Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Remember the case in Massachusetts where a set of parents sued a school because an elementary school class had a book that showed a picture of a gay couple among lots of other types of families? The district and appeals courts ruled against the parents and now the Supreme Court has denied cert and let the lower court ruling stand. And the Worldnutdaily is spinning like a top:
Decision to teach kids to be 'gay' allowed to stand 'This despicable ruling not of the people, nor for the people, but against the people'
This is an amusing frame:
A federal court decision approving mandatory public school instruction for children as young as kindergarten in how to be homosexual is being allowed to stand, drawing a description of "despicable" from the parent who unsuccessfully challenged his school district's "gay" advocacy agenda.The U.S. Supreme Court without comment has refused to intervene in a case prompted by the actions of officials at Estabrook Elementary school in Lexington, Mass., who not only were teaching homosexuality to young children, but specifically refused to allow Christian parents to opt their children out of the indoctrination....
Earlier District Judge Mark Wolf had ordered that school officials' work to undermine Christian beliefs and teach homosexuality is needed to prepare children for citizenship, and if parents don't like it they can elect a different school committee or homeschool their children.
Because even acknowledging the existence of gay people is "teaching kindergartners how to be homosexual." These people really do believe that The Gay is so powerful that even knowing that gay people exist is going to turn their kids gay.
Now remember, folks, it only takes 4 votes on the Supreme Court to grant cert in a case. That means that at least one of the 4 conservatives - Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts - voted not to do so.
Politics
Comments
So wait, are they saying that the ghey is stronger than jeebus?
Posted by: FastLane | October 14, 2008 9:30 AM
Mr. mroberts disappointed us by not showing up on the O'Brien award thread. However, I suspect that he will show up on this thread to either change the subject or denounce the various courts for their "endorsement" of the gay life style.
Posted by: SLC | October 14, 2008 9:33 AM
SLC:
mroberts will most likely use the argument that if we were on the "Gold Standard" that we would not be on teh "Gay Standard".
Posted by: democommie | October 14, 2008 9:47 AM
If a book depicting gay families throws them into a frenzy, what are they saying about Chicago's proposed "gay-friendly" high school? I know very little about it, but I'm sure I could sign up at WND and get e-mail updates with 100% accurate information about it.
Posted by: Odie | October 14, 2008 9:50 AM
they should ban the social studies books that teach kids how to be foreigners.
Posted by: sdg | October 14, 2008 10:09 AM
They should also ban Goodnight Moon, because it teaches them how to be rabbits (its main character, after all, is a rabbit). And The Little Engine that Could because it teaches them to be machines. And books about dinosaurs, because it teaches them to be Darwinists.
Evil literature! Evil! Evil!
Posted by: Dr. Kate | October 14, 2008 10:18 AM
I'm guessing either Roberts or the Scalia deferred given that Same-Sex-Marriage is legal in Mass, and might rule differently should a case arise elsewhere.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 14, 2008 10:25 AM
I'm sure school official's get together every morning, with their cups of coffee in hand, the first thing they discuss is "What can we do to undermine Christian beliefs today?"
Posted by: yoshi | October 14, 2008 10:26 AM
Those evil activist judges told us we can't persecute gay people anymore!
How DARE they?!
Next thing you know we won't be able to stone adulteresses and atheists and we won't be able to put minorities to the scourge for thinking they're real people anymore!
Help! Help! We're being oppressed!
We need to start sending them letters.
Dear nutjob,
Not letting you dehumanize people you don't agree with is not oppression. I know most of you that get so upset about it are closet cases that feel "bad" urges when you see people doing things that are forbidden to you. If it's that bad, come out of the closet. Considering the amount of sexual insecurity you people seem to repress the vast majority of you would come out at the same time. Sure it'd mean your god would be all alone in his heaven, but given his track record it's pretty much what he deserves.
In short: Get over yourself.
Posted by: JThompson | October 14, 2008 10:30 AM
kehrsam said:
On what grounds? Homosexuality is legal everywhere.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 14, 2008 10:35 AM
Follow their logic. If the material shows a Christian, then the school is teaching Christianity to the children and must be immediately closed.
I like it.
Posted by: WTFWJD | October 14, 2008 10:37 AM
Gretchen: The suit is not about sex (by definition: The couple in the book is married). The status of married SS couples is only legal in three states.
Yoshi said:
You're confusing them with the ACLU.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 14, 2008 10:45 AM
This ruling will, no doubt, result in a whole generation of interior decorators....
WND certainly has too little to chew on if this is their reaction.
Posted by: Mike | October 14, 2008 10:49 AM
Respectfully disagreeing with kehrsam, I suspect more than one conservative justice chose not to grant cert, on the grounds that the parent doesn't really have a case. Standing, yes, but no case, as (a) the parent is not required to send their child to a public school, and (b) if you choose to send your child to a public school, you can't demand an optout on every damn thing under the sun that offends your sensibilities.
My daughter came home with a Columbus hat yesterday. Perhaps I should file suit because presenting Columbus as a hero offends my Christian beliefs (after all, he enslaved and murdered thousands--all anathema to the religious beliefs I was raised with).
Posted by: James Hanley | October 14, 2008 10:51 AM
I just got gasps this weekend at a cookout as my 4.96yr old son was asking me about boys kissing boys. This was a continuation from another conversation where I clarified kissing can happen boy-boy, girl-girl, or boy-girl. So he brings it up again and points to two men there and asked me if those two could kiss each other. I couldn't help but laugh and that's when they got mad and told me not to be teaching my son to be gay. I said, he wasn't trying to be gay himself, he was asking if you two were gay.
So I think the fear is not so that they will turn gay, but that they may learn to recognize what gay is and start to call out the closet gays on the fundie side.
Posted by: Patricia | October 14, 2008 10:55 AM
kehrsam said:
Does it say that in the book, though? Ed just said it was a picture of a gay couple amongst other families.
And regardless....why would it be illegal, even in a state where homosexual marriage is not legal, to acknowledge in a textbook that there are places where it is?
Posted by: Gretchen | October 14, 2008 11:03 AM
I've been trying to figure out if "kersham" is an anagram for stupid. It must be, considering
his response to
'I'm sure school official's get together every morning, with their cups of coffee in hand, the first thing they discuss is "What can we do to undermine Christian beliefs today?"
was
You're confusing them with the ACLU.
Posted by: dean | October 14, 2008 11:11 AM
kehrsam may just have been joking. Just maybe.
Posted by: Matthew | October 14, 2008 11:17 AM
Off topic, but I just followed the link to WingNutDaily and the ad at the top of the page asks:
My first thought was "well, considering who the target audience is, their heads would feel much lighter."
Posted by: noncarborundum | October 14, 2008 11:29 AM
Gretchen said:
I followed a link to an earlier WND article on this story, and they offer these quotations from the book:
andSo, apparently no mention of marriage at all. Now, it may be that kindergartners would assume that people living together raising children must be married, but that doesn't mean that the book actually presents them that way.
BTW apparently "how to be gay" involves taking care of pets and making dinner. Who knew?
Posted by: noncarborundum | October 14, 2008 11:37 AM
Dean. Of course I'm stupid. And I'm rather poor at anagrams as well.
James Hanley: I don't recall whether standing was an issue in the original case. A Court can raise the issue suo spone at any time, so long as it is properly before the Court. So if the Supremes wanted to bring that up, they'd grant cert and then issue a per curiam dismissal later on the standing issue.
of course, it is possible that whichever Justice introduced the case said something like, "It's a dog of a case with standing problems," and everyone voted an immediate No because they prefer cleaner cases to apply some amorphous three-part test.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 14, 2008 11:55 AM
We know that "Teh GAY!" is so powerful that the mere mention of it in a positive (or even neutral manner) can have a hideously strong effect on otherwise manly, god-fearing men, like Larry Craig and Ted Haggard. Remember, to them, being gay is a choice, since every human being has the desire for members of the same sex, but most don't act on it outside of the Church (Damn those attractive altar boys - it's all their fault!)
Posted by: Badger3k | October 14, 2008 11:55 AM
kehrsam was obviously joking, but that's probably only obvious to those of us who have read his comments over a long period of time. We really need a sarcasm tag in html.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 14, 2008 11:56 AM
One of the books our kids love the most is called "The Family Book," by Todd Parr. It has cute drawings and simple one sentence lines that describe the wide variety of families in our nation, and world. One of the pages says, "Some families have different dads; some families have different moms." And the drawings show a child in between two men, and then in between two women.
It also shows blended families, single-parent families, extended families living with each other, and yes-good old-fashioned nuclear families.
So far none of my kids have asked any questions about the different dad/different mom page. And when they do, I'll answer it in straight (sic) simple terms.
We were at a concert at Millenium Park back in August, and there was a young gay couple right in front of us who were quite affectionate-holding hands and kissing. (I guess it was rather pg.) But if my kids saw it, they didn't question it-and I didn't feel the need to block my kids' view from what was going on in front of us. I also didn't draw attention to it like they were a sociology exhibit.
If they had been ripping off each other's shirts...that would have been another question...whether the couple was gay or straight.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | October 14, 2008 12:03 PM
BTW-my wife's parents will NEVER see this book-nor her sister and her husband. In the infamous words of my FIL that page would be "sick and wrong."
Posted by: Rev. AJB | October 14, 2008 12:07 PM
Re: sarcasm. I understood kersham's comment to be as sarcastic as the comment to which he was replying. Some people are a little touchy!
Posted by: Blondin | October 14, 2008 12:09 PM
So they gave the gay men a cat and the lesbians a dog, typical. Even when being recognized, they get stereotyped. I wouldn't be surprised if the next entry was:
"Ling's dad, Jin, and mom, Xia, are from China. They used to have a cat named Fluffy, until it was Jin's turn to cook dinner."
No wonder folks were trying to get the book ban. ;-)
Posted by: Abby Normal | October 14, 2008 12:17 PM
If there is such a hubbub over this, one wonders if some of the children get the impression that it is evil just to be a room-mate with another man.
Posted by: jayh | October 14, 2008 12:23 PM
My daughter has had a classmate with two moms since Kindergarten. When this fact came up in conversation one day, I simply said, "Usually when boys and girls grow up and fall in love, a boy and a girl end up falling in love with each other. Sometimes two girls or two boys fall in love. [Insert classmate's name here]'s moms grew up to fall in love together, just the way your mom and I fell in love with each other." She opined that this was "freaky" (her favorite word at the time) and that was the end of it.
Now, 6 years later, she's still good friends with this classmate and thinks it's "kinda neat" that she has two moms. Oh Noes!!!11!!! She's going to be gay!!!!!!!111!!!one!!
Except she's apparently not, despite the indoctrination. She has a distinct (but not, fortunately, overactive) interest in boys. Jonas Brothers, anyone?
Posted by: noncarborundum | October 14, 2008 12:51 PM
If you don't live in CA, you may not have seen the latest ad that the fundies are running, but it says the same thing. A girl brings home the book with two princes that I believe Ed's mentioned before, and a fat rich white christian comes on the screen to tell us that our kids are going to be taught how to be gay if Prop 8 passes, because it's already happening in Mass.
Posted by: paul | October 14, 2008 2:19 PM
Is it just me or does someone else picture mroberts sitting in front of his computer, arms crossed, hands locked in armpits, saying through clenched teeth;
"must not go make an ass of myself, AGAIN!"
Posted by: democommie | October 14, 2008 2:31 PM
My eight year old son has a "boy" crush on them too. Of course he also has a crush on Miley Cyrus, Sabrina Bryan, Vanessa Hutchens...you name it. So it's way too soon to decide who he will ultimately love.
And hey...I can at least stand most of the Jonas Brothers songs...unlike some of the tweener music;-)
Posted by: Rev. AJB | October 14, 2008 2:59 PM
I think it's you, democommie. I'm guessing you and SLC gnash your teeth every time mroberts doesn't show up in a thread having to do with homosexuality. "Dammit, our chew toy hasn't shown! Guess we'd better pass the time by making predictions about what he'd say if he did show."
Posted by: Gretchen | October 14, 2008 2:59 PM
mroberts will most likely use the argument that if we were on the "Gold Standard" that we would not be on teh "Gay Standard".
demo, you really are an embarrassment. On a site that supposedly seeks to be intellectual this is about the extent of your contributions - stupid, childish insults. Seriously, is this the best you can do? You tear on me for supporting the gold standard, yet you have no idea why I support it or why you oppose it. You simply oppose it because I brought it up you don't like my politics. LOL. On top of that, you actually think you're smart in the process. You and SLC are very much the same: uninformed and often irrational, yet you both think you're brilliant. This is a common characteristic in hard lefties I have found.
Posted by: mroberts | October 14, 2008 3:27 PM
SLC and democommie:
I'm curious. You guys both think you are so smart and informed. From what sources did you derive your knowledge? Give me a reading list of what you study that makes you such authorities on everything. Names and titles please.
Posted by: mroberts | October 14, 2008 3:30 PM
I thought the term "gay" was to be shunned in favor of "homosexual" among the wingnuts.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | October 14, 2008 3:59 PM
The gold standard? Oh my Bacchus, I have to jump in here.
The gold standard is (almost) invariably supported by those who seek the alleged utopia of unfettered free markets, tracing their arguments back to von Mises and his economic disciples. Except that libertarian utopias are as unrealistic, simplistic and unworkable in the real world as are marxist utopias. Support of this standard usually indicates a preferance for predatory economics, anathema to anyone who actually wants to strive for a just and equitable society.
Off-topic, I know, but I couldn't resist.
Posted by: gary l. day | October 14, 2008 4:01 PM
The news is that Prop. 8 seems to be gaining ground (ahead 47% to 42% in one recent poll). Those of you (and you know who you are) who want to fight this trend might consider donating some money to oppose it, for example to the Human Rights Campaign, or some other right-minded organization of your choice.
Posted by: noncarborundum | October 14, 2008 4:09 PM
everything
(i know that wasn't directed at me but i just could not resist the opportunity to give that palintastic answer)
Posted by: sdg | October 14, 2008 4:43 PM
Right, and the first grade acting class will put on a production of Avenue Q...
If you were gay
That'd be okay
I mean, cause hey
I'd like you anyway
Because, you see
If it were me
I would feel free to say
That I was gay (but I'm not gay.)
If you were queer
I'd still be here
Year after year
Because you're dear to me
And I know that you
Would accept me too [Rod: I would?]
If I told you today
"Hey! Guess what! I'm gay!" (But I'm not gay.)
I'm happy
Just being with you
So what should it matter to me
What you do in bed with guys?
If you were gay
I'd shout "Hooray!"
And here I'd stay
But I wouldn't get in your way
You can count on me
To always be
Beside you every day
To tell you it's okay
You were just born that way
And as they say
It's in your DNA, you're gay
[Rod: I AM NOT GAY!]
(If you *were* gay...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL7kcFdGGPM&feature=related (And yes, Rod is so far in the closet, he's practically in Narnia.)
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | October 14, 2008 5:23 PM
Here's how to nip this one in the bud: Show someone from WorldNetDaily a symphony orchestral piece and ask them if they feel like they could play the violin. Or show someone NFL highlights and ask them if they're ready to line up against the Bears d-line at quarterback.
You're either born with it, or you ain't.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | October 14, 2008 5:40 PM
Here's how to nip this one in the bud: Show someone from WorldNetDaily a symphony orchestral piece and ask them if they feel like they could play the violin. Or show someone NFL highlights and ask them if they're ready to line up against the Bears d-line at quarterback. You're either born with it, or you ain't.
So nobody is anything unless they are born into it? Is that really what you are saying here? Did you think this through, Paul, before you posted it?
Posted by: mroberts | October 14, 2008 5:52 PM
heddle - the article you cite does talk about a man trying to vote more than once. And it does mention ACORN. But try reading the article, eh? The guy didn't work for ACORN, and they didn't even say that ACORN did anything wrong. He says he filed multiple registrations, then tried to vote several times. Sounds like voter fraud. He also says he was annoyed by ACORN trying to get him to register. But it is painfully clear that the article had little at all to do with ACORN except that maybe they helped catch the guy.
Posted by: kevin | October 14, 2008 6:31 PM
Re mroberts
As usual, Mr. mroberts attempts to change the subject by bringing up the gold standard. What does the gold standard have to do with the subject of this thread? How about commenting on the subject of the initial posting by Mr. Brayton for a change.
Incidentally, I had sufficient intelligence to earn a PhD in elementary particle physics at a major university in Upstate New York (I am originally a native Californian). What are Mr. mroberts educational attainments?
Posted by: SLC | October 14, 2008 6:50 PM
The gold standard? Oh my Bacchus, I have to jump in here.
The gold standard is (almost) invariably supported by those who seek the alleged utopia of unfettered free markets, tracing their arguments back to von Mises and his economic disciples. Except that libertarian utopias are as unrealistic, simplistic and unworkable in the real world as are marxist utopias. Support of this standard usually indicates a preferance for predatory economics, anathema to anyone who actually wants to strive for a just and equitable society.
Gary, since you responded, I couldn't resist either. The following shows the exchange rate for the German mark between 1914 and 1923.
July 1914: 4.2 marks to the dollar
January 1919: 8.9
July 1919: 14.0
January 1920: 64.8
July 1920: 39.5
January 1921: 64.9
July 1921: 76.7
January 1922: 1919.8
July 1922: 493.2
January 1923: 17,972
July 1923: 353,412
August 1923: 4,620,455
September 1923: 98,860,000
October 1923: 25,260,208,000
November 15, 1923: 4,200,000,000,000 to the dollar (yes that is 4.2 trillion)
How is this possible? It is possible because the mark was simply a piece of paper, and the German government was running the printing presses day and night in an attempt to paper over debts and stimulate the economy. This kind of inflationary disaster would not be possible under a gold standard because money would actually be something tangible that could not be created from thin air.
Read up on this a little more. Giving a few people (the Fed) the power to create money from thin air gives them an extraordinary power over your financial life and the economy of this country. Under a gold standard, the current financial crisis likely would not have happened at all. This crisis was not the result of "unfettered capitalism", it was the result of central economic planning by the Federal Reserve and their power to create money from thin air. Such a system enriches bankers and screws the rest of us, particularly those who are poor and on a fixed income, because of the resulting price inflation.
The info above is from:
http://www.buyandhold.com/bh/en/education/history/2003/germany.html
Posted by: mroberts | October 14, 2008 6:55 PM
Or, nothing to chew with.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | October 14, 2008 6:55 PM
mrroberts: Are you honestly arguing that there were never financial panics in countries following the Gold Standard? The Great Depression ring a bell?
For your record, BS In Economic and International Relations, minors in Biology, Classics, History and Philosophy, fours years as the chief economic advisor to a Member of Congress, then a law degree. I've read most everything, so let me know where to start that list...
Posted by: kehrsam | October 14, 2008 7:20 PM
Goodnight Moon has a bunny?
ice
PS: that was not aimed at mroberts or heddle.
Posted by: ice9 | October 14, 2008 7:36 PM
Are you honestly arguing that there were never financial panics in countries following the Gold Standard? The Great Depression ring a bell?
No, I'm not arguing that at all. During the 1930s we had a pseudo gold standard, not a true one. The Depression occurred because of the insanely low rates of the previous decade - very similarly to now. If we had a true gold standard, it is likely that the Depression might not have been more than a mild recession, if even that.
For your record, BS In Economic and International Relations, minors in Biology, Classics, History and Philosophy, fours years as the chief economic advisor to a Member of Congress, then a law degree. I've read most everything, so let me know where to start that list...
I wasn't asking you for a list, but if you want to provide one, great. I was asking SLC and democommie for one because they always seem to blow smoke and accuse me of being the ignorant one. I don't claim to be an expert, but I've at least bothered to study what I am arguing, know what I mean?
Posted by: mroberts | October 14, 2008 7:36 PM
Once again I get in way to late on the thread... anyone who reads this is far more disciplined than I.
I just love the idea of schools teaching kindergartners to be gay.
"Now Jimmie, you put the cockring on like this..."
"Suzie, it feels kinda spongy... THATS IT!"
"No no no, Billy! You NEVER wear a black belt with brown shoes!"
"Young lady, you will listen to the Indigo Girls and you will like it!"
"Stevie--can YOU tell me the differences between a bear and a twink?"
"Melissa, that shirt is against dress code: it is not flannel."
I know that these perpetuate stereotypes, but you all are smart enough to dig the irony.
Posted by: Andrew Dobbs | October 14, 2008 7:48 PM
Re mroberts
Mr. mroberts still refuses to inform us as to his views concerning the subject of Mr. Braytons' post and instead wastes computer storage by expounding on the advantages of the gold standard. I have a flash for Mr. mroberts. The world will return to the gold standard about the time Mr. mroberts sees the back of his own ear.
Posted by: SLC | October 14, 2008 7:59 PM
Mr. mroberts still refuses to inform us as to his views concerning the subject of Mr. Braytons' post and instead wastes computer storage by expounding on the advantages of the gold standard. I have a flash for Mr. mroberts. The world will return to the gold standard about the time Mr. mroberts sees the back of his own ear
Hey SLC, maybe if you read the thread, you would see that I was not the one that brought it up. One more idiotic post by SLC.
Posted by: mroberts | October 14, 2008 8:03 PM
The gold standard! Really, mroberts? How fascinating. You do realize that there's nothing magical about gold, right? It's just a shiny and malleable metal that bears no innate relation to the overall economic worth of a country?
And, let me point out, I'm one of those "who seek the alleged utopia of unfettered free markets" as Gary Day so eloquently put it, and even I think the gold standard is a crock--mostly because I wouldn't want to hamstring the economy as much as returning to the gold standard would.
Sure, if we had stayed on the gold standard we wouldn't have had the current slump, but we also couldn't have grown as much as we did, because there wouldn't have been enough cash in the economy to allow us to grow that much. Even with the occasional slump like this we're wealthier than we would be on the gold standard because we grow so much more in between slumps.
Here's the reality, gold isn't the wealth of a society, the society's productivity is. Our money is backed by our ability to produce so much value in a given year, not by pieces of metal locked in a vault.
I know you didn't bring it up, so I'm not going to bash you on that point. But when someone starts boosting the gold standard, this libertarian free market advocate can't stop chuckling.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 14, 2008 8:21 PM
"If we had a true gold standard, it is likely that the Depression might not have been more than a mild recession, if even that."
And what historical or econometric evidence supports this assertion?
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | October 14, 2008 8:36 PM
To back-up what James stated, and the second time I posed the following to mroberts, the first being ignored:
mroberts - what kind of background do you have in economics? Are you an economist? Do you have a degree in economics and if so, master's or bachelor's? Do you have a college degree that required you take economics? Have you ever studied, even on your own, basic economics and then moved on from there to understand the differences between Keynesian and Monetarism in order to properly understand your arguments and their rebuttals?
Why didn't Milton Friedman accept the gold standard after rejecting Keynesian economic theory? Please falsify Friedman's argument for monetarism that would cause a free-marketer to argue for a gold standard.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 14, 2008 8:37 PM
Of interest to the topic that has emerged in this thread is this graph tracking changes in inflation all the way throughout the countries history. The actual econometric evidence pretty much sinks the claim that central banking and fiat currency has given us nonstop inflation since the 1930's. Also notice that the graph becomes noticably more well behaved after that time period, with deflation all but disappearing.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | October 14, 2008 8:53 PM
One of the (many) causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was inflation. And they were very much on the gold standard. Hell, their currency WAS gold!
Posted by: Donalbain | October 14, 2008 8:58 PM
MRoberts, has it ever occurred to you that the Gold Standard makes hyperinflation impossible in much the same way that castration prevents unwanted pregnancy?
Posted by: DaveL | October 14, 2008 8:58 PM
Gretchen:
No, I don't gnash my teeth about not having mroberts here, I know he will show up eventually and play his three chord symphony on gay marriage, gays in general and the free market.
mroberts:
I read all of the stuff Sarah Palin reads, plus "Cracked".
It's really not about how smart I am, bub, it's about how predictable you are.
Posted by: democommie | October 14, 2008 9:01 PM
Re mroberts
Mr. mroberts still has failed to comment on the subject of Mr. Braytons' post, instead indulging in name calling. Once again, Mr. mroberts, stop changing the subject. Comment on the original post.
Posted by: SLC | October 14, 2008 9:01 PM
Tyler - nice graph and a couple of observations. . .
1) I believe it was in the very early 80's that econonomic theorists coalesced around the idea that the Fed could not control both inflation and interest rates at the same time, it was an either/or proposition. This understanding greatly helped manage both inflation and interest rates. I'm reaching back 20+ years to grad school so I might be slightly off though I think this was the discovery which was immediately brought into play by Volcker, and strongly supported by Friedman.
2) Reagan, and in the U.K. Thatcher, were the first free-market leaders to have the balls to actually allow the economy to go into a recession to stop inflation, Reagan in 1982. That not only stopped inflation, but led to a much softer landing and a quicker recovery, unlike LBJ and Nixon who didn't have the courage to expand money at the first hint of a recession, which led to larger gyrations in the economy, the cycle, interest rates, and led to more inflation. Once inflation stopped, Volcker/Reagan expanded the money supply and we came roaring back.
3) The combination of economic theory in terms of contributions by the Fed coming down to a fairly simple math formula as described above, coupled with Reagan's success in '82-'84, has led to a de-politicization of Fed policy, where we have Chairman like Volcker and Greenspan serving Presidents from both parties without much controversy. This was not the case in the 1960's and 1970's, where we much turmoil.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 14, 2008 9:10 PM
Clerical error in my point two, it should state, "unlike LBJ and Nixon who expanded the money supply at the first hint of a recession even though we had inflationary pressures. . ."
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 14, 2008 9:21 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | October 14, 2008 9:31 PM
Michael,
Thanks for you comments, I'll try to offer my own thoughts. I'd like to provide a disclaimer that I'm not a professional economist, simply someone with an side-interest in the field.
"I believe it was in the very early 80's that econonomic theorists coalesced around the idea that the Fed could not control both inflation and interest rates at the same time, it was an either/or proposition."
Late 70's and early 80's economists came around to those ideas after stagflation. Prior to that economists largely regarded inflation and recession as being mutually exclusive, mostly due to the success of combatting price stickiness related unemployment jumps by expanding money supplies. AFAIK, most economists still primarily attribute stagflation to the Saudi Oil Crisis (a supply shock), though at the very least agree that it demonstrated that we couldn't always inflate our way out of a recession.
"Once inflation stopped, Volcker/Reagan expanded the money supply and we came roaring back."
I think this point overlooks 1987, which saw an immediate expansion of the money supply and thus avoided a recession altogether.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | October 14, 2008 9:39 PM
"One of the (many) causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was inflation. And they were very much on the gold standard. Hell, their currency WAS gold!"
Also note that dramatic inflation also occurred throughout Western Europe from the 15th. to the early 17th. century, all nations in which relied on metal-based currencies. Historical evidence also calls into the question the idea the gold-standard is hyperinflation proof.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | October 14, 2008 10:10 PM
Tyler, those nations didn't have a True, Scottish, Gold Standard.
Posted by: llewelly | October 15, 2008 12:16 AM
While it's been clear for some time that mroberts is unable to conceive that his position on anything might be wrong, I do appreciate the intelligent responses that often follow (a nod to Tyler and Michael in particular in this thread). I learn quite a lot from lurking through these discussions. Thanks y'all.
Posted by: Davis | October 15, 2008 12:46 AM
As a gay man and a parent of 2 children, my partner and I can never understand why people are so threatened by others living there lives. How does my ability to get married change a straight marriage in anyway. If I am not mistaken the divorce rate for all you straighties out there is over 50%. So i am wondering, what would a man marrying another man do to your marriages, that straight people have not already done to themselves.
Gay people are the last bastion of americans that actually want to be married.
I will stay out of every bitter angry straight marriage, and not pass my judgement as long as all the crazy homophobes stay out of my life and do not try to give special rights only to straight people.
And also, why do my children have to listen quietly to all the straight bias that happens every day in a classroom. i guess i just dont understand how 30 seconds of time spent looking at a picture of a gay family, compared to 18 years of education focused on the "straight lifestyle" is really gonna cause that much damage. Any one who thinks it will, needs to get off the computer, get the tv dinner out of the microwave, and close the door to their trailer.
Posted by: J | October 15, 2008 1:48 AM
These people really do believe that The Gay is so powerful that even knowing that gay people exist is going to turn their kids gay.
Not only do they view it as powerful, but as powerfully attractive. The reason that only about 10% of the population is gay, according to this reasoning, is that the remainder aren't aware of the alluring possibilities. Being aware of heterosexuality apparently doesn't have the same effect, though.
Posted by: Martin R | October 15, 2008 8:51 AM
The worldnutdaily has outdone itself in sheer terrified pronounciations. The fear they are under at the thought that there are people different to them is truly a sight to behold.
Are there marriages in this book between blacks and whites and would said parent have dared challenge that in the courts?
and what does mroberts think of the response to this by the worldnutdaily? hysterical or not?
Posted by: Richard Eis | October 15, 2008 9:07 AM
Why, when I was in school we learned everything we needed to know about teh GAY from hearing stories about how guys on the football team went out and beat them up (along with the jew and chicano kids) after a game. Yep, ignorance is bliss--unless you're its target.
Posted by: democommie | October 15, 2008 9:10 AM
One of the (many) causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was inflation. And they were very much on the gold standard. Hell, their currency WAS gold!
Not exactly true. They diluted the gold content of their coins, which resulted in the debasement of the coinage - just like today with the massive printing of money we are doing.
MRoberts, has it ever occurred to you that the Gold Standard makes hyperinflation impossible in much the same way that castration prevents unwanted pregnancy?
Wow, it is obvious that you are one of the edjumicated ones. What an idiotic statement. I honestly have no clue what you were trying to say with that one.
The actual econometric evidence pretty much sinks the claim that central banking and fiat currency has given us nonstop inflation since the 1930's.
Are you kidding Tyler? What graph are you looking at? Maybe you should look at the graph that shows the purchasing power of the dollar since 1913. THAT is inflation. The more dollars they print, the less your dollars purchase. With all the printing going on, it is no surprise that a dollar today purchases just a fraction of what it did in 1913, or 1930 for that matter. Inflation has pretty much been nonstop for that last 90 years.
It's really not about how smart I am, bub, it's about how predictable you are.
Yeah, that's what I thought democommie. Way to enhance your credibility. Why anybody gives what you post any merit is beyond me. You don't bother to study the issues, yet somehow I am the stupid and ignorant one.
And also, why do my children have to listen quietly to all the straight bias that happens every day in a classroom.
J, are you kidding? That "straight bias" is what enabled you to EXIST. Seriously you must have lost your mind or something. The human race wouldn't even exist were it not for the so-called "straight bias". I cannot fathom how you can see an equivalency between two things that obviously are not equivalent. Your children would not exist were it not for heterosexuality.
Yeah, I know, I'm a hater, homophobe, and a bigot for saying. There, you, SLC, and democommie don't have to say it now.
Posted by: mroberts | October 15, 2008 2:51 PM
Not exactly true. They diluted the gold content of their coins, which resulted in the debasement of the coinage - just like today with the massive printing of money we are doing.
And WHY did they dilute the gold content of their coins? Because that was the only way their money supply could grow to fit their economy. That's why nearly every country ends up diluting gold with something else -- the only alternative is a choked, stagnant economy that can't meet the people's needs. We pointed this out to you in an earlier thread, and you completely ignored it.
(So much for your claim that gold makes inflation impossible.)
What an idiotic statement. I honestly have no clue what you were trying to say with that one.
Translation: you can't refute the statement. Just like you couldn't refute any of the arguments we made the last time this subject came up.
That "straight bias" is what enabled you to EXIST.
What, you can't have kids unless you're prejudiced against gays?
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 15, 2008 3:07 PM
mrroberts: I'll give you the Roman Empire, seeing as they lacked any sytsem of banking or financial controls, the Gold Standard (actually bi-metallic) was the best they could do. Since the rise of modern states with some semblance of a state bank, no one has that excuse.
There are a bunch of problems with your inflation argument, however. As James Hanley pointed out, the value of a nation's currency is based upon its productivity and the value of its material and non-material capital. So if the money supply increases at the same rate as the growth in productivity et al, then no actual inflation has occurred.
Second, as Tyler pointed out above, inflation can certainly can occur in a Gold Standard economy, either through debasement of the currency or an increase in the comodity being used as currency. If you don't trust Tyler's link to wiki, I'm sure you have Adam Smith near at hand, read the Digression on Silver.
Oh, and I thought Marshall demonstrated back in the 1940s that a little bit of inflation was a good thing as long as the economy was expanding. The problem with the Mark that you cite is entirely due to printing money in a deflationary economy. I agree, that was a very poor policy decision, although it certainly might be argued that they had little choice what with the war and then the reparations and all.
Why are so many people posting about gays in this thread?
Posted by: kehrsam | October 15, 2008 3:34 PM
mroberts:
When are you planning on supporting your previous statement about gold not being "consumed"? You know you can't support it because it's a fiction, just like most of what you have to say.
Posted by: democommie | October 15, 2008 3:35 PM
mroberts:
RagingBee:
He may actually believe that. It seems mroberts is unable to distinguish between heterosexuality and homophobia.
Here's a shocking fact for you. It's entirely possible for a normal straight person to find a mate of the opposite sex and produce children without screeching at the top of their lungs every day about how evil gays are. Really, I'm not kidding, it is entirely possible to be heterosexual, have heterosexual relationships, even marry a member of the opposite sex and have children without hating gay people. This fact is obvious to any sane person. It's entirely possible to have a family without denying other people the right to do the same. Why doesn't mroberts realize this?
Perhaps mroberts thinks it is necessary for everyone to cultivate raging homophobia in order to avoid giving in to the irresistible lure of teh hawt ghey seks. Of course, for straight people there IS no such irresistible lure, but it seems mroberts doesn't understand this.
I know I'm not the first to suggest that his posts scream "closet case". Of course, since mroberts is so fond of painting any group he doesn't like by using extreme, irrelevant examples, by the example of Ted Haggard, all christians are drug-addicted gay whoremongers. :P
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 15, 2008 4:09 PM
"Are you kidding Tyler? What graph are you looking at?"
Asking for the very thing that I clearly linked to and pretending it isn't there, brilliant.
"Maybe you should look at the graph that shows the purchasing power of the dollar since 1913."
Comparing the modern value of the dollar against goods that could be purchased in 1913 is pretty much economically vacuous. It's a different economy. The CPI is much more reliable measure of inflation, which is what the graph I provided relies on.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | October 15, 2008 6:22 PM
Comparing the modern value of the dollar against goods that could be purchased in 1913 is pretty much economically vacuous.
Utterly false. The modern value of the dollar IS the issue because it shows the results of the deliberate inflation of the money supply. The central mission of the Fed is to provide economic stability and preserve the value of the dollar. Seems to me it has utterly failed at both.
The CPI is much more reliable measure of inflation, which is what the graph I provided relies on.
That one deserves a laugh. You obviously don't keep up on this stuff. The government inflation figures are openly mocked in the media because they are so ridiculously doctored.
Posted by: mroberts | October 15, 2008 6:28 PM
There are a bunch of problems with your inflation argument, however. As James Hanley pointed out, the value of a nation's currency is based upon its productivity and the value of its material and non-material capital. So if the money supply increases at the same rate as the growth in productivity et al, then no actual inflation has occurred.
This is true, I agree. The value of currency is valued by productivity more under a fiat monetary system than a gold standard one though.
Second, as Tyler pointed out above, inflation can certainly can occur in a Gold Standard economy, either through debasement of the currency or an increase in the comodity being used as currency. If you don't trust Tyler's link to wiki, I'm sure you have Adam Smith near at hand, read the Digression on Silver.
I agree here too. Colonial Spain had a mad inflation problem even with a gold currency because it was bringing in so much gold from the Americas. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU. The difference is that a gold standard prevents the government from easily inflating the money supply because gold cannot be created from thin air like paper money can. In other words, under a true gold standard, government cannot print massive amounts of money and create huge credit bubbles and drive inflation into double-digit territory like they can with paper. Because gold is scarce and cannot be counterfeited, a true gold standard money supply is limited such problems are less frequent. Yes, inflation can happen under a gold standard, its just that a gold standard prevents the government from creating inflation as a policy to paper over debts and artificially inflate the economy. Gold provides a check on the power of the government to create huge booms and busts and debase the currency over time, which harms the most vulnerable among us with inflation.
Posted by: mroberts | October 15, 2008 6:36 PM
"Utterly false. The modern value of the dollar IS the issue because it shows the results of the deliberate inflation of the money supply. "
No, the issue is the value of the dollar compared against the goods that can be purchased contemporaneously. The average American has access to goods and services that most Americans lacked in 1913 (medical care and dentistry, for instance). Different economy. We're clearly much more wealthy in real terms than prior to the establishment of the Federal Reserve.
"The central mission of the Fed is to provide economic stability and preserve the value of the dollar. Seems to me it has utterly failed at both."
Then you didn't read the graph, notice that all the bank panics plotted occurred during the gold standard era and there is virtually no deflation afterwards. You obviously haven't actually bothered to look at the graph.
"That one deserves a laugh."
Though apparently not an actual argument.
"You obviously don't keep up on this stuff. The government inflation figures are openly mocked in the media because they are so ridiculously doctored."
And without a single citation to back up the claim, brilliant.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | October 15, 2008 7:07 PM
I said, mrroberts replied:
So then, if we agree that the national value is increased though production, who is rewarded for that increase under your system? It isn't whoever increased production, by and large. Rather, all a person has to do is hold gold and sit tight, and since there are the same number of "shares" splitting a larger pie, the speculator gains by not using his capital. This appears to be directly opposite of the free market mantra of putting currency in the hands of investors. Unless the government holds all the gold, how do you address this problem? And if the government does hold all the gold, what is to stop them fromm assigning whatever fiat value to the substitute currency that they please?
The problem with the whole gold argument is that "value" is entirely arbitrary, and can always be altered. The current financial meltdown is largely the result of private institutions -- not the Fed (although it deserves plenty of blame, too -- increasing the money supply through the leveraging again and again based on the same underlying assets. Even with the Gold Standard this can take place (the Mississippi Bubble comes to mind. Aside -- John Law was a genius who was royally screwed by those he served). Unless you are a much bigger fan of government regulation than I would guess, this would seem to always be a danger as well. Cheers!
Posted by: kehrsam | October 15, 2008 7:11 PM
I have been married for sixteen years and fathered four children.
In that time I have had a chaplaincy supervisor who was gay. One of my closest friends in the synod-another pastor (our smaller geographical clustering of churches) was open with me about his homosexuality and his struggle to live in the confines of our denomination. He is now Episcopalian; as he realized that he did not have the gift of celibacy and did not want to live a lie. I used to enjoy watching "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." I'm cheering for Lance and Lacey on "Dancing with the Stars." I have let members of the congregation know that their gay and lesbian children are free to worship here-without persecution-after these members had no such feeling of comfort with previous pastors. (I mean this congregation was once in the "Misery" Synod.) Now that I've lost weight and gotten in shape, I've even had a few gay guys try to pick me up in the locker room at the health club. I said, "Thanks for the compliment, but I'm not interested." And I'm not making a scene whenever someone does something overtly "gay" in front of my kids. And when they do finally get around to asking questions about it (at eight, I'm guessing it will be pretty soon with my oldest) I will answer that sometimes men fall in love with other men, and women with other women. Nice and simple; with no judgements.
And J, I'm sure you are doing a fine job raising your children. If the conservatives want to end abortion and not be truthful about where babies come from (in other words, they could very easily decrease, and yes, maybe even eradicate abortion by being honest about sex and birth control)...the bottom line is that we will need more gay couples to adopt the surplus of unwanted babies.
Guess what I'm getting at is that I in no way feel threatened by homosexuals. And I'm a little fed up at people falling for the Gold Standard smoke and mirrors of mrroberts that derailed the original intention of this post.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | October 15, 2008 7:35 PM
Guess what I'm getting at is that I in no way feel threatened by homosexuals. And I'm a little fed up at people falling for the Gold Standard smoke and mirrors of mrroberts that derailed the original intention of this post.
Another example of the "objectivity" on this blog. Uh, Rev., before condemning me for steering this thread off topic, maybe you could bother to read back through the thread and see who started the gold standard discussion. Clue: it wasn't me. Yup, always the conservative, always the bad guy.
Posted by: mroberts | October 15, 2008 8:12 PM
Rev. AJB:
You and I have disagreed in the past, I'm sure we will again, but I think your last comment is right on the money.
I made the first comment on this thread about the "gold standard", as sarcasm. Some other commenters picked it up and then, of course, mroberts took the bait, hook, leader, sinkers, bobber and the first three or four sections of the pole and did his usual thing--spew nonsense.
mroberts:
I wasn't starting a discussion, you putz. I was mocking you, being sarcastic, making fun of your monomaniacal tendency to see only your view as one that has any validity. I disagree, frequently--and without comment--with lots of things I see on the threads here. But, you're just such an asshat. It's a target rich environment, population: mroberts.
BTW, I'm still waiting for proof that gold is not consumed.
Posted by: democommie | October 15, 2008 11:15 PM
As I tell my kids "they may have made the comment, but you didn't have to respond" (I get some laughs with "It takes two to tango", probably because many have no idea what a Tango is). Unfortunately, most of them continue and often end up talking to an Assistant Principal.
Posted by: Badger3k | October 16, 2008 2:38 AM