No poochy paddle for Duke, the poor black lab shot to death by that miserable fellow Herman, who, I understand, had a court appearance in SS this past week. Does anyone know the outcome of Herman's court appearance?
I'd like to express my deepest condolences to the Arnone family regarding the loss of their beloved Duke. I'm a "dog person," and I'm all too familiar with the pain of losing a canine friend. In the same breath I'd also like to express my hope that Del Herman receives the full and maximum punishment allowed under the law. Despite assurances from Detective Kleiber that Herman expressed remorse over his heinous act, it's good to remember that his confession occurred after he'd been arrested. He didn't confess when first asked about the shooting. He did the opposite and denied any involvement in the shooting of Duke. He's sorry alright--sorry he got caught and sorry that he will now have to face the consequences of his cruel, selfish, and uncaring actions. What kind of person must he be to shoot an old and gentle dog who is someone's family pet? Shame on him. I hope that the citizens of SS will remember his cruelty for a long time and that he feels shame every time he walks down a SS street or goes into a SS store or restaurant. Regarding his punishment--If I were the judge handling his case I'd levy a very stiff fine; give him a period of time in jail; make him perform countless hours of community service (preferably at an animal shelter); and, I would encourage folks in SS to boycott his business in order to send a message to this cruel and heartless curmudgeon. A civil suit against him by the Arnone family might also be in order. So sorry to read about this sad story but pleased that justice might be right around the corner.
The sooner that marijuana is legalized for use throughout the U.S. (subject to appropriate regulations) the sooner that drug violence in both our own country and in Mexico will end. The number one drug of choice in the U.S.--and one that has ruined countless lives and caused untold personal horrors--is alcohol. It is legal, but its use is regulated. If we permit people to drink alcohol then why wouldn't we let them use marijuana? We all know that people who want to use marijuana can get it anytime they want, so why not decriminalize it, regulate its use, and tax it?
I can see that most of you have pretty strong feelings about the Fed! Ok; Ok. . .audit the Fed, and what do you think you're going to find that you don't already know about? Not much, I can tell you. The reason that the Fed has resisted being audited all these years has to do with preserving its independence from the rest of government. The thinking here is that the power to audit equals the power to interfere with the Fed's operations and possibly with monetary policy. And be honest, do you really want some political hack congressman or senator handling monetary policy for the U.S.?
You don't, because first of all they know nothing about monetary policy and how to conduct it (it's pretty complicated). Politicians want easy money policies whenever they're in office, because it makes them more popular and more likely to get re-elected, which is always a politician's first and foremost goal. Thank your lucky stars that monetary policy is conducted by an independent government agency that earns its own income and is not dependent on congressional appropriations (historically, by the way, the Fed has annually returned more than 90 percent of its earnings back to the Treasury Dept.). Calling Fed profits the result of "theft" seems pretty ridiculous to me.
Also, the Fed is not a private corporation that was founded by international financiers. It is an independent government agency that was created by Congress to put an end to the devastating credit crises that occurred regularly in the 19th century. Furthermore, if you were to go back to the "good old days" prior to the Fed, you'd be looking at J.P. Morgan as the private central bank of this country. During financial crises caused by bank runs (which were common prior to the Fed) it was Morgan who ultimately decided which banks would survive and which would fail. How democratic was that?
"Dictatorship of the majority over the minority?" I'd call that a democracy, wouldn't you?
Interestingly, despite the tremendous amount of money poured into the economy recently, there has been no sign of inflation. And depending on how smart/lucky the Fed is, there may be only a little inflation down the road.
Finally, what's all this talk of the "founders?" In case you haven't noticed the world is a much different place than it was 200+ years ago. Personally, I've always thought that the founders would have changed their thinking along with the rest of us if they had been alive all this time. I mean, really, do you want to govern our country as if it were still 1789? I wouldn't.
Oh, and keep in mind that the Fed is not responsible for the spending habits of the executive branch and the congress. Taxes are levied by the Treasury Dept. (not the Fed), and spending programs come from the White House and Congress (not the Fed). Please don't blame the Fed for our deficits.
Whew! I don't know where to begin to respond to everyone's comments.
Meglen: You're right about central planning not working very well, but since when have we had central planning in the U.S.?
Ybul and Meglen: Yes, people and companies should be held accountable for their actions, but the Fed will not allow the country to go down the drain economically just to impose some discipline on bad behavior. That is what the Fed did at the start of the Great Depression, and it was an economic disaster for the country and imposed terrible costs on just about everyone. Is that what you want to do just to impose "discipline" on a few bad actors? The Fed will never allow the economy to crash and will do whatever it takes to keep the country afloat economically--and that includes lending out gobs of money to anyone who needs it and has some collateral to put up (toxic or otherwise). You may recall that this is the whole reason that the Fed was founded in the first place--to be a lender of last resort.
Ybul: Don't confuse central banking in developing countries with central banking in the U.S. In most countries, the central bank is the local money arm of whatever administration is in power. In the U.S. the Federal Reserve was specifically structured so as to provide a strong degree of independence from both Congress and the executive branch. There are numerous instances in history of the Fed resisting congressional and executive branch calls for easy money policies.
JLM: you're right in saying that a little inflation is a good thing for our economy. Not sure you're correct about the amount of toxic assets currently held by the Fed. At this point, the true value of the Fed's loan collateral is not known by anyone, the Fed included.
Everyone: Why does everyone bash the government (local, state, federal) as the biggest meanie in town? Without government it is doubtful that people would follow the rules that make for an orderly society, including business practices and criminal behavior. Without government we would have collusive behavior, little or no national defense, little infrastructure, no judicial system and a host of other ills. I'm always amused when people say that we don't need government or that government is too intrusive or too costly. Don't forget that we live in a representative democracy, and so not every dollar you are taxed will be spent on things that you personally approve of. The best you can do is to vote for the person who most closely believes what you believe in, no?
Carlyle: your last point first--I've long since retired from the Fed, but you make a good point regarding the federal government as the employer of last resort for Ph.D. economists! We used to get a good laugh over that one ourselves!
I think you are wrong in blaming, somehow, the Federal Reserve for our recent economic woes (In fact, I like to think that Bernanke's Fed prevented a true meltdown.). Greenspan may have kept interest rates too low for too long (he was a political animal, you know; everyone in D.C. is), but there is plenty of blame to spread around on other players in both the public and private sectors when considering our recent economic troubles.
Yes, central bankers make mistakes, and sometimes those mistakes are costly. Other times, central bankers get it right and everybody wins. Have you an alternative to central banking? Friedman, as you know, was proven wrong in the end, and strict monetarism has largely passed away from serious economic consideration.
Some would have us return to the gold standard--an unrealistic and deeply flawed system of managing money and economic activity. It may have worked to some extent in a bygone era of simpler times, but by even the 19th century its serious limitations were recognized.
There are, in fact, many interesting things that one could discuss about central banking and the Fed, and not all of them put the Fed in a complimentary light. For sure, it has made some spectacular blunders, and any reasonable person should be open to rational and informed discussion about the Fed's overall performance. I simply find it much harder, however, to tolerate the kind of blind rantings contained in Mr. Meglen's comments.
By the way, Ms. Rivlin, whom Mr. Meglen enjoys maligning, is a brilliant and wonderful person who has spent most of her life as a dedicated and underpaid servant of the people. It's hard to believe that she once was a secretive and conspiratorial central banker!
I enjoyed reading this article and the comments it provoked, because, collectively, they demonstrate once again the extraordinary degree of ignorance and paranoia that most Americans have regarding the Federal Reserve System and the role it plays in our economy. Most of Mr. Meglen's assertions about the Fed ought to be hilarious to any serious student of U.S. financial history and the world's current financial system--hilarious, were it not for the fact that so many Americans seem ready to believe the type of conspiracy theory rubbish that makes up most of Mr. Meglen's statements.
Any college student who ever took econ 101 (even those sleeping at the back of the classroom at CMC, where I once taught econ) would know that most of your statements are misleading or flat-out incorrect. I actually laughed out loud to myself when I read several of them. You must be reading some pretty strange stuff to have developed so many wrong ideas about how the Fed and the rest of the financial world works. Surprisingly, you were right or near-right on a few statements (e.g., that the Fed played an important role in perpetuating the Great Depression), so your article is not totally idiotic. Most of the rest of your statements, however, are untrue or very misleading at best (e.g., that "the Fed is neither federal nor has reserves"--trust me on this one; I was a senior economist at the Fed in Washington, D.C. and worked there 31 years--the Federal Reserve System is federal in structure and does hold bank reserves).
It's too bad that Mr. Meglen holds such ignorant and negative views about the Fed; worse yet that he proselytizes in this manner. Oh sure, the Fed isn't perfect and has not always hit the mark in terms of promoting economic growth, full employment, and price stability (some of its many legal mandates). But it is also not even remotely the secretive, conspiratorial institution that Meglen makes it out to be.
People who experience discomfort or loss when complex or incomprehensible problems befall them often look for (and invent) simple-minded explanations (usually incorrect) and bogeymen on which to lay blame. I would urge Mr. Meglen and the other commenters on his piece to read some serious, more academic accounts of U.S. economic history and the development of the Federal Reserve System. Conspiracy theories, while lots of fun, usually take a person down the wrong road to understanding.
Everybody--OK; I hereby retire from the political discussion above. In fact, I would like to hear some discussion of the Fortress/Intrawest debt refinancing myself. Seems like it could have some big implications for the ski area. . . .AC
Steamboat dogs ready to swim at Poochy Paddle
No poochy paddle for Duke, the poor black lab shot to death by that miserable fellow Herman, who, I understand, had a court appearance in SS this past week. Does anyone know the outcome of Herman's court appearance?
April 9, 2011 at 9:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Police: Steamboat man confesses to shooting dog
I'd like to express my deepest condolences to the Arnone family regarding the loss of their beloved Duke. I'm a "dog person," and I'm all too familiar with the pain of losing a canine friend. In the same breath I'd also like to express my hope that Del Herman receives the full and maximum punishment allowed under the law. Despite assurances from Detective Kleiber that Herman expressed remorse over his heinous act, it's good to remember that his confession occurred after he'd been arrested. He didn't confess when first asked about the shooting. He did the opposite and denied any involvement in the shooting of Duke. He's sorry alright--sorry he got caught and sorry that he will now have to face the consequences of his cruel, selfish, and uncaring actions. What kind of person must he be to shoot an old and gentle dog who is someone's family pet? Shame on him. I hope that the citizens of SS will remember his cruelty for a long time and that he feels shame every time he walks down a SS street or goes into a SS store or restaurant. Regarding his punishment--If I were the judge handling his case I'd levy a very stiff fine; give him a period of time in jail; make him perform countless hours of community service (preferably at an animal shelter); and, I would encourage folks in SS to boycott his business in order to send a message to this cruel and heartless curmudgeon. A civil suit against him by the Arnone family might also be in order. So sorry to read about this sad story but pleased that justice might be right around the corner.
March 22, 2011 at 10:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Detective assigned to Steamboat dog-shooting case
I wonder if the detective has thought about asking the Hermans if they would be willing to take a lie-detector test to verify their statements.
March 16, 2011 at 3:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Growing Pains: Entrepreneurs cash in on medical marijuana
The sooner that marijuana is legalized for use throughout the U.S. (subject to appropriate regulations) the sooner that drug violence in both our own country and in Mexico will end. The number one drug of choice in the U.S.--and one that has ruined countless lives and caused untold personal horrors--is alcohol. It is legal, but its use is regulated. If we permit people to drink alcohol then why wouldn't we let them use marijuana? We all know that people who want to use marijuana can get it anytime they want, so why not decriminalize it, regulate its use, and tax it?
October 7, 2010 at 8:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Joe Meglen: About the Fed
I can see that most of you have pretty strong feelings about the Fed! Ok; Ok. . .audit the Fed, and what do you think you're going to find that you don't already know about? Not much, I can tell you. The reason that the Fed has resisted being audited all these years has to do with preserving its independence from the rest of government. The thinking here is that the power to audit equals the power to interfere with the Fed's operations and possibly with monetary policy. And be honest, do you really want some political hack congressman or senator handling monetary policy for the U.S.?
You don't, because first of all they know nothing about monetary policy and how to conduct it (it's pretty complicated). Politicians want easy money policies whenever they're in office, because it makes them more popular and more likely to get re-elected, which is always a politician's first and foremost goal. Thank your lucky stars that monetary policy is conducted by an independent government agency that earns its own income and is not dependent on congressional appropriations (historically, by the way, the Fed has annually returned more than 90 percent of its earnings back to the Treasury Dept.). Calling Fed profits the result of "theft" seems pretty ridiculous to me.
Also, the Fed is not a private corporation that was founded by international financiers. It is an independent government agency that was created by Congress to put an end to the devastating credit crises that occurred regularly in the 19th century. Furthermore, if you were to go back to the "good old days" prior to the Fed, you'd be looking at J.P. Morgan as the private central bank of this country. During financial crises caused by bank runs (which were common prior to the Fed) it was Morgan who ultimately decided which banks would survive and which would fail. How democratic was that?
"Dictatorship of the majority over the minority?" I'd call that a democracy, wouldn't you?
Interestingly, despite the tremendous amount of money poured into the economy recently, there has been no sign of inflation. And depending on how smart/lucky the Fed is, there may be only a little inflation down the road.
Finally, what's all this talk of the "founders?" In case you haven't noticed the world is a much different place than it was 200+ years ago. Personally, I've always thought that the founders would have changed their thinking along with the rest of us if they had been alive all this time. I mean, really, do you want to govern our country as if it were still 1789? I wouldn't.
Oh, and keep in mind that the Fed is not responsible for the spending habits of the executive branch and the congress. Taxes are levied by the Treasury Dept. (not the Fed), and spending programs come from the White House and Congress (not the Fed). Please don't blame the Fed for our deficits.
September 6, 2009 at 8:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Joe Meglen: About the Fed
Whew! I don't know where to begin to respond to everyone's comments.
Meglen: You're right about central planning not working very well, but since when have we had central planning in the U.S.?
Ybul and Meglen: Yes, people and companies should be held accountable for their actions, but the Fed will not allow the country to go down the drain economically just to impose some discipline on bad behavior. That is what the Fed did at the start of the Great Depression, and it was an economic disaster for the country and imposed terrible costs on just about everyone. Is that what you want to do just to impose "discipline" on a few bad actors? The Fed will never allow the economy to crash and will do whatever it takes to keep the country afloat economically--and that includes lending out gobs of money to anyone who needs it and has some collateral to put up (toxic or otherwise). You may recall that this is the whole reason that the Fed was founded in the first place--to be a lender of last resort.
Ybul: Don't confuse central banking in developing countries with central banking in the U.S. In most countries, the central bank is the local money arm of whatever administration is in power. In the U.S. the Federal Reserve was specifically structured so as to provide a strong degree of independence from both Congress and the executive branch. There are numerous instances in history of the Fed resisting congressional and executive branch calls for easy money
policies.
JLM: you're right in saying that a little inflation is a good thing for our economy. Not sure you're correct about the amount of toxic assets currently held by the Fed. At this point, the true value of the Fed's loan collateral is not known by anyone, the Fed included.
Everyone: Why does everyone bash the government (local, state, federal) as the biggest meanie in town? Without government it is doubtful that people would follow the rules that make for an orderly society, including business practices and criminal behavior. Without government we would have collusive behavior, little or no national defense, little infrastructure, no judicial system and a host of other ills. I'm always amused when people say that we don't need government or that government is too intrusive or too costly. Don't forget that we live in a representative democracy, and so not every dollar you are taxed will be spent on things that you personally approve of. The best you can do is to vote for the person who most closely believes what you believe in, no?
September 5, 2009 at 11:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Joe Meglen: About the Fed
Carlyle: your last point first--I've long since retired from the Fed, but you make a good point regarding the federal government as the employer of last resort for Ph.D. economists! We used to get a good laugh over that one ourselves!
I think you are wrong in blaming, somehow, the Federal Reserve for our recent economic woes (In fact, I like to think that Bernanke's Fed prevented a true meltdown.). Greenspan may have kept interest rates too low for too long (he was a political animal, you know; everyone in D.C. is), but there is plenty of blame to spread around on other players in both the public and private sectors when considering our recent economic troubles.
Yes, central bankers make mistakes, and sometimes those mistakes are costly. Other times, central bankers get it right and everybody wins. Have you an alternative to central banking? Friedman, as you know, was proven wrong in the end, and strict monetarism has largely passed away from serious economic consideration.
Some would have us return to the gold standard--an unrealistic and deeply flawed system of managing money and economic activity. It may have worked to some extent in a bygone era of simpler times, but by even the 19th century its serious limitations were recognized.
There are, in fact, many interesting things that one could discuss about central banking and the Fed, and not all of them put the Fed in a complimentary light. For sure, it has made some spectacular blunders, and any reasonable person should be open to rational and informed discussion about the Fed's overall performance. I simply find it much harder, however, to tolerate the kind of blind rantings contained in Mr. Meglen's comments.
By the way, Ms. Rivlin, whom Mr. Meglen enjoys maligning, is a brilliant and wonderful person who has spent most of her life as a dedicated and underpaid servant of the people. It's hard to believe that she once was a secretive and conspiratorial central banker!
September 4, 2009 at 3:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Joe Meglen: About the Fed
I enjoyed reading this article and the comments it provoked, because, collectively, they demonstrate once again the extraordinary degree of ignorance and paranoia that most Americans have regarding the Federal Reserve System and the role it plays in our economy. Most of Mr. Meglen's assertions about the Fed ought to be hilarious to any serious student of U.S. financial history and the world's current financial system--hilarious, were it not for the fact that so many Americans seem ready to believe the type of conspiracy theory rubbish that makes up most of Mr. Meglen's statements.
Any college student who ever took econ 101 (even those sleeping at the back of the classroom at CMC, where I once taught econ) would know that most of your statements are misleading or flat-out incorrect. I actually laughed out loud to myself when I read several of them. You must be reading some pretty strange stuff to have developed so many wrong ideas about how the Fed and the rest of the financial world works. Surprisingly, you were right or near-right on a few statements (e.g., that the Fed played an important role in perpetuating the Great Depression), so your article is not totally idiotic. Most of the rest of your statements, however, are untrue or very misleading at best (e.g., that "the Fed is neither federal nor has reserves"--trust me on this one; I was a senior economist at the Fed in Washington, D.C. and worked there 31 years--the Federal Reserve System is federal in structure and does hold bank reserves).
It's too bad that Mr. Meglen holds such ignorant and negative views about the Fed; worse yet that he proselytizes in this manner. Oh sure, the Fed isn't perfect and has not always hit the mark in terms of promoting economic growth, full employment, and price stability (some of its many legal mandates). But it is also not even remotely the secretive, conspiratorial institution that Meglen makes it out to be.
People who experience discomfort or loss when complex or incomprehensible problems befall them often look for (and invent) simple-minded explanations (usually incorrect) and bogeymen on which to lay blame. I would urge Mr. Meglen and the other commenters on his piece to read some serious, more academic accounts of U.S. economic history and the development of the Federal Reserve System. Conspiracy theories, while lots of fun, usually take a person down the wrong road to understanding.
September 3, 2009 at 11:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Man bears large cross walking from Texas
Who you callin' "boy"?
July 17, 2009 at 7:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Debt looms for Fortress
Everybody--OK; I hereby retire from the political discussion above. In fact, I would like to hear some discussion of the Fortress/Intrawest debt refinancing myself. Seems like it could have some big implications for the ski area. . . .AC
October 23, 2008 at 4:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )