remember this guy also supported the highly expensive and immoral idea of bombing the fuck out of whereveristan.

you can view such previous highlights as "Sarah Palin is my kinda leader... you are one hot grandma"
http://politics.videosift.com/video/Fox-s-Glenn-Beck-show-Palin-jackassery-abound

and "Ron Paul made money on November 5th, therefore, Terrorist?"
http://www.videosift.com/video/Glenn-Beck-Ron-Paul-supporters-are-terrorists

so i am just not sure how to take it when he agrees with me on economics and Al Gore all in the same video.

confused.

Ah Glen Beck, he's like the equivalent of chicks with dicks.

To add upon this, my bigger worry is the later repercussions. Currently with banks hoarding their liquid reserves, any additional contributions by the federal reserve or the treasury through bailouts are presumably being used to cover losses from delinquent loans and reductions in equity. But what happens when this additional money injected into the economy is leveraged out again, the multiplier effect kicks in and the currency balloons out exponentially?

Now no doubt you're not going to be seeing 50 to 1 ratios any time in the immediate future provide prudential regulations and well, common sense, reigns in this preposterous risk taking. Regardless though, the supply of currency is set to rise dramatically when this happens, and I can only hope that this has been taken into account sufficiently in regards to all of the monetary policy expansions enacted.

I'm sure that every economist in the US and elsewhere isn't nearly as smart as Glenn Beck. They really should've consulted with him.

Why is that "hockey stick" right and Al Gore's "hockey stick" wrong? How can he use the same style of presentation as the guy he's mocking and expect anyone to believe what he's saying?

Oh right. He's a douche.

I am not a big fan of Glen either, but I couldn't see a finer display of argumentum ad hominem above me.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I am not a big fan of Glen either, but I couldn't see a finer display of argumentum ad hominem above me.


Aye. It's kinda like arguing whether or not the credentials of a person warning you there is a man eating lion in the vicinity are up to snuff when the lion is drooling down the back of your neck...

You can't just print money and dump it in to the economy. Glenn is slightly incorrect, they have tried it elsewhere, and the result is prices hyperinflate. eg. If you double the amount of available printed currency, that cheeseburger that cost you 2 bucks yesterday will now cost you 4 bucks.

The cheeseburger is still exactly the same, but the promisery value of the bills in your pocket are now less than they were.

The shitty part of this? If you have a large amount of savings or investments, you still have the same number of dollars after they print more money, it's just worth less.. You can do less with it. You are now literally poorer even though you have the same sum of money.

Fun stuff isn't it.

>> ^volumptuous:
I'm sure that every economist in the US and elsewhere isn't nearly as smart as Glenn Beck. They really should've consulted with him.


What economists are saying that you can print lots of money without affecting its value?

There are lots of economists who have been saying the exact same thing. If you print too much money then you run the risk of destroying the currency. It doesn't happen gradually either... if it hits the point where the world loses confidence in the value of the dollar and start selling theirs then the result could make the "great depression" look pretty mild.

However, I agree that Glenn Beck isn't the best vessel to deliver this kind of information. There are plenty of reputable people who are saying the same thing Beck is, but who actually understand the mechanics behind it.

*lies

Adding video to channels (Lies) - requested by MrFisk.

Raise taxes? not one likes that, well devaluating the money is just the something but people are just to dumb to get it right away which makes it politically correct.

Agreed. I love his boobs, but I'm certainly not a fan the noodly appendage...

>> ^RedSky:
Ah Glen Beck, he's like the equivalent of chicks with dicks.


(In other words, he is pretty much right about the money, but wrong about pretty much everything else)

If the only thing between the USA and disaster is Glen Beck, we really are heading for FUBAR. watch the argentina video

http://www.videosift.com/video/Argentina-s-2001-Economic-Collapse

A Fox News segment I liked; good for Glen Beck.

he is presenting a historical chart of verifiable values...what the hell does it matter who the narrator is? are you disputing the data?

if you believe in science (yes economics is supposed to be a branch of science) stop listening to people because they are your color (red or blue) and start listening to them because their models make accurate predictions!

if you are talking about economics without using historical data, or your economic theory can't accurately model events - past or present, then you might as well be getting your economic theory from the bible.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I am not a big fan of Glen either, but I couldn't see a finer display of argumentum ad hominem above me.


The only way this could have been better illustrated would be to follow up with a similar chart showing value vs. inflation. Maybe start at 1900 or 1908 as 100% value and show how the value of each dollar decreases over time.

Anyone know what that might look like?

http://mises.org/story/3069 ->http://www.mises.org/images4/3069figure1.jpg


http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2009/Jan/official_actual_inflation_550.jpg

Last graph shows how the government basically lies about inflation now.

"Official US inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is currently running at about 5% (3% in Canada). But is this real inflation? The calculations governments now use for CPI are really meaningless as a true inflation indicator. Since 1980, the methodology used to calculate the CPI has changed. Using the original formula of a fixed basket of goods and services, economist John Williams has recreated the CPI as you can see in Figure 2. The SGS Alternate CPI uses the original 1980 formula and results in a CPI of 13%. When a country's money supply is increased, its currency is debased. As the currency's purchasing power declines, prices appear to be rising. And with global money supply growing at double digit rates, rising prices and real inflation is likely to be closer to 14% rather than the official 5%."



As inflation increases, the "old money" will become more valuable than the new money. "Buying" old coins before the switch to the "New coins" will net you a profit as those metals have real world value. Conversely, the US government has shown it doesn't care if it's currency losses buying power. Inflation hurts the poor, the elderly (or any other persons on a fixed income) and the middle class 401k's. Inflation has been described as taxation without representation by some economists for it is able to harvest money from your savings without your permission. High levels of inflation undermine a money system.

edited for word cleaner word selection and elaboration.

I LOVE AL GORE THEREFORE GLEN BECK IS WRONG ABOUT INFLATION

just seeing if that gets more upvotes than my original comment.

^ GeeSussFreak

Thanks for tracking that info down. I found some more data..

In 1900, $100.00 from 2006 is worth:

$4.04 using the Consumer Price Index
$4.71 using the GDP deflator
$1.51 using the value of consumer bundle
$0.88 using the unskilled wage
$0.61 using the nominal GDP per capita
$0.16 using the relative share of GDP

In 2006 $100.00 from 1900 is worth:

$2,476.66 using the Consumer Price Index
$2,124.46 using the GDP deflator
$6,602.73 using the value of consumer bundle
$11,412.86 using the unskilled wage
$16,316.15 using the nominal GDP per capita
$64,073.94 using the relative share of GDP

In just over 100 years, the dollar has lost between 96 and 99.8 percent of its value, depending on how you measure. Meaning that a penny in 1900 more then likely worth more then a dollar today.

The source I used does not measure the last two years, as the most recent data is not yet all finalized. I can only imagine what 2007 and 2008 have done to the value of money.

As a share of the U.S. GDP, I could happily live on $100 per year of 1900's money.