Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Alexander Hamilton versus Paul Krugman

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Alexander Hamilton versus Paul Krugman

    from

    (snip)"In light of the US Central Bank’s (I refuse to use their misleading self-anointed US Federal Reserve moniker) most recent grandstanding policy decision that has been referred to as "QE light" that precedes the inevitable QE2 launch sometime in the not so distant future, I present an open challenge to Paul Krugman and all like minded economists, Nobel prize winning or not, that support the monetary policy of dollar debasement. This will be a straightforward challenge issued by our Founding Fathers, in particular the first US Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, who scripted the US Coinage Act of 1792. The one question I want to see Mr. Krugman and his supporters answer is this:

    “If monetary debasement can truly create economic recovery, why did our Founding Fathers establish, in the US Coinage Act of 1792, that any persons discovered to be deliberately debasing US money ‘shall be guilty of felony and shall be punished by death’?”

    Note that the punishment was not imprisonment, not even hard labor, but death. Why did our Founding Fathers, who had just gained freedom from the draconian monetary policies of the British monarch King George through the American Revolution and the Treaty of Paris in 1783 deem that monetary stability could not be separated from the conditions of freedom? Why did they deem the act of monetary debasement so insidious that anyone found guilty of deliberately debasing US money would not be imprisoned but should be punished by death? And why is monetary debasement today accepted as the “right thing to do” and “normalized” by prominent economists like Paul Krugman?

    So this is all I ask of you Mr. Krugman - to repudiate Alexander Hamilton and explain why he was wrong. I don’t want the employment of deft politician-utilized “block and bridge” techniques that fail to ever address the question, or responses that entail long-winded dissertations on the relationships between monetary base, monetary supply and monetary velocity that fail to answer the question. Please merely be so kind as to answer the one question inspired by Alexander Hamilton and posed to you above and explain your position. (snip)

    (snip)"For those of you reading this that understand why the enforcement of monetary stability is central to your freedom, and I’m sure there are many of you, you must realize that you are among the very small minority of the world’s population that understands this. I have posed this challenge to Paul Krugman because he has the extremely powerful bully pulpit of the New York Times, Princeton University and mass media distribution channels to disseminate his opinion, to hundreds of millions, that monetary debasement is of great benefit to recovering economies.

    Today, academics have drawn the focus away from the immorality of the monetary debasement component of quantitative easing by refocusing discussions on the useless debate of whether or not QE assists economic recovery. This type of useless debate only serves as a distraction tactic to draw attention away from the more paramount issue of whether QE destroys the wealth of citizens and therefore is an enemy of freedom (snip)

    (snip)One thing is clear, Mr. Krugman. Either those men that are universally accepted to be among the greatest American patriots of all time were terrorists for desiring the sentence of death for anyone that destabilized money, OR you are massively wrong. Both of you cannot be right. Your defense of your position needs to repudiate the very founding fathers of the REPUBLIC (not the democracy) of America and needs to explain why you are spreading a diametrically opposing viewpoint to the wishes of America’s founding fathers.

    When prominent academics such as yourself, Mr.Krugman, support monetary policies that our Founding Fathers believed to be tyrannical, this supports a misguided and delusional belief system, the mistakes of which are exponentially multiplied by financial journalists that ensure that misinformation becomes not myth but part of a new reality that bankers desire. I cannot recall the hundreds of times have I seen misleading headlines like “Japanese markets fall sharply in the last month on the back of a strengthening Yen” (or replace "Japanese" with another nationality and "Yen" with another nation's currency). Such headlines, by nature, imply that a rising Yen is undesirable when in reality, such policy is enormously beneficial to a nation of savers. Monetary debasement punishes anyone that saves their money instead of spending it right away. Financial journalists, unable to comprehend monetary policy accurately because of academics that spread deceit instead of truth, continuously script headlines that fall victim to the con game of ideological subversion.

    Quantitative easing is a banker-created euphemism for monetary debasement. Please explain to Alexander Hamilton, who surely is rolling over in his grave after reading your words Mr. Krugman, why a great American patriot like Alexander Hamilton was so wrong. Billions that have been subjected to and that have suffered a much lower standard of living as a result of monetary debasement policies enforced by Central Banks around the world await your answer. If we are going to emerge from this global monetary crisis with a sustainable solution that benefits all citizens of the world as we all desire, you must not remain silent in responding to this question.(snip)

  2. #2
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Alexander Hamilton versus Paul Krugman

    I hope the author is not holding his breath. Krugman, afaic is a symptom and not a cause of our current difficulties. He deliberately ignores the strong dollar policies of JFK, Reagan and Clinton and acknowledges no connection whatsoever with the healthy economy that went hand in hand with same. Likewise, he refuses to recognize a connection between weak dollar policies and a weak economy. Worse yet, despite the instructive example of Japan and it's "Lost Decade" he continues to advocate the exact same failed policies.

    Ironically but not surprisingly ( given his documented intellectual dishonesty ) Krugman was a vocal critic of both Bush The Dumber's weak dollar policy and the Pre-Crash looseness of the Fed. I know. I've been reading his Times column for years. Strange how he NEVER gets called on the carpet and is asked to explain his situational economic doctrine. Coupled with his personal viciousness not to mention his smugness, Krugman's intellectual dishonesty is disgusting.

  3. #3
    Member
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    23
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 6 Posts

    Default Re: Alexander Hamilton versus Paul Krugman

    Many old or libertarian fringe ideas about economics were simply completely wrong. Remember the late 19th century, when prices were stable, economic growth was good, but unemployment was high (the average American was burdened by a "noose of gold," said William Jennings Bryan), or, after WWI, our Federal Reserve tried to restore the dollar to gold and thereby managed to collapse the economy? Neither inflation nor deflation are good or bad by themselves.

  4. #4
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Alexander Hamilton versus Paul Krugman

    ^^^ hmmm interesting historical choice. WJ Bryan was basically advocating the establishment of a fiat currency thus high inflation in order to benefit his base of constituents ... who were typically poor and heavily indebted farmers for whom high inflation would equal 'debt forgiveness'. This is not all that dissimilar to some current US politicians ( who like WJ Bryan are also democrats ).

    His major 'opponent' was (president) William McKinley, who advocated a 'strong dollar' policy backed by gold. After McKinley's successful election in 1896 ...

    (snip)" McKinley's election seemed to give new life to the American economy. Within a month, a business publication reported that buying and selling had increased greatly. It said demand for goods had led to the re-opening of factories closed during the depression.

    At the same time, new supplies of gold were discovered in Alaska, Australia, and South Africa. The extra gold increased the supply of money in the same way silver would have increased it.

    Taxes on imported goods rose to almost sixty percent. Under this protective tariff, American industry grew fast. The depression ended."(snip) from

    ... of course this situation quickly reversed after McKinley was assassinated in 1901 !

  5. #5
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Alexander Hamilton versus Paul Krugman

    Krugman is now publicly certifiable ! If I didn't read it myself, I never would have believed it. He clearly qualifies for his own planet !

    In a recent Times column, he actually claimed that Social Security is sound and is in no danger of going broke ! I can't make this stuff up ! Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY who looks at the numbers recognizes that benefits paid will exceed FICA receipts very soon. We have something like 100 million retirees who will go throught the system in the next 40 years or so. Depending on whose numbers you prefer, Social Security will be broke in as little as 12 years although most estimates say the system will limp along until at least 2025.

    What caused Krugman and now Reich to opt for their own reality ? Renewed calls for partial privatization whereby those paying in would get some choice in how their contributions are invested. Coupled with both of them ignoring the reality of what is REALLY happening with the Trust Fund, this is intellectual dishonesty on a grand scale. At present, the surplus is put into Treasury Bonds. The 10 Year is paying less than 3%. The 30 Year barely over 4%. When enough retirees claim benefits, money is going to have to be BORROWED by the Treasury to pay them. There is NO "Lock Box" for those funds. Never was.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-30-2011, 11:39 AM
  2. Trenton/Hamilton, NJ
    By greggy in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-16-2009, 03:10 PM
  3. Laurell K. Hamilton books
    By papillonluvr in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-20-2007, 12:37 AM
  4. Clothes in hamilton area
    By DEE_K in forum Body Business
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-25-2007, 06:17 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •