<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>>…</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Clark<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [ExI] Warren Buffett is worried too and thinks Republicans are "asinine"<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 6:57 PM, spike <<a href="mailto:spike66@att.net" target="_blank">spike66@att.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> > John what do you make of this?<br><br><a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/tea-party-science-98488.html?hp=r3">http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/tea-party-science-98488.html?hp=r3</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal> <br><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span>Not much, there are no details. I have some details, what do you make of this?<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span>TEA PARTY member and presidential candidate Senator Rick Santorum<span style='color:#1F497D'>…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Etc. John, it is much easier to paint your political adversaries as crazy and stupid than it is to deal with their contentions. Economics and biology are two completely different disciplines. Many biologists are clued in on economics either. We could likely find plenty of them who couldn’t tell Hayek from Keynes.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span> the claim can be made that there is no evidence that the Tea Party is an extreme wing of either end of the political spectrum.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><br><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span>No evidence of extremism??!! 18 republican senators (including all the potential GOP 2016 presidential candidates) and the vast majority of republican house members voted AGAINST averting a economic catastrophe<span style='color:#1F497D'>…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Ja, and plenty of those were not extremists. My contention is that we cannot tell for instance which wing is Ted Cruz. He could be far left as well as far right. Recall that the two farthest left members of congress in 2004 and 2006 were the strongest voices against raising the debt limit, Charlie Rangel and Barack Obama. When both switched sides, I was as appalled but perhaps less surprised than if Christopher Hitchins and Richard Dawkins had taken up creationism.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span>The difference between the government’s debts and yours is that the government has the power to print money and you don’t, so yes, they are paying off their debts by cranking up the printing presses<span style='color:#1F497D'>…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>OK then, we have discovered the basis of our disagreement. John how could you be right in the middle of all this debate yet still not realize the government needs to borrow money in order to print it? Printing money and borrowing wealth are the same thing. The debt limit is all about how much money the government can issue. The government needs to borrow real wealth and stay within its borrowing limit in order to print money.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Of course they could theoretically print money without borrowing wealth. This has been tried, in Weimar Germany and more recently Zimbabwe. The Germans supposed they would just need to make more sturdy wheelbarrows and all would be well. The Zimbabwe government assumed they could just print new money every few months with an extra zero tacked onto the denominations. I wasn’t there, but I understand it turned out badly in both cases.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>><span style='color:#1F497D'>…</span> Earlier I had an alternative suggestion to repeatedly raising the government borrowing limit: we sell the gold in Fort Knox. Every American to whom I suggested this thought it a terrible idea.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span>If they’re not tea party members I’m not surprised<span style='color:#1F497D'>…</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>So why are we hording that stuff? It isn’t used for anything useful anymore.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>><span style='color:#1F497D'>…</span> is not that identical to selling the actual gold?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span>No.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Why? If there is a good reason to hang onto gold, why not sell that new aircraft carrier, the John F. Kennedy? That one is said to have cost about 12 billion, so we can assume it would sell for about the same. Stock it with American made fighter planes gets it to about 15B. At the current rate, just one battle-ready modern nuclear carrier with planes would cover US government borrowing for nearly a entire week. Well, OK, five days if we want to split hairs and quibble over a mere few billion dollars.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal> ><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span> Are we admitting these IOUs are not as good as gold, but rather are as good as paper?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span> And on October 23 2013 thanks to the Tea Party we came within 90 minutes of that faith being destroyed forever<span style='color:#1F497D'>…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>The fact that there is a Tea Party is what keeps the world having some faith in the dollar. What if we had no one who thought there was anything wrong with borrowing the cost of a nuclear aircraft carrier every five days?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>> <span style='color:#1F497D'>…</span> the other cause by the room temperature IQ of congressional Tea Party members. <span style='color:#1F497D'> </span>John K Clark<span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>It is far easier to declare your adversary a crazy fool than it is to actually refute his actual arguments. The Tea Party is gently suggesting that we cannot sustain the endless borrowing and overspending the way we have been doing for at least 14 years. You are saying the Tea Party is made up of crazy fools, therefore their arguments can be safely dismissed. Does that mean you believe we can sustain the borrow and spend indefinitely?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>spike<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>