I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

Ron Paul is at 2% in the polls.

The 9/11 Truth movement is at 36% in the polls.

So what should the guy with 2% backing do???

Avoid the group that’s at 36%!

Sheer brilliance.

Well this sound like a spurious argument. A mortgage lender still “makes money” at 0% interest in the case of deflation because the money’s purchasing power will rise over time.

Saying that XXXXX is the party of “small businessmen” is a paradox. At what point does a “small” business become “big” and why should government treat “big” business different from “small” business? I’m not saying it shouldn’t because a bit of exposure to the socialist perspective is healthy. However, making this distinction seems to run very contrary to the principles of classical liberal economics.

I submit that the distinction is made only for political purposes because there are more people who see themselves as “small” businessmen rather than big.

I have been reading tons of stuff related to monetary policy and doctrines and it seems that the optimal state of affairs is actually right down the middle: zero inflation and zero deflation, with a small percentage in either direction not being something to worry about.

Certainly deflation or low inflation encourages savings and it took Keynesian brainwashing to make us believe this is a bad thing.

I find that many of the charges being leveled against the existence of the Feds make sense, and also believe that the national debt is indeed at truly alarming levels and that fiat money makes it very politically expedient for such a state of affairs to occur.

Still, I am very grateful for what seems like a balanced and thoughtful countervailing view and have actually been waiting for such for a long long time.

People should also try and visit the ff. site:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/FedReserveFacts.html

We cannot allow conspiracy theorists to be the only side supplying ‘facts’ and end up hijacking our critical thinking. People who hear both sides of the debate tend to make better decisions (if they don’t get the heck confused out of them first, that is… )

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/pre/MI/H/07/143027/content.html

The email address on that page is inactive. But you can reach me at my full name @gmail.com.

A few MILP members that I know at least moderately well are Nathan Allen, Kenneth Proctor, and James from Hillsdale (don’t remember his last name).

Optiumal levels for whom? Ultimately, there are no losers in a pro-growth economy. The only people who perceive themselves to be losers in the short run are 1) the idle elites at the top – they lose comparative wealth as entrepreneurs and “new money” make their way to the top; and 2) People dedictated to outmoded means of production; i.e. American farmers and factory workers who want you and me to subsidized them at higher wages than the market produces. IN THE LONG RUN, everyone wins. A 17th century Duke might lose, but his heirs get the internet, air conditioning, and indoor plumbing.

Jeez, Matt. I thought you were for wealth creation, prosperity, and abundance.

I’m very active in the Michigan LP, would I know you by name?

There is a convention coming up this weekend, and it is very likely that leadership is changing drastically. The last two years we have not had decent leadership, most of the members of the executive committee were talked into running – meaning they had no real desire.

The Michigan LP is run by less than ten people, because no one else wants to get involved. It is not hard at all to change the direction that the Michigan LP is going.

Roll up your sleeves and get to work GE!

Communism has been tried. An entirely free market has not. Systems tend to fail in direct proportion to how closely they mirror unreformed soviet communism. Systems tend to succeed in proportion to how closely they mirror 100% governmental non-intervention.

For example, Zimbabwe is experiencing ‘growth’ as we speak.Their stock market, for example, shows record highs, but the newly printed fiat currency is almost entirely worthless. Certainly their situation and ours are different, and I’m not saying we’re headed there economically, but the point remains: when we set up an agency to determine how to reach optimal levels of growth, inflation, and liquidity, we are ignoring the elephant in the room.

The elephantine question is this: optimal levels for whom? Optimal levels for bankers and investors? Optimal levels for small businessmen who have all their excess money in savings accounts? It isn’t mentioned. A government agency takes sides. They produce something that pleases the people who have their hands on the gears of economic power. Some good things result. Indicators are developed to accentuate the positive. Then we are blindided by out-of control inflation or some other problem. We can’t eat economic indicators of growth, nor will said indicators fuel our engines or keep the rain off our heads.

I’m with Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill. I believe in pro-growth liberalism. I define that as a largely free market supported by an infrastructure that encourages growth. Growth is the solution to damn near any problem you can think of. And as these anti-Fed guys are admitting, growth would be slower (and “safer,” GAG) without it.