Von NotHaus and basic economics

[grixit]

Wait-- did Stevesy just refer to himself as a dead horse?

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

Wow what a load of crap...all that to highlight over and over a simple oversight in the law. Five words out of probably several thousand in a section of law titled with something that has little to do with removing an appointee. I was wrong...ok, I already admitted it, you got me on one error.

A simple oversight in the law?

All I know is, you said the president could not remove a Board member. You made a mistake. I identified your mistake. A gave a citation to the statute. Instead of admitting the mistake, you used the citation to locate the actual text and you copied and pasted the text -- and you berated me, not noticing that the text you yourself copied and posted here directly contradicted you. You were wrong.

I then had to point out the specific place in the sentence in the text for you, a portion of which sentence (the wrong portion, of course) you yourself had highlighted in blue color.

It was only at that point that you admitted you were wrong, Steve. And even then, you tried to cover up some of the humiliating evidence.

Again, if you are going to strike the King, you had better kill him. If you are going to berate others and call others names, you had better be right.

I don't think anybody cares whether it's only "five words" we're talking about, or 500 words. Suggestion: If you are going to go ballistic, and copy and paste the actual text of a statute that someone else cites to you, then at least slow down and read the words and be right. Or be prepared for self-humiliation yet again.

Steve wrote:

I assumed it [Steve's erroneous claim that a Board member could not be removed by the President or Congress] from reading it from the [web site for the] Dallas fed, something I shouldn't have done, but it wasn't a foundational premise upon which I was arguing on so I didn't feel the need to insure I was correct.

--and, from Steve's text citing to the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank web site:

For that reason, the Fed, by law, is not government controlled or funded by Congress

[bolding added by Famspear]

Yes, Steve, and I can see how you or I or anybody could be misled by that "not government controlled" language that you quoted. Of course, that's not the problem we're talking about.

The problem is that even when given the citation to the law itself, you not only "didn't feel the need to insure" that you were correct by carefully reading what you yourself copied and pasted -- you went off half-cocked and berated another editor (in this case me) even after posting the actual language of the statute -- again, reading only a part of the sentence that showed how completely wrong you were.

Sorry; not my problem, Steve.

Steve wrote:

So sorry you failed to use one of your character assassination tactics

Character assassination?

Wow, let's see. You made an incorrect statement on a point of law. I cited the statute showing you to be wrong. You then copied and pasted the statute. You then berated me, calling me names. You failed to notice that the statute says exactly what I said it says. I had to point it out to you again. You then admitted your mistake, while at the same time trying to partially cover your own tracks by deleting some of your own embarrassing post.

This has nothing to do with "character assassination." And it has nothing to do with some "tactic" I or another editor may have used against you. This was not an attempt (by me or by anyone else) at "character assassination." This was public self-humiliation. You did it to yourself.

SteveSy wrote:

You have not repeatedly done anything to me.....this is exactly what I'm talking about, you make an assertion in an attempt to make the other person look stupid so you can give the appearance you are intellectually superior

Uh, Steve, I already have a pretty good idea that I am intellectually superior to you. Who cares? That's not the issue here, and proving "intellectual superiority" is not why we are here. See earlier posts in this thread.

I and other editors have repeatedly demonstrated instances where you made mistakes. You take strong positions, and then it turns out that your positions are blatantly, flatly incorrect. Another recent example:

“The purpose . . . is clearly to stop someone from making notes . . . and saying "Here's a new looking U.S. $20 bill the treasury just made, give me my gas.”

--SteveSy commenting on 18 USC 486, which does not even mention “notes”, but instead applies to coins.

Steve wrote:

I agree I get too involved in some of the conversations. But to claim you don't is laughable, why else would you use derogatory terms? Almost every post you call people you disagree with an idiot even if its an opinion, Dan does the same thing but is far worse.

If by using the words "getting too involved" you mean "getting too emotional" I respectfully disagree. I don't recall you or anyone else pointing out a factual or legal error I have made, much less one that was the result of too much emotion impairing my analysis.

You are correct that I and other editors do show some emotion, though, or that we sometimes use derogatory terms. For example, I refer to Peter Hendrickson as "Blowhard." I don't recall where I started that, but I think actually cited the dictionary definition of the term, and showed (or at least tried to show) in a logical way why the term was not only connotatively correct but was also denotatively correct when applied to him. You're right about that.

Regarding my use of the word "idiot," I'd have to go back and review that.

Yes, you are right that lots of us use derogatory terms here in this forum, and you are right that some are worse than others. I am probably better that some and worse than others.

[.]

Galveston Hurricane

In the interest of further diverting this thread, I can tell you that I stayed at the Hotel Galvez in the early '80s and then watched the very same couches in the Galvez's lobby I had earlier sat upon floating around in flood waters following a major hurricane a year or two later. The storm was nothing as it churned across Florida (over my very head) on its way to Texas.

Not unlike my experience at the bar at the Holiday Inn on 7 mile beach on GCI. One year it's round, the next year, after a major hurricane, it's square. Not to mention that the attention-whoring 3-foot-long lizard was no longer doing photo sessions on his favorite tree.

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote:

Wow what a load of crap...all that to highlight over and over a simple oversight in the law. Five words out of probably several thousand in a section of law titled with something that has little to do with removing an appointee. I was wrong...ok, I already admitted it, you got me on one error.

A simple oversight in the law?

All I know is, you said the president could not remove a Board member. You made a mistake. I identified your mistake. A gave a citation to the statute. Instead of admitting the mistake, you used the citation to locate the actual text and you copied and pasted the text -- and you berated me, not noticing that the text you yourself copied and posted here directly contradicted you. You were wrong.

I then had to point out the specific place in the sentence in the text for you, a portion of which sentence (the wrong portion, of course) you yourself had highlighted in blue color.

It was only at that point that you admitted you were wrong, Steve. And even then, you tried to cover up some of the humiliating evidence.

Man look at the times of the posts, you posted right after I did. I saw the error, erased what I wrote and admitted my mistake prior to seeing your next post. I realized after you posted that you had come back to quick. Besides, why would I leave a section berating you when it was clearly my error.
Me: hu Nov 29, 2007 5:34 am (original)
Me: Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:44 am (edit)
You:Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:38 am

The part in blue was the only thing I saw and I highlighted it asking if that was what you were referring to and IF it was then you were an idiot, it wasn't so it wouldn't apply. The words you are referring to are in the middle and are only a few words long. It's not like the paragraph deals with removing an appointee, it was just a simple oversight.

That's ok, I'm sure you'll keep beating the dead horse...have your fun while it lasts. Maybe you can get the last post in before the thread is shutdown saying how humiliated I am.

Regarding my use of the word "idiot," I'd have to go back and review that.

Or any statement giving the connotation of the poster being an idiot.

“The purpose . . . is clearly to stop someone from making notes . . . and saying "Here's a new looking U.S. $20 bill the treasury just made, give me my gas.”

--SteveSy commenting on 18 USC 486, which does not even mention “notes”, but instead applies to coins.

Jesus you are anal aren't you.....does that really change anything? So change the word coin for note, the premise is still valid. If that's the best you got you haven't done anything but exposed yourself as a troll and anal retentive.

[Imalawman]

The Washington Times

Article published Nov 28, 2007
Ron Paul and the money cops

November 28, 2007

Richard W. Rahn - Assume you, a Justice Department official, are a secret supporter of Texas Rep. Ron Paul for president and want to help your candidate. You know Mr. Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, the Internal Revenue Service, the FBI, and wants money to be backed by gold, silver and/or other precious metals. You also know his critics claim he is paranoid about the federal government abusing its powers.

You then realize that in one lightening action you can demonstrate Mr. Paul is not paranoid and, at the same time, highlight the issues of sound money and government abuse of civil liberties.

To do so you could have the FBI raid the offices of a Paul supporter who is making and selling "Ron Paul Dollars" made of copper, silver, gold and platinum, and seize all the coins. Bizarre as it sounds, that is exactly what agents of the FBI did last week.

Needless to say, this action of the Feds has energized many Paul supporters and brought more people into his camp.

Despite my scenario above, I doubt the seizing of the coins was instigated by a Ron Paul supporter in the government; more likely, it was taken by overzealous federal agents who neither had the wit to understand the political significance of what they were doing nor a full appreciation of the importance of civil liberties. It should strike all Americans, regardless of political ideology, that seizing objects that bear the likeness of a candidate and are clearly designed to promote that candidate, regardless of what they are made of, is an assault on our basic freedoms and our electoral process.

Can you imagine the outrage from the mainstream press if the Feds had seized metal campaign buttons produced by a supporter of Hillary Clinton with her likeness on it?

The company whose "Ron Paul Dollars" and other private coins were seized by the Feds is "Liberty Services." According to both the Paul campaign and Liberty Services, the company's actions were not part of, affiliated with or authorized by the campaign. The FBI claims it is investigating the company for "making or possessing likeness of coins," mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and conspiracy. Yet, as of this writing, the company had not been charged with or indicted for any crime, let alone convicted.

To understand the very slippery slope the government is now on, it is important to understand what is legal and what is illegal. The U.S. Code states, "Whoever ... attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned."

Private mints and organizations can legally produce various types of commemorative coins (which the U.S. Mint insists they call medallions) from any metal, including gold, as long as they do not claim they are "money" and as long as they clearly do not appear to be counterfeits of some U.S. or foreign government coins.

Any citizen may possess, buy and sell as many gold, silver or other metal coins (medallions) produced by governments and private mints as he chooses. However, he may not pass off any of them as "money," except the "legal tender" coins minted by the government, such as the U.S. "quarter."

Now, you might be thinking if you can sell the coins in your coin collection for money, whether or not they are U.S. legal tender, what is the difference?

This nonsense only gets worse. The U.S. government mints and sells "American Eagle" gold coins which are "legal tender" even though they sell for about 20 times their face amount these days. You can also buy and sell gold coins produced by foreign governments or private mints (commemorative medallions), with same amount of gold in them as the U.S. government coins, for about the same price as the U.S. legal tender coins (the amount of gold largely determines the price, except for rare coins that have an additional numismatic value).

In addition to the legal tender laws, a major reason precious metal coins or "medallions" are not commonly used in normal transactions is that you are supposed to pay a capital gains tax on any difference between your purchase and sale price, though the gain may be due solely to (Fed-caused) inflation. Yet you are not allowed to deduct the loss of value due to inflation of your government-issued "quarter" or other legal tender from your taxes.

Finally, though some in the FBI appear to have forgotten, anyone can legally produce and give away or sell materials in support of any candidate as long as those actions are independent of the candidate's campaign.

Many great economic scholars, such as F.A. Hayek, have written on the desirability of denationalizating currencies in protecting the value of money, and civil libertarians both right and left have correctly criticized many IRS actions and those of other federal law enforcement agencies.

While other candidates have differences with some of Ron Paul's positions, as I do, they should not continue to ignore the problems of sound money and IRS and FBI abuse. If they fail to come up with their own solutions, they are likely to see his support continue to rise.

Richard W. Rahn is the chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.

WTF? I don't use that term often, but seriously, WTF? Is this a regular contributor to the Washington Times? This article is so wrong on so many levels, its hard to even know where to begin to discredit it. Geez, stupidity really pisses me off.

[SteveSy]

WTF? I don't use that term often, but seriously, WTF? Is this a regular contributor to the Washington Times? This article is so wrong on so many levels, its hard to even know where to begin to discredit it. Geez, stupidity really pisses me off.

Hahaha I will be willing to be it's this guy:

Dr. Rahn earned his B.A. in economics at the University of South Florida (1963) from which he received the "Distinguished Alumnus Award," an M.B.A. from Florida State University (1964), and a Ph.D. in business economics from Columbia University (1972). He was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws by Pepperdine University (1993).

He's no idiot, maybe you're smarter than him and have better credentials.

[Demosthenes]

WTF? I don't use that term often, but seriously, WTF? Is this a regular contributor to the Washington Times? This article is so wrong on so many levels, its hard to even know where to begin to discredit it. Geez, stupidity really pisses me off.

Hahaha I will be willing to be it's this guy:

Dr. Rahn earned his B.A. in economics at the University of South Florida (1963) from which he received the "Distinguished Alumnus Award," an M.B.A. from Florida State University (1964), and a Ph.D. in business economics from Columbia University (1972). He was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws by Pepperdine University (1993).

He's no idiot

So if degrees ensure a person's competency, what does that make Larken, Stevie?

[SteveSy]

WTF? I don't use that term often, but seriously, WTF? Is this a regular contributor to the Washington Times? This article is so wrong on so many levels, its hard to even know where to begin to discredit it. Geez, stupidity really pisses me off.

Hahaha I will be willing to be it's this guy:

Dr. Rahn earned his B.A. in economics at the University of South Florida (1963) from which he received the "Distinguished Alumnus Award," an M.B.A. from Florida State University (1964), and a Ph.D. in business economics from Columbia University (1972). He was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws by Pepperdine University (1993).

He's no idiot

So if degrees ensure a person's competency, what does that make Larken, Stevie?

Wow, I see you just couldn't hack someone having it shoved in their face. I simply posted his credentials because all of you have made it a point to show that you have credentials and I don't. If those credentials are so meaningful then I honestly can't see how one of you could claim this guy is so wrong.

Besides his higher education he has a very impressive background in economics.

[Demosthenes]

Impressive background or otherwise, he made a ton of mistakes in his opinion piece.

[SteveSy]

Impressive background or otherwise, he made a ton of mistakes in his opinion piece.

If you say so....is that a fact or your opinion Demo?

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote, in response to Famspear's quotation of Steve's misreading of section 486:

Jesus you are anal aren't you.....does that really change anything? So change the word coin for note, the premise is still valid. If that's the best you got you haven't done anything but exposed yourself as a troll and anal retentive.

Steve, your homework assignment is to go back and find all the places in Quatloos where you have used the terms "troll" or "anal retentive" (recalling that my assignment is to go back and find places where I used the word "idiot").

Just kidding.

Read section 486 again. Obviously, even changing from the word "note" in your quotation to the word "coin" would not have made sense, either. Section 486 does more than prohibit the use of private coins as counterfeits, i.e., as illegal copies of government coins. The law also prohibits the use of private coins even if those coins look nothing like official U.S. coins. The way I read the statute, the use of the private coins can be illegal regardless of whether they're made to look like the official coins or whether they're of some original design. I'm not following your argument.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

WTF? I don't use that term often, but seriously, WTF? Is this a regular contributor to the Washington Times? This article is so wrong on so many levels, its hard to even know where to begin to discredit it. Geez, stupidity really pisses me off.

The Washington Times (often confused with the Washington Post) is the wackjob... er... "alternative paper" owned by Rev Moon.

The Times is politically conservative. It was President Ronald Reagan's preferred newspaper. Some have cited it along with the Fox News Channel and talk radio as epitomizing the conservative media. It also prints op-ed and opinion articles that include liberal and Democratic party voices; liberal columnist Clarence Page is a regular contributor. Also featured are libertarian opinion pieces, almost always from scholars at the DC-located Cato Institute.

The paper does not make money.

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote, in response to Famspear's quotation of Steve's misreading of section 486:

Jesus you are anal aren't you.....does that really change anything? So change the word coin for note, the premise is still valid. If that's the best you got you haven't done anything but exposed yourself as a troll and anal retentive.

Steve, your homework assignment is to go back and find all the places in Quatloos where you have used the terms "troll" or "anal retentive" (recalling that my assignment is to go back and find places where I used the word "idiot").

Just kidding.

Read section 486 again. Obviously, even changing from the word "note" in your quotation to the word "coin" would not have made sense, either. Section 486 does more than prohibit the use of private coins as counterfeits, i.e., as illegal copies of government coins. The law also prohibits the use of private coins even if those coins look nothing like official U.S. coins. The way I read the statute, the use of the private coins can be illegal regardless of whether they're made to look like the official coins or whether they're of some original design. I'm not following your argument.

The point was you can't pass your "coins" off as backed by the government or approved as legal tender regardless if they are copies or an attempt to look like government mandated money. That's the intent of the law, to me its obvious otherwise there would be violations all over the place.

[Demosthenes]

Impressive background or otherwise, he made a ton of mistakes in his opinion piece.

If you say so....is that a fact or your opinion Demo?

I'd tell you to read the story yourself and figure it out, but you're unable to read to I won't bother.

We're at 100 posts, so start a new thread.

PS: to everyone else. Please notice that when I respond to Stevie, I always quote his entire post. He consistently edits and deletes his posts when he's caught on dumb dumb stuff.

[Imalawman]

Hahaha I will be willing to be it's this guy:
He's no idiot

Um, OK. I didn't say anything about his expertise in economics, nor would I based on that article. What I was commenting on was the writer's incredible display of ignorance and stupidity when it came to writing this article. I don't care if he's the smartest person on earth - his article was ignorant and stupid.

Oh and I love how willing you are to use educational credentials when it suits your purposes but totally discredit them at other times. Maybe I'll disclose my educational credentials and see if you'd accept what I said.

Edit - apparently I've just made use of my moderator powers for the first time by posting on a locked thread. However inadvertent it was, I'll gladly take the last word on the subject.