New policy: Comments are on

UPDATED, 3/4/08:  Comments are on; I get an email notification of each one.  High-integrity people are more than welcome here.  Not welcome here are smart-alecs, trolls, or (especially) people who refuse to reveal their real names and backgrounds to me when I ask privately. As you compose your comments, the best approach is to assume that I will ask you for those.  That information, if given, will be kept private; refusal to give the information will tell me just about everything I need to know. 

Because of a new constraint on the time I have for managing this blog, I've had to develop the habit of swiftly banning low-integrity cowards -- and it has been working well.  I wish I'd implemented that policy sooner. 

Aside from the usual things that get commenters banned (profanity, etc.), one of my pet peeves is the ad hominem attack, also know as the personal attack.  It’s when somebody finds it more difficult to address the topic than to attack the person who raised the topic, and even college professors have displayed a startling immaturity by resorting to it (... "so-and-so is the stupidest person on the planet" or "dumbest person alive", etc.).  At several other blogs it has pretty much ruined things for objective commenters, but I won’t let that happen at my blog.  Also, if you want to call me names, feel free, but please use email instead of comments.  It’s easy; my email is undisguised (thanks to gmail’s excellent spam filter).

UPDATE, 3/30/07:  Also, if you want to preach, or to argue solely by quoting others, feel free to put that stuff in a private email to me, instead of posting it as a public comment. 

Comments

[tt]

Great site , enjoy your work immensely

[Dan Kurt]

re: "Cool election map

One-person-one-vote; I like that concept better than one-acre-one-vote."

Posted on 10 November 2006

One-person-one vote if enforced insures the end of a Republic which quickly segues into a Democracy which dissolves into Dictatorship.

Dan

[Kevin]

Alright, hey keep up the great work Steve with this indispensable blog.

[Bret]

Excellent!

I'm looking forward to discussing the important topics posted here in comment forums.

[Steve]

Dan-

Good point. One person one vote within one state is more precise. The electoral college is an important institution.

[MikeD]

Yeah I don't think people should attack hominy either. It ain't fancy but I like it.

[Jeff]

Mr Conover,

I am a MBA student trying to write a paper on the pros and cons of paying down the US national debt and am by no means an expert. I was wondered how the green-yellow-red range was set on the Dooms Day Dashboard for the National Debt vs GDP? It seems to vary from the 80 % to 40% range I saw on a graphic from your “Fiscal Responsibility Defined at Last” article on your website. What is a good max to target; 80% or something about or post WWII of 120%?

How can we make sure that our elected official are investing our money to maximize returns(security, GDP growth, etc)

Thanks in advance for the comments. Others reviewing this, please comment as well.

Thanks.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/07msr.pdf

[jesus delgado]

I want to congratulate the person who writes about the National debt being a myth.
I absolutely agree with you on the phrase : "the national debt is a myth", but I'm not too sure about your explanation. By the way, can you tell me the % of budget spending in relation to GNP or GDP? let me hear from you

[Bill Allen]

How does or is the U.S. Government buying its' own debt. I don't understand your pie chart. How can the government own its own debt. Does it simply make a loan to itself. I.E. meaning it just prints up more money from the federal Reserve and then pay it interest from taxes received. That would make the US dollar worthless. And that the reason why gold is now over $600 a ounce. Can you say fiat money. The only reason inflation isn't higher is because of all the cheap goods were getting from china. Otherwise our current money and banking system is worthless. Money based on nothing is worth nothing. The true worth of our dollar can be found by looking at metals such as gold, silver, and etc..

[Steve]

Bill:
Two ways (if we can classify the Fed as a part of the govt): 1-The SS trust fund's dollar surplus is converted into interest-earning bonds, to preclude the inferior alternative of leaving cash in the SS trust fund and borrowing more principal and paying more interest to the public; 2-The Fed, to increase the money supply commensurate with growth in the real economy, purchases treasury securities from the public. This is what is commonly called "printing money", which in turn is commonly misinterpreted as "always inflationary." It's not inflationary when the money supply grows at exactly the same rate as real goods & services; it's anti-deflationary, not inflationary.

Sounds like you're a fan of the gold standard. You might want to read the comments under the following post:
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2007/03/balanced_budget.html
My portion of that exchange sums up why I oppose a gold standard.

[wow gold]

good

[Harley Kelchner]

Located your site on a search for 1938 Bankruptcy.

I found it interesting you mention the American government could not go bankrupt.

I also find it very interesting that in fact the American government did exactly this in 1938, just supposedly kept this quiet from the public.

In a country capable of printing money, America decides to outsource this job to a private party... Federal Reserve. There has been mentioning of direct links with government organizations to British and the International Banks.

Documentation exists stating bankruptcy occured in 1938 by President Roosevelt at the Geneva
Conventions held in Switzerland.

It was also around this time the Federal was created. Learning of this information, it appears to me that if Pres. Roosevelt actually filed bankruptcy, then America ceased to exist in 1938 and the British have held control since.

I am attempting to search more information and pondered what your view might be on this matter.