The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

My Question To Terry Jones Was Featured On ‘Front Page With Allen Barton’

Posted on | June 30, 2010 | 18 Comments

by Smitty


My highly important question was addressed starting at 10:10.
PJTV continues its gradual world conquest.

Related, via Insty: Time to shut down the US Federal Reserve?
When someone says, as Evans-Pritchard quotes, and I gently VodkaPundit-ize. . .

“Economics is hahrd. Really hahrd. You just won’t believe how vastly hugely mind-boggingly hahrd it is. I mean you may think doing the Sunday Times crossword is difficult, but that’s just peanuts to economics. And because it is so hahrd, people shouldn’t blithely go shooting their mouths off about it, and pretending like it’s so easy. In fact, we would all be better off if we just ignored these clowns.”

. . .my response to Dr Athreya is that

  • really good teachers can bridge the gap between hahrd material and the audience, and
  • really bad teachers obfuscate to compensate for their inadequacy.
Category: Instapundit, PJTV

Comments

18 Responses to “My Question To Terry Jones Was Featured On ‘Front Page With Allen Barton’”

  1. Joe
    June 30th, 2010 @ 1:47 pm

    No comment really necessary Smitty. I think you summed it up well. Thanks.

  2. Joe
    June 30th, 2010 @ 9:47 am

    No comment really necessary Smitty. I think you summed it up well. Thanks.

  3. Romeo13
    June 30th, 2010 @ 2:57 pm

    And a third point, they have created complex economic theories, which, don’t work, to MAKE it seem hard.

    Its actualy fairly simple.

  4. Romeo13
    June 30th, 2010 @ 10:57 am

    And a third point, they have created complex economic theories, which, don’t work, to MAKE it seem hard.

    Its actualy fairly simple.

  5. Q&A: What are some good shooting and racing video games for ps2? | Truck Racing Games
    June 30th, 2010 @ 11:01 am

    […] My Question To Terry Jones Was Featured On 'Front Page With Allen … […]

  6. dad29
    June 30th, 2010 @ 3:03 pm

    You’ll LOVE this response to Mr. P.H.D.:

    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/06/economics-is-easy-comedy-is-hard/

  7. dad29
    June 30th, 2010 @ 11:03 am

    You’ll LOVE this response to Mr. P.H.D.:

    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/06/economics-is-easy-comedy-is-hard/

  8. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard channels Ron Paul? | Political Byline
    June 30th, 2010 @ 1:43 pm

    […] The Other McCain SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "Ambrose Evans-Pritchard channels Ron Paul?", url: […]

  9. Estragon
    June 30th, 2010 @ 7:28 pm

    I don’t think economics is so hard, but ignorance of it is really, really easy.

    Two questions:

    1. Before the FRB was given the power to regulate the currency, who did?

    2. If the FRB is to lose this power, who will replace them?

    .

    Until you can offer cogent answers to those two very simple questions, you’re just like some drunken peasant with a torch screaming, “Storm the Bastille!!”

  10. Estragon
    June 30th, 2010 @ 3:28 pm

    I don’t think economics is so hard, but ignorance of it is really, really easy.

    Two questions:

    1. Before the FRB was given the power to regulate the currency, who did?

    2. If the FRB is to lose this power, who will replace them?

    .

    Until you can offer cogent answers to those two very simple questions, you’re just like some drunken peasant with a torch screaming, “Storm the Bastille!!”

  11. smitty
    June 30th, 2010 @ 8:07 pm

    @Estragon,
    Your point was the gist of my question to Terry Brooks of IBD.

  12. smitty
    June 30th, 2010 @ 4:07 pm

    @Estragon,
    Your point was the gist of my question to Terry Brooks of IBD.

  13. Adobe Walls
    June 30th, 2010 @ 9:08 pm

    Sometimes fire cleans better than sunshine.

  14. Adobe Walls
    June 30th, 2010 @ 5:08 pm

    Sometimes fire cleans better than sunshine.

  15. Estragon
    July 1st, 2010 @ 10:33 am

    @smitty ~ Your phrasing leaves little doubt you’ve settled on a first step – “If we gather the shotguns and ammo to blow away the Federal Reserve zombie . . .”.

    At least you are gathering input as to post-destruction possibilities. First, the answer to #1 was that US currency was effectively regulated by a private citizen, J.P. Morgan, who had already rescued the federal government from a crisis before accepting the unofficial duties. In that earlier and more innocent time, it seemed only reasonable that the nation’s top banker perform the role, since no one knew the economy better.

    The rat bastard up and died, though. So this authority was added to the FRB, who really didn’t have all that much on their plate at the time – banks weren’t heavily regulated, there was no FDIC, the Reserve system basically ran itself – so it seemed logical.

    Although quasi-independent, the FRB was frequently susceptible to political pressure to match monetary policy to the needs of the party in power. This did harm the economy, of course, and hampered long-term growth until impending fiscal catastrophe forced Jimmy Carter to name Volcker as Chairman. Volcker quickly reasserted the Fed’s independence, and induced our worst recession since WWII in wringing the excesses out of our economy, but in the end he did what he set out to do.

    Volcker, Greenspan, and Bernanke can all be justifiably criticized for particular decisions. But overall it is hard to claim some other format would have made more consistently wise decisions without the benefit of hindsight.

    I’ll address #2 in a separate comment to break up the length.

  16. Estragon
    July 1st, 2010 @ 6:33 am

    @smitty ~ Your phrasing leaves little doubt you’ve settled on a first step – “If we gather the shotguns and ammo to blow away the Federal Reserve zombie . . .”.

    At least you are gathering input as to post-destruction possibilities. First, the answer to #1 was that US currency was effectively regulated by a private citizen, J.P. Morgan, who had already rescued the federal government from a crisis before accepting the unofficial duties. In that earlier and more innocent time, it seemed only reasonable that the nation’s top banker perform the role, since no one knew the economy better.

    The rat bastard up and died, though. So this authority was added to the FRB, who really didn’t have all that much on their plate at the time – banks weren’t heavily regulated, there was no FDIC, the Reserve system basically ran itself – so it seemed logical.

    Although quasi-independent, the FRB was frequently susceptible to political pressure to match monetary policy to the needs of the party in power. This did harm the economy, of course, and hampered long-term growth until impending fiscal catastrophe forced Jimmy Carter to name Volcker as Chairman. Volcker quickly reasserted the Fed’s independence, and induced our worst recession since WWII in wringing the excesses out of our economy, but in the end he did what he set out to do.

    Volcker, Greenspan, and Bernanke can all be justifiably criticized for particular decisions. But overall it is hard to claim some other format would have made more consistently wise decisions without the benefit of hindsight.

    I’ll address #2 in a separate comment to break up the length.

  17. Estragon
    July 1st, 2010 @ 10:42 am

    So, if we blow away the FRB, how do we perform the necessary functions it now handles?

    Darned good question, but one which is the obligation of those proposing to dump the Fed to answer.

    Will Congress take over these responsibilities? The political manipulation which would inevitably result is exactly the reason the FRB was set up as quasi-independent in the first place. It’s a 100% guaranteed corrupt screw-up, no margin of error needed.

    Should Treasury assume the roles, under the Executive authority? Ditto the above.

    Or shall we design anew, create from the void a new agency, somehow quasi-independent like the FRB, handling all the necessary functions of the FRB with the authority of the FRB, reformed to improve efficiency but otherwise indistinguishable from the FRB, but with a different name?

    Why not just debate and enact any needed reforms, and keep the FRB instead of going through that whole Kabuki theatre?

    Those who insist the “FRB must go!” have the obligation to explain how they propose to perform its functions.

  18. Estragon
    July 1st, 2010 @ 6:42 am

    So, if we blow away the FRB, how do we perform the necessary functions it now handles?

    Darned good question, but one which is the obligation of those proposing to dump the Fed to answer.

    Will Congress take over these responsibilities? The political manipulation which would inevitably result is exactly the reason the FRB was set up as quasi-independent in the first place. It’s a 100% guaranteed corrupt screw-up, no margin of error needed.

    Should Treasury assume the roles, under the Executive authority? Ditto the above.

    Or shall we design anew, create from the void a new agency, somehow quasi-independent like the FRB, handling all the necessary functions of the FRB with the authority of the FRB, reformed to improve efficiency but otherwise indistinguishable from the FRB, but with a different name?

    Why not just debate and enact any needed reforms, and keep the FRB instead of going through that whole Kabuki theatre?

    Those who insist the “FRB must go!” have the obligation to explain how they propose to perform its functions.