8
Dec

Breaking points …

   Posted by: Matt Dioguardi   in monetary policy

Members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which includes Saudi Arabia and many other rich oil countries, have a very neat policy. They currently peg their currency to the dollar.

If the dollar goes up, their currency goes up. If the dollar goes down, their currency goes down.

They are thinking about abandoning this policy. Why? Because of inflation. The weaker the dollar gets, the weaker their currency gets, and the more it costs them to import food and other resources.

To my knowledge there has not been rampant inflation in America, yet. But these are smaller countries with a greater dependency on imports for most of their raw materials. So they are much more sensitive to the weakening of the dollar than America is itself.

However, I think this is only an issue of time. If these countries are being hurt by inflation because of the weak dollar, then this will eventually also be the case in America. (And by the time you begin to feel it in your wallet, it’ll be much harder to fix the problem.)

For a long time, the American dollar has been the world’s currency. You can’t buy oil without it. Many countries don’t hold gold in their treasuries, but tons American 100-dollar bills. So long as there is the perception that America is strong, and its currency is strong, this will continue to be the case.

Now for a variety of reasons the American dollar has been declining. And here is the dangerous part. There has to be some threshold, a kind of psychological breaking point, where people overseas will abandon the dollar. This is a totally subjectively thing. No one knows where that point would be. But at some point, if the dollar’s decline goes too far, all those people supporting it outside of America will inevitably decide to ditch it. Oil countries will want Euros or Yen, and China will try to get rid of its dollars as fast as they can, while it still has some value … a panic ensues. A kind of Black Monday for the dollar.

If that were the happen, the dollar would not be worth picking up off the ground. You’d have hyper inflation. Note, that historically this has been the fate of most non-gold backed currencies (fiat currencies).

Whether this happens or not depends on many different factors. The government has to curb it’s debt, that is cut spending. The federal reserve needs to keep rates as high as possible (without choking off investment and stalling the economy.) Between the war in Iraq, the subprime mortgage problem, and the usual spendthrift congress this is unlikely to happen. It’s even expected that the Feds will lower the prime rate on December 11. Maybe boosting stocks a bit, but further damaging the dollar.

Remember high stock prices are meaningless if measured in declining dollars.

The main problem here is we are talking about a psychological threshold. A point at which people lose faith in the dollar? Inevitably the powers that be will not guess that point correctly. They will presume to be safer than they are, merely because accepting the truth is simply too hard for them. But ultimately no one can tell whether this point is right around the corner, or still a ways off. No one really knows.

It’s sort of like this, the prestige of the American dollar was so high, that in an indirect way it became possible for politicians to turn on the printing press, like a kind of credit card, to buy all they wanted. Now with a power like that, do you think any politician could resist the temptation to spend, spend and spend again? Many people should answer that question only after taking a fresh look at their own credit card debt.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]
6
Dec

Real problem, false solution

   Posted by: Matt Dioguardi   in 2008 presidential campaign

The problem of child pornography is real. And it needs to be addressed.

Congress has just come up with a solution through legislation that was just passed into law last Wednesday:
Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act

According to Declan McCullagh at CNET:

Wednesday’s vote caught Internet companies by surprise: the Democratic leadership rushed the SAFE Act to the floor under a procedure that’s supposed to be reserved for noncontroversial legislation. It was introduced October 10, but has never received even one hearing or committee vote. In addition, the legislation approved this week has changed substantially since the earlier version and was not available for public review.

Now, can you imagine being a politician and voting against this? Can you imagine going back to your constituency and saying, I voted against a bill to fight child pornography? What a nightmare that’d be. How would you explain that? In the next election your opponent would use that as leverage to totally destroy your chances at reelection.

That’s why the bill passed with only 2 votes of disapproval.

But the fact is, the bill deputizes all people who provided Internet services through Wi-Fi in their shop, restaurant, hotel or where ever. Suddenly, not only have all these people been deputized as agents of the state, should they shirk they’re duty, they will be fined $300,000. [I should point out, that these deputies need not act proactively. But if they see something, they must report it or face the consequences.]

Generally, when the state suspects someone, it is well established in law that they can not spy on this person or attempt to pry into their private life by monitoring their communications without an official warrant. They have to go to a judge, put their suspicions on record, and get approval.

There is a reason for this. People are innocent until proven guilty. You don’t allow the police to go out there and just spy on any private citizen they want to because they are the police.

However, in this case, we don’t need any of that. Simply use the cafe owners who are providing Internet services through Wi-Fi as deputies. But have these deputies been trained in what they are to look for? And as they don’t have warrants should they really be prying into people’s private communications?

Think about this, child abuse is real. There are parents who beat their children. This is illegal, as it should be. It’s a serious problem. What should we do?

How about we put camera’s in everyone’s house, so we can watch what the parents do. That way we can always be sure no one is beating their children. That would solve the problem. But would it really be a good idea to have camera’s in everyone’s house?

So yeah, child pornography is a serious problem. But should we really be deputizing cafe, hotel, and restaurant owners to sort of spy on their customers as agents of the state? Is that really a good solution?

Probably not. It’s probably a bad solution.

But would a politician ever, ever have the audacity to vote against a bill fighting child pornography? Well, they might if they are Ron Paul or Paul Broun. But certainly not if they are anyone else.

Links:

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]
5
Dec

Huckabee, the Christian leader

   Posted by: Matt Dioguardi   in 2008 presidential campaign

I agree with Paul here completely. What a great video clip.

I don’t preach. I don’t go out and say if you don’t agree with me on foreign policy, I’m the Christian leader and imply that you have to follow me. I don’t like that approach …

I don’t know if this is the specific Huckabee ad talked about, but here is one ad where the words “Christian Leader” flash across the screen:

He’s peddling his Christianity. He should be ashamed.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]
5
Dec

Paul, Huckabee, and the Republican crevice

   Posted by: Matt Dioguardi   in 2008 presidential campaign

What’s a straw poll? As I understand it, it’s a meeting held on either a small or large scale in which people pay to vote for their presidential candidate of choice. If it’s a republican straw poll, then I guess the money goes to the local republican party. I guess.

Straw polls are traditionally great indicators of whose hot and whose not. After all, people have to pay to vote. Paul has been taking the straw polls by storm because his people are highly motivated and show up in big numbers.

One straw poll held by a San Francisco group, the “Republican Alliance” utterly fell apart when Ron Paul supporters showed up. The principle people in charge must have supported Fred Thompson. They allowed one speech to be given in support of Fred Thompson, then decided to cancel the poll. The Ron Paul people were furious. Watch what happens here.

Jerry Cullen reports at lewrockwell.com that:
“Security was called to evict the peaceful if upset Ron Paul followers. When I asked that a picture be taken to attest to security attacking the 79-year-old me, security turned and disappeared.”

Look, you might be thinking these Ron Paul people aren’t really republicans. Who are they to storm the straw poll?

Well, first, legally this would be incorrect. Clearly, Ron Paul and Ron Paul’s supporters have every legal right to be doing what they are doing. However, who cares about that. The question is this, in a principled sense, did Ron Paul supporters really belong at that event?

Of course they did.

I think right now there are two candidates who are fighting for the very soul of the party.

That would be Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee.

I think they represent the two polls of the party. Ron Paul represents things that not so long ago were very important to the Republican party:

  • small government
  • state’s rights
  • non-intervention

Mike Huckabee on the other hand represents the ascension of the evangelicals into the republican party:

Mike Huckabee strongest base comes from not just social conservatives, but the evangelical wing of the party. They are far less concerned with economic issues and far more concerned over moral issues. They are strong proponents of the war on terror:

As far as the rest of the candidates, I think they are trying to bridge the crevice between Huckabee and Paul that runs through the party. My guess is most of them are going to fall into it.

Links:

Not Your Father’s Republican Party (I don’t agree with everything in this article, but it has an interesting viewpoint.)

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]
28
Nov

Ron Paul at the CNN You Tube debate

   Posted by: Matt Dioguardi   in 2008 presidential campaign

I don’t know how many follow up questions Paul got at the CNN you tube debate, but going through the transcript you can see there were 3 questions he got directly handed to him.

  1. “I’ve met a lot of your supporters online, but I’ve noticed that a good number of them seem to buy into this conspiracy theory regarding the Council of Foreign Relations, and some plan to make a North American union by merging the United States with Canada and Mexico. These supporters of yours seem to think that you also believe in this theory. So my question to you is: Do you really believe in all this, or are people just putting words in your mouth?”
  2. “In the event that abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with, and what should her punishment be? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?”
  3. “Mr. Paul, I think we both know that the Republican party is never going to give you the nomination. But I’m hoping that you’re crazy like a fox like that and you’re using this exposure to propel yourself into an independent run. My question is for Ron Paul: Mr. Paul, are you going to let America down by not running as an independent?”

Here is a translation of these questions:

  1. Are you a conspiracy nut or what?
  2. How will you punish women who commit abortion?
  3. We all know you can’t win, so what is the purpose of your campaign?

The one substantial question Ron Paul got on abortion was a blooper because the federal government has nothing to do with deciding punishments for women committing abortion. It’s a state issue. It has nothing to do with the presidency.

The first and third question above implicitly make accusations. I mean, give me a break. They should have asked him about monetary policy.

Here’s Ron Paul at the debate:

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]