30
Jun
2011
Michelle Bachmann Calls for a Stable Dollar and Fed Audit
Wow I am getting to be too establishment. I met this guy, Jeff Mendenhall, at last year’s Night of Clarity. He got Glenn Beck to write the forward to his new book (which I haven’t read yet but links Biblical teachings on money to our current financial environment). His wife just emailed me to let me know that Jeff (asking the question) gave Michelle Bachmann in the clip below an opportunity to sound off on the Fed:
But don’t worry, I’m still keepin’ it real. I don’t return Roubini’s calls.
I feel like Andolfatto needs to write another post directed at Bachmann.
And who has said we need to raise taxes on small business? Did Geithner really say that? Did anyone? That seems unlikely to me.
http://blog.mises.org/17414/geithner-calls-for-taxes-on-small-business-at-a-time-of-9-1-unemployment/
You’re serious?
Geithner is saying here that yes, he would rather have 3% of small businesses see tax increases from a tax increase on those earning more than $200K than cut government.
You think that means he wants to “raise taxes on small business”? He seems to be clarifying for the Congresswoman what people have been saying month after month after month after month: that it’s fallacious to identify those earning greater than $200K with “small business owners”.
If this is what Bachmann is refering to, she strikes me as being dishonest.
Well, Geithner presents two options, then states which one he would rather have. So yes, I think that means that he wants to.
Sorry I can’t speak to the Bachmann clip, I choose not to waste 6 minutes of my time listening to her.
I don’t personally think we should raise taxes on the top bracket. Maybe certain things (like ending mortgage interest deducations for second houses, etc.), but generally I don’t support this.
Still, I think it’s dishonest to say that this is “raising taxes on small businesses”.
If Bachmann had said “Geithner wants to raise taxes on 3% of small businesses but maintain lower taxes on 97% of small businesses” I suppose it would be less of a problem, but I doubt she’s prepared to be that candid.
“a dollar in 2011 should be worth the same as a dollar in 1911”
Hmm, that doesn’t sound too free market to me, I mean god forbid the money could actually gain in value. Sounds like she supports the whole “stable price level” crap that is one of the Fed’s mandates, and was used as part of the reasoning to create the Fed.
I doubt she knows what she supports.
Or put it this way – she knows she supports anything that will get her elected. Right now that is (1.) declaring the Federal Reserve illegitimate, (2.) complaining about deficits, and (3.) suggesting that Democrats want to raise taxes.
For Democrats, it’s (1.) declaring the Federal Reserve legitimate but currently in bed with bankers, (2.) complaining about deficits, and (3.) suggesting that Republicans want to cut spending.
Of those six election-winners the only one that makes even a bit of sense is the #3 claim of the election-victory-seeking Democrat.
A vaguish sort of austerity plays very well for politicians. Keynesianism – not so well.
Keynes is playing _very_ well among Democrats, who want to borrow a lot more during these bad times.
He’s playing pretty well among politicians who think that getting consumers to spend spend spend has causal power in ending the recession … and once folks have bought into that garbage, the rest of Keynesianism is a cakewalk.
Buy, buy, buy.
Consume, consume, consume.
Or you might hurt the economy god, and he’ll enact vengeance on us for our prudent, foresightful ways…
You are apparently listening to different Democrats than I am.
Yes, Democrats would rather contract more debt than default. That is true.
But Democrats aren’t promoting the idea of increasing deficits. No. They’re in talks with Republicans about how to lower deficits. And even when those talks break down it’s not because Democrats want to increase deficits, but because the Democrats are advocating a distinctly non-Keynesian policy (raising taxes and cutting spending) that Republicans who advocate another non-Keynesian policy (maintaining taxes and cutting spending) don’t support.
Just because Democrats aren’t Austrians doesn’t mean they are Keynesians.
I can’t think of a single politician who is running on what I would call a “Keynesian” platform. In 2009 Congressional staff and administration officials got the politicians to sheepishly do some Keynesian policy that they wouldn’t dare support brazenly to their constituents. We don’t even have that now.
A vaguish austerity plays well. Keynesianism plays terribly.
Alright, well, I guess at ~$14 trillion in debt we will never pay off, insanely low interest rates, and a legion of court economist that believe in the need to goose AD advising Congress … a bad year or two doesn’t look so bad, ya know? Just think about all those good times.
Oh, and you need to put up a post condemning Bitcoin, it’s becoming more relevant.
What exactly would I be condemning in bitcoin?
What exactly would I be condemning in bitcoin?
Well, let’s see:
– the fact that it isn’t massively inflationary.
– how it’s beyond the ability of noble central banks to “manage” it.
– how it allows a degree of anonymity in digital transactions.
– did I mention the lack of extreme inflation?
‘I doubt she knows what she supports”
I’ll agree with you there, to the nth degree.
a dollar in 2011 should be worth the same as a dollar in 1911
Really? What for? Is anyone planning travelling back in time to 1911?
Daniel Kuehn, you are not allowed to talk about Michele [sic] Bachmann until you answer my technical question on Keynes in the other thread. By the same token, if you are teaching people about Hayek and ask an honest question, I will help you answer it rather than discuss Dennis Kucinich on your blog.
Sheparding commenters now, huh!
Haha – I will pull out the GT tonight. No promises on how helpful I’ll be.
Noting some issues with Bachmann is low hanging fruit. I’ve gotta take some time re-reading Keynes.
You know, maybe I should pull out my copy of the GT, it’s been collecting dust on my “the opposition” shelf for quite some time.
Intersting. I keep my economic thought on the same shelf – roughly chronologically. So Keynes is right next to Hayek.
Then again, I have a harder time thinking of Keynes and Hayek strictly as “opposition” than some people do.
I would not take it literally, the GT isn’t on my bottom shelf.
While my system is alphabetical by author, it is a top shelf/bottom shelf approach. All of my academic and non-fiction books are in the same bookcase, I do not distinguish between subjects (any and all subjects are in that bookcase). Basically, all of the books that I really like go in the upper section, all of the books that I don’t like go in the bottom section, and the bulk of the books that I read go in the middle; the 3 distinct sections are alphabetized by author. The middle section is comprised of books that aren’t great, yet they aren’t bad, but they needed their place; the middle seems to work.
My fiction case is entirely alphabetical without any regard to opinion or storyline and is almost all paperback (it looks smaller even though there is roughly the same number of books). All of my music notation/instruction books are in plastic milk crates in my closet (they don’t fit well on the shelves due to their dimensions).
It isn’t the Dewey-decimal system, but it works for me.
My 2nd favorite Keynes quote:
(i) Except in a socialised community where wage-policy is settled by decree, there is no means of securing uniform wage reductions for every class of labour. The result can only be brought about by a series of gradual, irregular changes, justifiable on no criterion of social justice or economic expedience, and probably completed only after wasteful and disastrous struggles, where those in the weakest bargaining position will suffer relatively to the rest. A change in the quantity of money, on the other hand, is already within the power of most governments by open-market policy or analogous measures. Having regard to human nature and our institutions, it can only be a foolish person who would prefer a flexible wage policy to a flexible money policy, unless he can point to advantages from the former which are not obtainable from the latter. Moreover, other things being equal, a method which it is comparatively easy to apply should be deemed preferable to a method which is probably so difficult as to be impracticable…….
(ii)…..If important classes are to have their remuneration fixed in terms of money in any case, social justice and social expediency are best served if the remunerations of all factors are somewhat inflexible in terms of money. Having regard to the large groups of incomes which are comparatively inflexible in terms of money, it can only be an unjust person who would prefer a flexible wage policy to a flexible money policy, unless he can point to advantages from the former which are not obtainable from the latter.
(iii) The method of increasing the quantity of money in terms of wage-units by decreasing the wage-unit increases proportionately the burden of debt; whereas the method of producing the same result by increasing the quantity of money whilst leaving the wage-unit unchanged has the opposite effect. Having regard to the excessive burden of many types of debt, it can only be an inexperienced person who would prefer the former. “The General Theory” Pages 268-269
Doesn’t sound much like 1921 to me.
My favorite Hayek quote:
Hayek: You see, another political element was that, of course, politicians just lapped the argument and Keynes taught them if you outspend your income and run a deficit, you are doing good to the people in general. The politicians didn’t want to hear anything more than that — to be told that irresponsible spending was a beneficial thing and that’s how the thing became so influential.
Michele Bachmann is a liar. She said on Freedom Watch that she would not vote to renew the PATRIOT Act in its current form, then she went and voted for the PATRIOT act in its current form.
http://youtu.be/UCahx6g2dbA#t=4m48s
Here is the roll call from the final vote: http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/05/26/roll-call-u-s-house-passes-patriot-act-extension-with-no-reforms/
Sorry I couldn’t find a better source, but I find it very, very difficult to google roll call votes on bills. After I started paying attention to this I noticed that most articles on legislative votes do not include the name of the bill or the bill number, and the bill is usually named something completely different than what the topic of concern is. On top of that, there will be several bills on the same topic that tend to pop up at the top of the results but never made it out of committee. It’s quite frustrating.