Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

Dear David,

shoshin wrote: > I'm sorry, but this is just Birther Nonsense...does your Birth
> Certificate list your religion?....why would an infant have a
> religion?...isn't it a bit premature for him/her to have made
> his/her mind???....and don't get me started on my Sunday School =
> Child Abuse rant....

> as for the whole "controversy," it is nonsense too, but with a
> very real agenda....whenever anyone (Sarah Palin, Pat Buchanan,
> Faux News) uses the phrase "real American," they are planting that
> seed of doubt and discrimination...everybody knows that real
> Americans are white, male, honest, working class folks, not those
> "other" types...the Birther agenda is just a convenient gateway...

This is the really super-cynical view of the issue from the left. The
super-cynical view from the right is that Obama is withholding his
birth certificate in order to energize his base and provoke just the
kinds of charges of racism that you're making, in order to discredit
people like Palin, etc., as racists.

The problem for me is that I just don't see how withholding his birth
certificate is benefiting Obama. I don't believe that it's helping
him politically, and provoking racism charges of the kind you're
making will only infuriate independents. At best, withholding his
birth certificate makes him look like he's playing petty politics, and
at worst, it makes him look like he's coversing something up. I just
don't see how it benefits him.

Therefore, I conclude that he has a reason for withholding it, and it
may be "nonsense" to wonder what it is, but it's no more nonsense than
any of the other personal information we hear about the President and
his wife and kids that all the time, both positive and negative.

The part of this that's really interesting to me is whether religion
or ethnicity is even shown on a birth certificate. It's not shown on
mine, but I was born in Chicago.

It's quite possible that things were different in Hawaii in 1961.
That was 20 years after the Pearl Harbor bombing, and it's quite
possible that Hawaii had laws to keep track of ethnicity, especially
Japanese ethnicity.

One way that this part of it could be resolved is if someone else
who was born in Hawaii in 1961 could reveal his birth certificate,
so we could see what kind of information is on it.

John

OLD1953 wrote: > The birth certificate they've given out is the standard for Hawaii
> in the year Obama was born. The man can't time travel. Hawaii is
> not required to keep documentation once it's been entered on a
> computer by any federal mandate, the notion that there is a
> "doctor's form" out there somewhere is probably a fantasy. And
> what possible difference would it make? If the original piece of
> paper some doctor filled out to provide the information that went
> digital was found tomorrow in a Honolulu hospital archive
> somewhere, it would be declared a forgery and the beat would just
> go on. There is NO possible means by which this will be quieted,
> so there's no point in discussing it.

I don't believe that this is true. The last two times I got a job
that required a security clearance, I was required to provide a paper
birth certificate. I still have my original birth certificate, so it
wasn't a problem for me, and I didn't have to order a new one. But
one way or another, paper birth certificates are still required in
some circumstances.

John

Dear Vince,

vincecate wrote: > Measuring dollars against other paper money that is dropping in
> value is a really low standard. If you compared dollars to the CRB
> (a large basket of commodities where the real value is not
> changing) then it looks very much like inflation.

I didn't do that. I was responding to statements that I heard
probably a dozen times on tv that day expressing surprise that the
dollar wasn't weakening.

John

Brister wrote: > As will most days I checked your blog, I understand your stance on
> deflation but would like to know your definition and the cause of
> hyperinflation. I believe that hyperinflation has nothing to do
> with inflation (increase in the money supply) or deflation
> (decease in the money supply), but is a direct correlation to the
> loss of confidence in the currency.

There are two ways to measure inflation/deflation, and they're often
confused by the politicians.

• Domestic - measured by the CPI, the prices paid domestically for
  goods.
• International - measured by the exchange rate against other
  currencies

An issue like loss of confidence could become very important
at a time when a panic occurs.

John

John,
None of the Post-Keynesians see inflation either. Unemployment is too high. Output is too low. Most of the deficit spending by the US government has gone to Net Financial Assets of both foreign and domestic private sector, ie Treasury securities. While the Fed absorbed a lot of toxic assets, all the dollars went from reserve accounts to treasuries. Until money is put back into circulation via loans and investment, inflation is not on the horizon, even with high commodity prices.

Dear Roberts,

Robert Kelly wrote: > None of the Post-Keynesians see inflation either. Unemployment is
> too high. Output is too low. Most of the deficit spending by the
> US government has gone to Net Financial Assets of both foreign and
> domestic private sector, ie Treasury securities. While the Fed
> absorbed a lot of toxic assets, all the dollars went from reserve
> accounts to treasuries. Until money is put back into circulation
> via loans and investment, inflation is not on the horizon, even
> with high commodity prices.

Those are all very good points. You know, I actually get very puzzled
by the seemingly unanimous view that we're headed for
(hyper)inflation. Particularly the high unemployment and the stagnant
incomes mean that there simply is no money available to push up
prices, especially since food shortages are pushing up food prices,
leaving less money for other purchases.

John

John wrote: Those are all very good points. You know, I actually get very puzzled
by the seemingly unanimous view that we're headed for
(hyper)inflation. Particularly the high unemployment and the stagnant
incomes mean that there simply is no money available to push up
prices, especially since food shortages are pushing up food prices,
leaving less money for other purchases.

Hyperinflation does not happen in healthy economies. It happens when governments have debt over 80% of GNP and deficit spending is over 40% of spending. When people stop rolling over bonds the government has to pay off the bonds as they come due by printing more money. They also have to print to cover the deficit (US is already doing this much). The US has about $7 trillion in bonds coming due over the next 12 months. When they print for this $7 trillion and the $1.65 trillion for the deficit there is "money available to push up prices" in spades.

When all the bonds come due, where do you think those dollars will go? 99% will go right back into new Treasuries. Maybe Japan will take away some cash to help fund it's crisis(it doesn't have to, by the way), but China, Germany, India, etc. will prefer to keep their dollars safely tucked way. Most domestic holders will do the same. They can always use those dollars for other things, but US Treasuries are the most risk free assets they can own. I am not tying to portray a rosy scenario, but hyperinflation is not an issue at this time.

Robert Kelly wrote:When all the bonds come due, where do you think those dollars will go? 99% will go right back into new Treasuries. Maybe Japan will take away some cash to help fund it's crisis(it doesn't have to, by the way), but China, Germany, India, etc. will prefer to keep their dollars safely tucked way. Most domestic holders will do the same. They can always use those dollars for other things, but US Treasuries are the most risk free assets they can own. I am not tying to portray a rosy scenario, but hyperinflation is not an issue at this time.

As long as everyone "rolls over their bonds" which means, "puts the money they get from one bond coming due right back into a new bond", then things are ok, no hyperinflation. But historically when the government gets this far gone, debt over 80% of GNP and deficit over 40% of spending, there comes a time when people stop buying the bonds. Then there is a flood of new cash as the bonds get paid off with fresh new money. This flood of cash causes prices to go up fast and makes people really not want to hold that paper money. This is hyperinflation.

If we ignore Japan as the exception to the rule, the average time from these conditions to hyperinflation is something like 3 years. The US has about 2 gone. It could happen any time.

John wrote:

vincecate wrote: Measuring dollars against other paper money that is dropping in value is a really low standard. If you compared dollars to the CRB (a large basket of commodities where the real value is not changing) then it looks very much like inflation.

I didn't do that. I was responding to statements that I heard probably a dozen times on tv that day expressing surprise that the dollar wasn't weakening.

The "dollar index" is comparing US dollars to some other paper money. Since the other paper money is going down in value, the dollar index can go up even when the real value of the dollar is going down.