20
May
2013
Potpourri
==> Some people complained to me when this came out, but I thought Russ Roberts did a good job keeping Sumner honest in this interview. At the very end, Russ says something like (not exact quote), “You tell interesting an interesting story, Scott, it might even be true.”
==> Joe Salerno on the Fed realizing low interest rates might be a problem.
==> Some funny “memes” about the White House scandals and the press.
==> Tom Woods plays with fire. Although the lady in the video is speaking nonsense.
==> JP Koning uses a very Misesian argument about why stocks aren’t a good hedge against inflation.
I am bit confused by the furor over the DOJ AP scandal. Isn’t the government supposed to investigate leaks? Were the phone records obtained in violation of the law? If the phone records were obtained legally, the way records are obtained in every investigation, is the scandal just the fact that this happened to a media organization?
“Isn’t the government supposed to investigate leaks?”
It is logical that it would do so, but not necessarily “supposed” to. It depends upon the information, as well as the means by which it is investigated.
“Were the phone records obtained in violation of the law?”
Depends upon which “law” you are talking about and its type. Statutory, civil, constitutional, etc. There are obviously plenty of arguments to be made in this realm.
“If the phone records were obtained legally, the way records are obtained in every investigation, is the scandal just the fact that this happened to a media organization?”
Could be, but who knows. Obviously, the media would have a bias such that they could be blowing this all out of proportion. However, it is true
that there are other stories of nefarious actions by the government, and this one just seemed to help fuel the momentum (most people will relate them in their mind).
Personally, since I already know that there are less-than-savory aspects of society, and that the state is merely the product of society, that these same aspects will also be present in any state institution. The state is rather immune to the accountability compared to all of the rest of society, and it is the one making the rulings, so I don’t much focus on individual cases.
Perhaps the furor is due to the fact that the DOJ has zero credibility:
DOJ Will Not Investigate Attack of Civil Rights Activist
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2011/08/17/DOJ-Will-Not-Investigate-Attack-of-Civil-Rights-Activist
Tax Dollars Still Going to ACORN?
Is the Obama Justice Department Racist?
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/39-tax-dollars-still-going-acorn/#anchor2
Holder Faces New Questions About Racial Bias, Credibility After IG Report & Documents Released
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/13/Holder-Faces-New-Questions-About-Race-Credibility-After-DOJ-Report-Documents-Released
HOLDER: Whites Can’t Be Victims of Racial Injustice Because They Haven’t Suffered Enough
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2011/03/02/HOLDER–Whites-Can—t-Be-Victims-of-Racial-Injustice-Because-They-Haven—t-Suffered-Enough
Eric Holder Needs to Account for His Role in Farm Settlement Fraud
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/01/Eric-Holder-Needs-To-Account-For-His-Role-In-Farm-Settlement-Fraud
Help me find Media Matters’ apology to Andrew Breitbart on Pigford
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/04/help-me-find-media-matters-apology-to-andrew-breitbart-on-pigford/
Andrew Breitbart vindicated on Pigford after years of attacks from Media Matters and others
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/04/andrew-breitbart-vindicated-on-pigford-after-years-of-attacks-from-media-matters-and-others/
Guest, not only do none of those links seem to particularly reduce DOJ’s credibility, but also Eric Holder was not involved with this scandal, as he recused himself early on from being involved with the leak investigation. Like I was trying to say, either the furor is over government investigating leaks, or it is about how the leaks were investigated (ie, illegally), or it is about the fact that it involved a media organization.
If people think governments should not investigate leaks, let them say it and have that argument. If there is proof that the investigation uses illegal means, and the phone records were seized illegally, then show the evidence. If the furor is just that this was a media organization, then it seems like pretty weak sauce to me. This is why I don’t understand the furor. Which of those things is it?
He says he recused, but last I heard there was no written record of any such recusal. Is that still the case?
Basically, the DOJ has it out for Constitutional Americans. It is run by race-baiting Marxists.
This is shown in the links above.
The DOJ is going to “investigate” the leaks like they “investigated” Fast and Furious, where Holder was being investigated for a crime, and the DOJ was content to do an internal investigation:
The Gunwalker Scandal: Overview and Timeline
http://rinosandrats.com/2011/09/the-gunwalker-scandal-overview-timeline/
Race-baiting Marxists, are they worse than regular Marxists?
Recusal is just for plausible deniability.
Dude, weren’t you on Mike Salvi’s show (which is live) during the posting of these, or are these timed posts? Maybe you really are a ninja.
That Napoleon Dynamite one was pretty funny
Wait. I’m a bit confused on the equities as an inflation hedge article.
I believe I understand his argument concerning historical cost accounting, but I don’t find it very convincing. Let’s stick to the inventory for now. In his TV example, he is saying that a firm that previously generated a gross margin of $50 before inflation will now generate a margin of $300 due to the inflated selling price and the uninflated historical cost of the inventory. This profit is supposedly an accounting illusion and the company will be taxed on them anyway, resulting in a tax bill of $150 (50% tax rate). However, the company still gets to keep the other $150, the real value of which is now $75. The company was earning real after-tax profits of $25 before the inflation, and will now earn $75 on its inventory purchased prior to the inflation.
I can definitely see how this is not a lasting prosperity. Any new inventory will have to be purchased at the inflated cost of $400 and sold for the inflated price of $500, netting $100 pre-tax, $50 after-tax which is back to $25 in real terms. However, this means the company got a one-time windfall on the real assets it purchased prior to the inflation, and will return to “normal” profitability post-inflation. This seems to tell me that stocks make rather good inflation hedges. Am I missing something?
No Sunday post this week? Ah well, here is a brief refutation of Bob’s worldview anyway. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bita3nibuSw
I don’t trust anyone with a perpetually raised eyebrow.
Wow. That’s an even briefer refutation!
Welp, I guess we shouldn’t trust this guy then:
http://i.imgur.com/WPG7MEO.jpg
:)!