[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I made a one paragraph response via PM about M3, and I shouldn't even have bothered with that, because I don't give a [censored], and neither should Barron, if as he claims himself, M2 is just as damning. The M3 spew is just a ruse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quickly searching for "M3" in Borodog's posts brings up the following:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, are people aware that the Fed is going to stop publishing the M3?

[/ QUOTE ]

I heard about that in a speach by Ron Paul. Gosh, whyever would Our Most Holy and Benevolent Masters stop telling us how much money is circulating?

"Pay no attention to the man behind the printing press!"

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Tax cutting based on the economic stimulus argument is indeed fallacious if you believe that increasing revenue to the government is the goal.

However, that isn't the goal. The goal is to improve the bottom line of market participants, not the government. In short, if the government loses money on a tax cut, they can go [censored] themselves.

Furthermore, the waters are considerably muddied by an inflationary monetary policy. Artificial credit expansion of course increases government tax receipts, which can then be attributed to the stimulus from tax cuts. If I recall correctly, during the height of the Clinton boom in 97 or 98, the Fed was increasing the money supply at the amazing clip of 17% per annum. These new funds are preferentially available to those paying the lion's share of taxes, and voila, tax receipts jump, and you get the Clinton "surplusses."

We are seeing the exact same effect now. Greenspan pumped the money supply like mad in the early 2000s for the Bush administration, and now magicly the budget deficit is significantly reduced, even in times of a costly war and ballooning domestic spending.

The fact that tax receipts have indeed gone up despite the fact that tax cuts cannot pay for themselves should tip you off that there is something deeper at work, and that something is manipulation of the money supply.

It's no coincidence that they've stopped tracking M3, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, something Dr. Paul said at the forum Saturday just came back to me.

He mentioned that recently a study had calculated the inflation rate the way the government used to, before they changed it recently, and found a 10% rate of inflation, rather than the 2% we are being told we are experiencing. That is HUGE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you critically examine the reasons presented for the change, or are you just looking at those numbers and concluding "government is hiding inflation!". You really need to provide a supporting case that the 10% on the old basis is "more correct".

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think it is that they recently, after 5 decades, decided to change the way they calculate inflation? And is it supposed to be merely coincidence that the new way produces a number 80% lower than the old method, yet is magically numerically close to the old numbers produced by the old method, giving the appearance to the casual observer of continuity in the statistic?

I suppose it's merely a coincidence that they stopped reporting M3 at about the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]

how interesting

note that, while M2 may or may not be "damning on its own" (I have absolutely no idea), Borodog's actual understanding of the subject came from a Ron Paul speech, who, in turn, thinks that M3's delisting is a Fed conspiracy theory or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

WHOOOPSIE...

care to respond to that one borodog?

or maybe that was the reason you didn't respond to my earlier questions:

1) you have said before that the fed ceasing the publications of M3 is damning. do you deny that?

and for good measure, 2) you have said before that the important statistic is M3, NOT M2!!! (i think b/c M3 grew far faster and mises probably uses M3) do you deny that?

thoughts? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Barron