en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/356637 Comments by Jaycephus http://mises.org/preview/6003/Contra-Bernanke-on-the-Gold-Standard#IDComment337093649 Well, first, you seem to be unaware that pretty much the whole world agreed that the US would remain on a gold standard, & the dollar would become the reserve currency of the world. Then Nixon severed the gold standard, but mumbled something about it being 'temporary'. Finally, govts realized its a pretty good deal if they can just print money when they need a few extra bucks, or as a favor to those who will launder it right back into their campaign coffers. The gold standard has to be something people demand, not something that govt is going to re-institute out of the goodness of its heart. Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:48:13 +0000 http://mises.org/preview/6003/Contra-Bernanke-on-the-Gold-Standard#IDComment337093649 http://mises.org/preview/6003/Contra-Bernanke-on-the-Gold-Standard#IDComment337083760 If the govt wasn't simultaneously taxing 'capital gains', while inflating the prices of everything so that the 'apparent' capital gains in my gold holdings is taxed at 15%, maybe I could just 'save' in gold. And maybe if legal tender laws permitted us to demand payment in gold, then I wouldn't have to worry about the fact that a multi-month contract is losing 6% over the course of a year. But then, supposing all that, gold would essentially be in free competition with paper money, and what do you think most people would demand? Wouldn't we end up with sound money and a literal gold-standard? Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:26:40 +0000 http://mises.org/preview/6003/Contra-Bernanke-on-the-Gold-Standard#IDComment337083760 http://www.stockgumshoe.com/2008/12/new-high-yield-pick-from-peter-schiff.html#IDComment73539270 I think Euro Pacific has started offering to manage accounts greater than $100K since this post was written, unless they were actually doing that all along. I've had Skyworth for 10 months and was north of 200%. sold 50% a month ago, and it's been wobbly since. SnoopyJC, how did you learn technical analysis/charts? Books, web, etc? Which/where? I've done well over last 10 months with Schiff's recommendations, but I don't know how to do what you do. Thanks Thu, 6 May 2010 23:21:58 +0000 http://www.stockgumshoe.com/2008/12/new-high-yield-pick-from-peter-schiff.html#IDComment73539270 http://biggovernment.com/mwarstler/2010/04/08/im-still-digging-michael-steele/#IDComment66621434 to continue, I see the damage drugs and alcohol have done to society. I'm a foster parent. But banning them always seems to bring in more destruction without actually reducing the damage the ban was meant to stop in the first place. For me there's probably a line. I can't see full drug-legalization. But it's pretty stupid to permit alcohol & tobacco, but criminalize marijuana (though I don't really see much to admire about pot-use outside of pain or nausea management). People may be blaming Obama for the changes in the political leanings of America, but for me, it was the Republican Establishment. They morphed into the Democrat party they replaced, so I stopped donating to the party, and started only donating to individuals. I stopped thinking of myself as a libertarian-leaning Republican, and now consider myself a Republican-leaning libertarian. I believe in and support a libertarian-takover of the Republican Party by supporting libertarian-leaning Republican candidates nation-wide. To me, that is what the Tea Party IS. Supporting a third party, such as the Libertarian party, is simply surrender to the Progressive Democrats. Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:31:08 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/mwarstler/2010/04/08/im-still-digging-michael-steele/#IDComment66621434 http://biggovernment.com/mwarstler/2010/04/08/im-still-digging-michael-steele/#IDComment66621409 I am a religious 'fundamentalist', but I agree fully with this article. I don't like prostitution, or related stuff, but Prudery always rings of Progressivism to me. Progressives banned alchohol, and now they're going for tobacco, firearms, and fatty foods. There are plenty of Progressives in the Republican party. Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:30:50 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/mwarstler/2010/04/08/im-still-digging-michael-steele/#IDComment66621409 http://biggovernment.com/uknowledge/2010/04/07/are-aircraft-carriers-obsolete/#IDComment66617930 Gee, experts are never ignored by congress are they? The truth is that congress wants certain projects based on size for their district. The truth is that fighter jock Admirals now in control want only human-piloted fighter jets. Even now, ONLY the CIA has armed UAVs. All other UAVs are unarmed recon platforms. It should be the other way around. How cheap and effective could a carrier be that only carried the lighter armed UAVs piloted by individuals that didn't have to be perfect physical specimens. How effective could aircraft be that could be smaller, yet faster and far, far more nimble than hulking F-15 fighters? Lighter and faster UAVs mean a far, far shorter runway for takeoff and recovery, and a smaller carrier. With a more flexible fleet of UAVs, smaller than human crewed fighter-bombers, a carrier could carry more of them in less space. Repair & non-routine maintenance could simply be deferred until return to port, reducing crew-size. All this could be tried out in parallel with conventional systems. It's the future, whether we piddle around and let someone else do it or not. Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:03:37 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/uknowledge/2010/04/07/are-aircraft-carriers-obsolete/#IDComment66617930 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/03/29/trailer-michael-caines-harry-brown-open-april-30th/#IDComment65046287 If the Tea Parties are attracting people from both the ranks of conservatives and independents, and you start to see ratios of 10 out of 100 Tea Partiers are blacks, then my gut is that you're seeing around half of the black population interested in the Tea Party. That kind of number should scare the daylights out of democrats. Not that we will see that ratio. I'm just trying to establish exactly what is the black to white ratio you should see at a Tea Party given the demographics and voting patterns of the US population. 1 to 2 out 100 would be essentially no-change. 4 out of a 100 should start to alarm democrats that they are in serious trouble. At the same time, a video of a crowd with only 4 out of 100 being black could still be used by Chris Matthews and his ilk to claim the Tea Parties are 'lily white', especially since they have zero problem doing a little creative editing to excise the blacks from the crowd in any video they do show. Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:18:07 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/03/29/trailer-michael-caines-harry-brown-open-april-30th/#IDComment65046287 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/03/29/trailer-michael-caines-harry-brown-open-april-30th/#IDComment65046126 Good point. Blacks are ~12% of the US pop, & ~8 to 10% of blacks voted for 'Not Obama'. So the baseline ratio you could expect to see at a Tea Party rally, assuming the rally draws only from those self-identified conservatives, would be 2 out of 100. No guess what the ratio should be if you assume a more recent rally draws to some degree from both conservatives & independents. My gut says it moves toward 1:100, since the % of blacks who self-identify as liberal (& % of blacks who are politically active) are different from the rest of the US pop. So I'm thinking 1 to 2 out of 100 black to white ratio in a Tea Party crowd is completely normal. Sounds pretty low, but that's just the demographics! It's really cheap & easy to claim Tea Parties are 'racist' because they 'look too white'. If you start to see higher than 2:100 blacks at a Tea Party, then the democrats better start to be alarmed, since that means the Tea Parties are probably starting to draw more than the 8-10% black republican vote. Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:16:52 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/03/29/trailer-michael-caines-harry-brown-open-april-30th/#IDComment65046126 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/03/29/daily-gut-the-burden-of-poop/#IDComment65037527 Most people and companies have to compete on price (the cost of their labor or goods). But business cartels and unions tell you what you have to pay to buy their labor or product, with the power of government (and union thugs) backing them up. I don't care if people are 'forced' into unions. This union crap has got to stop. I'm fully on board with cutting out as much over-priced, union-made crap as possible. It's actually pretty easy to do. Just purchase the highest-quality, lowest-priced items, and you're almost certainly NOT buying union-made! Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:05:27 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/03/29/daily-gut-the-burden-of-poop/#IDComment65037527 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/03/29/daily-gut-the-burden-of-poop/#IDComment65034957 You know, who would mind if people had the option to keep their 26-year-old, perennial grad-student 'child' on their health-insurance, as long as they themselves paid for the option, and also had the option to NOT add their adult 'child' to their insurance in return for a LOWER premium, while at the same time, the student would be allowed to buy a high-deductible customized plan that didn't cover everything from sniffles to heart-bypass operations. Instead, individuals and companies are ordered to comply with this unfunded mandate. Apparently, regardless of whether the 26-year-old is a student or not, whether they are full-time employees with their own insurance or not, they must be covered under plans that are mandated to cover, more often than not, almost everything conceivable, including plastic surgery in some cases. It seems this bill is simply designed to outright destroy the insurance system inside of three years, just in time for Obama to sign a single-payer nationalized health-care bill before he gets booted from the White House. Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:43:58 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/03/29/daily-gut-the-burden-of-poop/#IDComment65034957 http://bigjournalism.com/hfontova/2010/03/30/apple-boycotts-glenn-beck-promotes-che-guevara/#IDComment64905635 How about an app that advertises famous 'socialist' quotes. The quotes are all made by a single, well-known socialist, but the identity is not immediately revealed. None of the quotes are the racist or hateful quotes this man is known for, so at first all looks nice and 'progressive'. But as the quotes progress, they do get a little darker. Finally, toward the end, the quoted socialist is revealed to be Adolf Hitler. The final quotes can be more ominous, but none should be out-right racist or hateful. All quotes should be the kinds of things that progressives are saying today. Hitler said PLENTY of things exacly like this. Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:03:28 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/hfontova/2010/03/30/apple-boycotts-glenn-beck-promotes-che-guevara/#IDComment64905635 http://bigjournalism.com/hfontova/2010/03/30/apple-boycotts-glenn-beck-promotes-che-guevara/#IDComment64904471 Undoubtedly, Apple would probably say that they don't necessarily support Che by allowing the app, but that since none of the hate-filled quotes are included, the app is fine. They CAN'T say that to ban it would be to curtail free speech, since that means they are suddenly admitting to trampling many other app-maker's rights. Maybe someone could test Apple on this by producing a Hitler Quotes app in which only the most 'liberal', non-hateful quotes are included. Hitler had many of these, and it would probably be easy to fool liberals on who the quoted person was. I could see an app that looks like a progressive liberal quote collection, but as you progress through the quotes, it starts to get a little darker, and the final reveal is that all of the quotes were by Hitler. Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:55:09 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/hfontova/2010/03/30/apple-boycotts-glenn-beck-promotes-che-guevara/#IDComment64904471 http://bigjournalism.com/hfontova/2010/03/30/apple-boycotts-glenn-beck-promotes-che-guevara/#IDComment64903050 ditto, Angelia. I don't understand why Andrew and such don't understand the simple logic. Apple has banned relatively tame apps from their store, apps that are no more offensive than Maxim or other men's magazines in a store's magazine rack. Apple has the right to ban these apps, just as any given store has a right not to carry a certain magazine. But by carrying a Che app while they are actively banning other apps and pulling their advertising from Beck (which is difficult to do if you don't advertize on his show in the first place), they are giving tacit approval to Che. If they took a more hands-off approach to the store, the claim that they support Che would indeed be weak. Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:44:07 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/hfontova/2010/03/30/apple-boycotts-glenn-beck-promotes-che-guevara/#IDComment64903050 http://biggovernment.com/bjacobson/2010/02/25/buy-american-eh/#IDComment58689181 It will require a combination of more automation, lower taxes, or a restructuring of taxes that will amount to the same thing, and an end to the Union mentality. When a union auto-worker, after being laid off from his mindless button-pusher-job and sent to the 'Job Bank' makes MORE for just sitting on his ass than the engineer who designed, built, and programmed the robotic automation that put the auto-worker in the job-bank, then something is out of whack. It's not that the engineer is making nothing. Its that the union worker is being paid more than double what he should really be making, and the idea that he can make this kind of money for sitting on his ungrateful ass in the 'Job Bank' is abominable. Without the overhead of the union wages and other goodies such as their overly-generous health-care and pension, how much cheaper could US-made automobiles be? When US Federal taxes cause American-made goods to cost more to foreign buyers, while many foreign companies do not assess taxes on foreign-made goods that are sold here in the US, then American manufacturers are at a major disadvantage. And then regulations that actually encourage US manufacturers to outsource are also part of the problem. CAFE standards were meant to encourage an increase in the average fuel economy of American made cars, but the result was that American car makers could simply make a domestic car out of foreign-made components, and the domestic car was 'considered' an import for the sake of complying with the standards. Other new regulations that will drive manufacturing out of the US include the upcoming Cap & Trade regulations that will raise the cost of US manufacturing significantly. Manufacturing will simply relocate to India, China, or other nations that don't engage in the AGW-hoax-driven tax-grab. Yes we need to make things, but we also need to be able to afford things as well. One way this happens is through automation. The price of domestic goods is lowered through automation. What most people don't know is that a greater number of manufacturing jobs have been 'lost' to automation as factories automate here in the US, than have been lost to factories moving to China or elsewhere. - Jay Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:43:31 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/bjacobson/2010/02/25/buy-american-eh/#IDComment58689181 http://bigjournalism.com/chorner/2010/02/14/medias-consistent-with-manta-consistent-with-widespread-msm-panic/#IDComment56881879 ""SUGGESTING GLOBAL WARMING MAY NOT BE A MAN-MADE PHENOMENON" -- you do understand that's not a quote from Jones right? That's the reporters spin on what he said, exaggerated exactly for this purpose: to be misquoted on blogs from now til the end of time." No, you didn't go there... Now I see that you are indeed a koolaid drinker, and not at all interested in science of any sort, despite the act you've put on here. The whole quote was: "Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon." The reporter's conclusion is exactly the one ANYONE would make once it is understood that the earth was warmer 1000 years ago than it is now. That doesn't just 'suggest' that GW 'may' not be a man-made phenomenon. It practically clubs you over the head with the realization that AGW is bunk. You have to be particularly thick-skulled not to question the dogma of AGW in light of this fact. Mon, 15 Feb 2010 05:42:40 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/chorner/2010/02/14/medias-consistent-with-manta-consistent-with-widespread-msm-panic/#IDComment56881879 http://bigjournalism.com/chorner/2010/02/14/medias-consistent-with-manta-consistent-with-widespread-msm-panic/#IDComment56880735 Let's rephrase the question more correctly without the reference to weather or meteorology: Their models can't predict the CLIMATE we have RIGHT NOW correctly given the actual data from the past decades. How exactly is it trustworthy for 10 or 100 years into the future? Obviously it can't be. And the model makers themselves admit as much. They only claim to be working toward a system that, when computing power permits, might be able to be considered accurate. Mon, 15 Feb 2010 05:28:46 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/chorner/2010/02/14/medias-consistent-with-manta-consistent-with-widespread-msm-panic/#IDComment56880735 http://bigjournalism.com/chorner/2010/02/14/medias-consistent-with-manta-consistent-with-widespread-msm-panic/#IDComment56880239 Ummmm, hello? And if CO2 levels follows temperature change? And what is the right level? The one we had 1000 years ago? 10000 years ago?? Maybe we should actually be making CO2 as fast as possible just to keep temps up where we need them to be. 'IF' the world were incontrovertibly warmer in the past? Are these guys even remotely clued in to the state of the science of 20 years ago, never mind today?? Certainly, the rapid rise in CO2 was not predominately man-caused. Where then AGW? And how about the credibility of sun output vs a secondary green-house gas? The above quote is why the SA has become an absolute rag. It certainly isn't peer-reviewed science as palmtree seems to believe. Mon, 15 Feb 2010 05:21:29 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/chorner/2010/02/14/medias-consistent-with-manta-consistent-with-widespread-msm-panic/#IDComment56880239 http://bigjournalism.com/chorner/2010/02/14/medias-consistent-with-manta-consistent-with-widespread-msm-panic/#IDComment56879353 "I read in Scientific American recently that over 90% of all scientists working in the field of climatology supported the basic premise behind climate change." ? CC or AGW? There is a difference that an intelligent non-troll ought to know. Mon, 15 Feb 2010 05:08:31 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/chorner/2010/02/14/medias-consistent-with-manta-consistent-with-widespread-msm-panic/#IDComment56879353 http://bigjournalism.com/chorner/2010/02/14/medias-consistent-with-manta-consistent-with-widespread-msm-panic/#IDComment56878875 Well, based on our experience so far, it MIGHT actually work better. Perhaps another analogy would have been more wise, especially since the fine folks who've brought us the space shuttle are also bringing us the possibly even more over-engineered and less air-worthy NASA/GISS climate data. Mon, 15 Feb 2010 05:02:10 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/chorner/2010/02/14/medias-consistent-with-manta-consistent-with-widespread-msm-panic/#IDComment56878875 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/fdemartini/2010/02/09/runaway-production-why-im-filming-in-bangkok/#IDComment56099038 wr1, you know nothing about Civil War history, but you're so certain of your position. It brings into serious question your assertions about everything you say you know about the business. Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:55:20 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/fdemartini/2010/02/09/runaway-production-why-im-filming-in-bangkok/#IDComment56099038