserve
>>Bank. They both prey upon Americans, having increased their share of American
>>income, led us to two depressions and lost 90% of the USD's value since the
>>bastards launched the Fed. <<
me:
> I don't defend the Fed: it's nothing but a bankers' cartel, usually led by
> such right-wing mountebanks as Greenspan. But what is the alternative? The
> gold standard? It encouraged deflation in both the 19th and 20th centuries,
> which was disastrous in both cases (except to those holding a lot of money).
> The gold standard does discourage inflation (unless there are big gold
> discoveries), but it's always been suspended during the bigger wars, the main
> inflationary periods.
> Like having a central bank, adhering to the gold standard is a government
> policy. It's one usually backed by the same people as those who created the
> Fed (the bankers and financiers of other sorts). But the gold standard is
> usually imposed in periods such as the 19th century and the 1920s, when the
> moneyed interests think that financial austerity is needed and they can get
> away with it.
> Again, what is the alternative to the Federal personal income tax? It doesn't
> "prey" on Americans any more than the taxes that are popular among
> laissez-faire conservatives (consumption taxes, sales taxes, sin taxes, etc.)
> It's just that the Federal income tax preys on the rich slightly more than it
> does on the middle class, so these conservatives (who are usually rich
> themselves or work for the rich) don't like it. But since the rich get a
> disproportionate share of government benefits, it seems only just that they
> pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than do the rest of us.
> Of course, when we bring in all of the other taxes that Americans pay, the
> over-all tax system shows little if any progressivity and is likely
> regressive in its impact (except at the bottom end). Abolishing the Federal
> income tax would make the over-all tax system significantly more regressive:
> it would prey more on the middle class than on the rich.
> Of course, justice (which I referred to above) has nothing to do with it;
> abstract principle do not rule politics. Rather, it's a matter of power: we
> should object to taxation without representation. In that case, we should
> move in the direction of taxing only the rich, since they are the ones who
> are overwhelmingly represented in government (and increasingly so). Of
> course, to attain that, we'd need a lot of countervailing power. <
--
Jim Devine / "Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange
days indeed -- most peculiar, mama." -- JL.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
