Do You Condemn Rush Limbaugh (ZOT!!! How to wear out your welcome here.)

www.RushLimbaugh.com | May, 9, 2004 | Rush Limbaugh

[Anti-Bush Hater]

"Fire Rumsfield, Fire Bush, Fire Myers, set up Hillary Clinton as Dictator" -our leftist media, leftist polichickens, and leftists over-blowing the whole damn thing for political purposes.

Not knowing the full knowledge of what went on, repeating probably false claims of terrorists and torturers held at Abu Gahrib about "beatings" and "rape". Have you heard of the faked porn thing that was used against out troops???

I'm waiting for solid information to get out, and not misquoting people and spewing crap that is 100% false.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Hell, no I applaud him for throwing the RATmedia agenda back in its stinking face. A week-long orgy of flaggellation because some mass murderers had a little "humiliation" shows America what the REAL problem is.

You want to see humiliation let me have charge of them, amateur hour would be over.

[Enterprise]

"Join the liberals and insist ... they must go!"

I agree that the liberals must go now.

[Anti-Bush Hater]

Moderator, Moderator, where areth thou Moderator?

[Anti-Bush Hater]

Amen Brotha! Fight the Power!

[Enterprise]

"I think a lot of his pretentiousness is deliberate; he does it to drive the libs nuts!"

"look what it does to curmudgeonII!

LOL! Didn't have to drive 'em very far did he?

[hershey]

The casual reader can't possibly miss the 'nuances' here...Can we spell Witchhunt?

[Anti-Bush Hater]

"curmudgeon- n. A gruff or irritable person, esp, an elderly man."

Look like we got a leftist fogey on our hands.

[Anti-Bush Hater]

W-I-T-C-H-H-U-N-T

It has a nice ring to it.

[Admin Moderator]

Moderator, Moderator, where areth thou Moderator?

Right here. What's on your mind?

[Enterprise]

"Look like we got a leftist fogey on our hands."

A bit early in the year to be hearing "Bah, humbug!"

[Anti-Bush Hater]

Howdy. I want to know something.

If some tries to post a porn link for educational purposes towards refuting disinformation, like showing a site that had photos taken off of it and then used by Al Jazerra or someone so they could lie and claim it was "Americans are raping this that" and the other thing, will that link get and the post or reply be taken off because it is a violation of the rules?

I say this because apparently some sick feminazi porno people mad some films showing porn guys and gals staging "fake" rape scenes in US uniforms etc.

To prove they were essentially fake photos used for disinformation purposes could I post that link?

Just wanting to know.

[humblegunner]

Do know what Keynesianism is?

Yes, it's a John Maynard Keynes economical treatise / theory that is outdated
and frankly kind of quaint.. you are obviously a student newly exposed to this.

BACK in 1959 there came into print a book which might have changed our world, In painstaking detail, it refuted all the premises of the most influential book on economics since Marx, John Maynard Keynes' General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, first published in 1936. Other well-known free market economists had attacked Keynes, but this was the first full length analysis, almost sentence by sentence, of Keynes' chief work.

Yet Van Nostrand's original edition of Henry Hazlitt's The Failure of the "New Economics" sold no more than 5,000 copies and a 1973 edition by Arlington has added only 7,000 more. In a world largely controlled by words, why has an apparently monumental work been so completely ignored?

To answer this question we must first look at what Keynesian economics is all about.

Although the writing of Keynes (pronounced "Kanes") is complicated and contradictory, Hazlitt has reduced it to something quite simple. He finds it largely a rehash of mercantilism, a centuries old theory that when business is bad it is due to (1) a scarcity of money, and (2) general overproduction. The first of these is one of the old, populist easy-money theories which still persists to some extent in Congress 200 years after it was first destroyed by Adam Smith. If it were valid, the underdeveloped nations would only need to print large quantities of paper money in order to have instant prosperity.

Obviously to you, Keynesianism means worshipping Limbaugh and using his opinions when
you are unable to formulate your own.. perhaps due to lack of intellect or possibly
because of outright ignorance.. I can't say which.

Also, newbie, you ought to learn how to conduct yourself around here.

I knew it. You a freakin' "open-minded"(stupid and wrong) retard.

Yes, I a freakin' retard. Go axe your friends, they be say "true dat."

[maxwell]

5...4...3...2...

[Anti-Bush Hater]

LOL Looks like you went and googled Keynes. First of all Kenyes was not attacked by free-market economists after his book was published in 1959. In the 20's through 30's he was spewing his crap.

www.brookesnews.com refutes most of your crap.

His work hasn't been completey ignored and it ain't monumental. Ludwig Von Mises "Human Action" was monumental.

If you look at today's economic commentariat, they are all Keynesian.

Keynes's ideas caused the Great Depression, the 1970's depression and has no economic historical basis.

Regurgitating lies you just found on the web only proves your retardedness.

[maxwell]

And childish mudslinging proves your intellectual superiority?

[snortle]

Go back to DU and stop trying to pull a reverse-reverse psychology maneuver on us, or whatever you're trying to do. At the very least, go dip your head in some ice water.

[Admin Moderator]

Wouldn't be prudent. That applies to any number of things.

[Anti-Bush Hater]

Thank You.

[Anti-Bush Hater]

Excuse me?

I only drink coca-cola.

US economy and recession: theory and counter theory
Gerard Jackson
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 1 March 2004

Although the causes and course of the recession are still being hotly debated, with some focusing on monetary factors, the overwhelming number of commentators still haven't got it right ? including the Democrats, who couldn't care less anyway.

Regular readers know that I have continually stated that Austrian analysis easily explains what really happened. Armed with the Austrian approach one could only predict recession.

However, there is still considerable confusion regarding the role of money in causing the recession, with most commentators even denying that monetary expansion had anything to do with it. One reader sent me a lengthy e-mail in which he argued that Ralph Hawtrey?s monetary approach was superior to the "overinvestment analysis that the Austrians us".

From the references he used I presume he had drawn on Gottfried Haberler's Prosperity and Depression for his information. Fortunately I too have read Haberler.

Hawtrey explained booms and busts in pure monetary terms. An inflationary monetary policy (credit expansion) triggers the boom while depression is caused by a reduction in expenditure. This view led him to argue that stabilising the price level is all that is needed to eliminate the so-called trade cycle.

Therefore the central bank can tame recession by keeping general prices from either rising or falling by adjusting the money supply accordingly, which really meant implementing a 'cheap money' policy. But as Benjamin M. Anderson wrote in his Economics and the Public Welfare: "Cheap money plays no such dominating role as Keynes and Hawtrey and their followers would have us believe."

What Hawtrey's supporters do not realise is that his stabilisation policies will also trigger the so-called boom-bust cycle. His great error was in failing to understand that money is not neutral. This failure led him to declare: "The American experiment in stabilisation from 1922 to 1928 showed that an early treatment could check a tendency either to inflation or deflation . . . [and that] the American experiment was a great advance upon the practice of the nineteenth century."

And while Hawtrey was lauding the Fed's price stabilisation policy Hayek and Mises were warning that the very same policy would result in a severe depression.

Because the Austrians understand that money is not neutral they fully realise the microeconomic consequences of inflation. They are the only ones to explain that expanding the money supply affects individual prices in a way that distorts the pattern of production.

The effect is particularly pernicious when the monetary expansion consists largely of credit expansion, which is usually the case. Hawtrey's assumption, therefore, was that monetary expansion only affects the general price level while leaving the structure of prices unchanged.

Now Haberler greatly erred in presenting the Austrian explanation for the trade cycle as being an "overinvestment" theory. It was nothing of the kind, something that Haberler of all people should have known. As Mises pointed out in Human Action:

"It is customary to describe the boom as overinvestment. However, additional investment is only possible to the extent that there is an additional supply of capital goods available?. The boom itself does not result in a restriction but rather an increase in consumption, it does not procure [emphasis added] more capital goods for new investment. The essence of the credit-expansion boom is not overinvestment, but investment in the wrong lines, i.e., malinvestment on a scale for which the capital goods available do not suffice."

In other words, credit expansion causes relative overinvestment, meaning excess investment in some lines of production at the expense of other lines, most of which are at the lower stages of the production structure. The idea of general "overinvestment" struck the likes of Mises and Hayek as absurd ? and they were right.

The Austrians are the only school of economic thought to provide a satisfactory explanation of the trade cycle. The only one whose theory adequately explains why the boom starts in manufacturing and why manufacturing is the first to suffer the effects of an emerging recession.

Manufacturing, not consumption, retail sales or the stock market is the real leading indicator. To sum it up, Austrians would say that that though the recession had monetary roots it still consisted of real factors, something that a purely monetary explanation would ignore.

This reader also wondered whether money substitutes vitiated the Austrian theory. Not at all, is the answer. It ought to be noted that the rapid growth of money substitutes follows rapid credit expansion. Rather than causing the boom, they are one of its misbegotten products.

When the boom finally comes to an end many of the money substitutes will become virtually worthless, their claims having as much value as those issued during the South Sea Bubble by a "company for carrying on an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is."

Gerard Jackson is Brookes' economics editor

Reverse pschology? Don't think so.

Just superior arguements.

[anniegetyourgun]

I'm sure you are referring to Al Franken....