The French NOT happy with the $

[Mega]

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2009...fx7018936.html
Mike

[Raz]

Re: The French NOT happy with the $

The French have lived through massive currency debasement more than once (think "Assignats") and certainly aren't stupid.

It was Charles de Gaulle who demanded gold in 1966 when he could see that LBJ's Great Society and Vietnam "kick hell outa' them Commies" War would lead to inflation. This was the beginning of the end for Bretton Woods, although it's been convenient to blame it all on Nixon.
(And while I think Carter was a terrible President, he was also left a big bag of turds - by Nixon and Ford.)

I wonder when our creditors will force the issue of "Bubbles" Ben Bernanke and this insane, spendthrift Congress.

[Jay]

Re: The French NOT happy with the $

The French have lived through massive currency debasement more than once (think "Assignats") and certainly aren't stupid.

It was Charles de Gaulle who demanded gold in 1966 when he could see that LBJ's Great Society and Vietnam "kick hell outa' them Commies" War would lead to inflation. This was the beginning of the end for Bretton Woods, although it's been convenient to blame it all on Nixon.
(And while I think Carter was a terrible President, he was also left a big bag of turds - by Nixon and Ford.)

I wonder when our creditors will force the issue of "Bubbles" Ben Bernanke and this insane, spendthrift Congress.

Not that I disagree with anything you say, but would point out that American colonists also had extensive experience with inflationary fiat currencies in the New England colonies before the Revolution.

[goadam1]

Re: The French NOT happy with the $

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2009...fx7018936.html
Mike

How mad? I mean they have been the real lynchpin of so much Global change in the last 60 years.

[GRG55]

Re: The French NOT happy with the $

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2009...fx7018936.html
Mike

Let them eat cake...

[Raz]

Re: The French NOT happy with the $

Not that I disagree with anything you say, but would point out that American colonists also had extensive experience with inflationary fiat currencies in the New England colonies before the Revolution.

Right you are. ("Not worth a Continental" comes to mind.)

That's why they wrote Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 into the Constitution, establishing a metallic standard for our money. No less than Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the words "coin money" clearly meant to strike of metallic coin, and that the Founders clearly intended to establish gold and silver as the money of the United States.

Of course that all went out the window with FDR, and what was left of the Constitution has been successivly dismantled by the leftists on the Court (Douglas, Blackmun, Breyer, Souter, etc.).

[kartius919]

Re: The French NOT happy with the $

Oh yeah, because the righties of Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy are so much better! hahahaha. Good laugh.

[Raz]

Re: The French NOT happy with the $

Oh yeah, because the righties of Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy are so much better! hahahaha. Good laugh.

I make no apology for my Conservatism, yet that doesn't mean that I agree with every decision and opinion of men like Scalia.
I'm more in tune with the Rhenquist line of judicial thought.

Instead of laughing, why don't you pont out some of the terrible decisions rendered by Justices Scalia, Thomas and Roberts?

[kartius919]

Re: The French NOT happy with the $

Conservatism. Right wing. Left wing. Again what is in a name. Thomas is the worst justice of them all. See his dissent in Hamdi. Heck I even agreed with Scalia's dissent in Hamdi. Then again Scalia took a 180 on his state's right, originalism approach when dealing with CA marijuana laws. There are others especially in regards to criminal law, but I can't remember much now. What I find funny is you criticize lefties for the same debauchery of the constitution as the left wings criticize the right. Again with the labeling that doesn't mean much. What is in the constitution, but words that can be tailored as the judges see fit. There is no right or wrong interpretation of the constitution. So its not exactly possible for either side to trash the constitution. But if I think of my civil rights, freedoms, privay and what I believe the constitution to represent, then it the liberals I find most often advocating its protection.

[kartius919]

Re: The French NOT happy with the $

Also Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas never believed that the bill of rights applied to states through the 14th amendment. There is a reasonable constitutional argument for this view on a textual basis, but it doesn't square with what i see as the protections guaranteed by the constitution.

[Raz]

Re: The French NOT happy with the $

Conservatism. Right wing. Left wing. Again what is in a name. Thomas is the worst justice of them all. See his dissent in Hamdi. Heck I even agreed with Scalia's dissent in Hamdi. Then again Scalia took a 180 on his state's right, originalism approach when dealing with CA marijuana laws. There are others especially in regards to criminal law, but I can't remember much now. What I find funny is you criticize lefties for the same debauchery of the constitution as the left wings criticize the right. Again with the labeling that doesn't mean much. What is in the constitution, but words that can be tailored as the judges see fit. There is no right or wrong interpretation of the constitution. So its not exactly possible for either side to trash the constitution. But if I think of my civil rights, freedoms, privay and what I believe the constitution to represent, then it the liberals I find most often advocating its protection.

I suspect you and I would agree with each other more than you think.

I just found the time to read Thomas' opinion in Hamdi V. Rumsfeld and I have to agree that it was ridiculous. I don't know about all of his legal opinions but he made a valid social argument with his dissent in Kelo v. City of New London, the case where the Liberals on the court basically stripped out the Constitutional protection of eminent domain as a limited recourse of the government where private property is needed for public use.

Rhenquist, Scalia and Thomas were right in their view of eminent domain. This is a clear case where original intent and common sense should have prevailed, but if you believe that it's a "living document", that you can seek judicial precedent from Cameroon, Ecuador, Indonesia or anywhere else you might want to shop for justification (as Breyer wants), then we don't even need the document - just let the Justices make it up as they go.

However, if Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas view the rights of a corporation as being the same as an individual we may well see freedom of speech ruined in this country. It's already under assault by those on the Left who want the "fairness doctrine", and if the Conservatives manage to justify this nonsense I may have to reclassify myself as a Nihilist!