Straight Light
II. Federal Reserve And I.O.Us.: Hard To Countenance Perceptions Mistaken As Facts
Edwin SumcadWhen nosey-snoopy characters volunteer a diagnosis of the ills of our financial system and fault them all on the role of the Federal Reserve, misleading exaggeration rears its ugly head.
I would love to see a public debate with Ron Paul and Mr. Sumcad. The truth would come out and all this disinformation would be transparent to anyone listening. The fed needs to go and quit bleeding our country dry.
To refer to your own "bio";
He was a UN-World Bank-ILO scholar that specialized on monetary and fiscal policies, multilateral trade negotiations and regional economic cooperation.
and;
retired diplomat and former deputy permanent representative to the United Nations.
This is very important to ignore because this country is in trouble and we need to publicly communicate to each other amicably, clearly, fairly and squarely the problems that bugged us, and with fresh and new ideas respond to the call of the day. We need to be part of a responsible – not irresponsible – Media, where the space we write on is too narrow to accommodate personal attacks that when allowed would only lead us to nowhere. Once again, sirs, thank you.
To RickStone: You want Paul and Sumcad to debate on Sumcad's turf background-wise. That might not be fair to Paul. Paul is an MD. Medicine or healthcare is not the issue in the debate you have in mind. He has no formal background in advance economics whereas Sumcad's background in development economics is extensive, and as a UN-ILO-World-Bank specialist on monetary economics of which the subject of central banking is his bread and butter, his commanding authority in this discipline is not only impeccable but overwhelming to Paul.
The Congressman from Texas is a Libertarian politician whose values are too radical towards the left, and his views are not even coming from mainstream Conservative and Republican values. Nobody wants to debate with him and just waste time.
In the Iowa Republican Caucus on taxation even his colleagues in the Republican Party wanting to debate the important issue of taxation banned him from participating. Don't just rely on what I am stating here. Surf the Web. And this is not without a cogent reason.
Who do you think would debate with a politician who blames America – not the Al Qaeda terrorists – for the wanton destruction and mass murder of more than three thousand Americans in 9/11? Just recently, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke deliberately evaporated from the House Financial Services Committee hearing when informed that Paul was attending. Bernanke's presence would have been ornamental to Paul's YouTube baby that's now playing in the Web and I have no doubt that the Fed Chairman would have hated it. I mean, I like Paul because his supporters are beating the Libertarian campaign drum that he is a gentleperson. I believe he is because my son is also a doctor who is quite gentle to life he is saving in the practice of medicine. I even receive e-mails asking to support Paul's libertarian crusade, whatever that is or might be. But his ideas, philosophical deportment and ideology are too extreme many think he is a jolly odd fellow.
But I do understand why no one wants to debate with him. From those coming from a high profile list of public figures, I also doubt if Sumcad would debate with him. They are not fairly matched, at least for two reasons: One, the debate would only be a learning process for Paul because the esoteric subject of the debate which covers economic development and monetary economics is not his forte, and two, the debate will just be a teaching moment for Sumcad because he will not be debating – he will just be lecturing like he used to in the academe! It would be so boring that no sponsor will come forward to host the public encounter.
However, this is just my considered opinion on the matter. If you have a better one … please don't hesitate – fire.
To JetL.ex-RN: After reading the editorial, you concluded that you know who is paying the author's bills. You also jumped to a rather acerbic and rush conclusion that the author is "nothing more than a New World Order Confidence Artist"!
This comment is on the person of the writer rather than on the issues he brought up in his editorial. It is bordering on what is "crude" or "lewd". I once more serve notice to the editorial management that if this continues, this kind of personal attack violates the website's guideline and should be deleted.
Lowering the ax on the neck of the author rather than confront him on those issues he brought up in his written editorial may be a source of sadistic enjoyment but it violates the published standard of editorial decency and civility aside from the fact that the comment itself is absurd. The rush conclusion proceeds from the wrong premise, that the author is a "New World Order Confidence Artist". This is a derogatory insinuation, not a fact. The author does NOT advocate the formation of the "New World Order", and falsely projecting him as such by your insinuation is clearly injurious.
If you are against the "New World Order", that is your privilege. You have the freedom of choice like any of us. But because Bill Ayers, the notorious American bomber on record, is heading a campaign against the "New World Order", it does not necessarily mean that he is paying your bills, does it?
I am demonstrating to you the absurdity of your comment.
Sumcad, the author, just published another editorial: II. Federal Reserve And I.O.Us.: Hard To Countenance Perceptions Mistaken As Facts http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Editorial-Page.htm?InfoNo=044466. It is about rushing into a judgment where perceptions such as yours are mistaken as facts. It misleads the public. I am sure if you read this enlightening editorial, something can be learned from it.
To JetL.ex-RN: After reading the editorial, you concluded that you know who is paying the author's bills. You also jumped to a rather acerbic and rush conclusion that the author is "nothing more than a New World Order Confidence Artist"!
This comment is on the person of the writer rather than on the issues he brought up in his editorial. It is bordering on what is "crude" or "lewd". I once more serve notice to the editorial management that if this continues, this kind of personal attack violates the website's guideline and should be deleted.
Lowering the ax on the neck of the author rather than confront him on those issues he brought up in his written editorial may be a source of sadistic enjoyment but it violates the published standard of editorial decency and civility aside from the fact that the comment itself is absurd. The rush conclusion proceeds from the wrong premise, that the author is a "New World Order Confidence Artist". This is a derogatory insinuation, not a fact. The author does NOT advocate the formation of the "New World Order", and falsely projecting him as such by your insinuation is clearly injurious.
If you are against the "New World Order", that is your privilege. You have the freedom of choice like any of us. But because Bill Ayers, the notorious American bomber on record, is heading a campaign against the "New World Order", it does not necessarily mean that he is paying your bills, does it?
I am demonstrating to you the absurdity of your comment.
Sumcad, the author, just published another editorial: II. Federal Reserve And I.O.Us.: Hard To Countenance Perceptions Mistaken As Facts http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Editorial-Page.htm?InfoNo=044466. It is about rushing into a judgment where perceptions such as yours are mistaken as facts. It misleads the public. I am sure if you read this enlightening editorial, something can be learned from it.
Let it be known; my Mother taught me right. I know how to be civil, polite even, and I am for the most part. That being said, I can't even to pretend to care who gets offended by something I say in the comment section of a "freedom" website. That's what it's for - a forum to state your opinion on what you've read.
It speaks volumes about a person who would become so indignant over two sentences, so much so that they would take the time and effort to write not one, but two lengthy letters in reply.
Hmmmm, It makes me wonder if the responder is:
a) the Government
b) Edwin's over-protective Mom, or
c) Edwin's henpecking wife/life partner
I stand firmly by the fact that my reply wasn't foul. The only thing that's foul is the "pee-e-yew" that's been created by the replier.
Normally, I wouldn't even reply to such an obtuse fusion of smarmy editorial ass-kissery and milquetoast parley, but I'm not going to sit by idly while some self-righteous gasbag tries to force-feed me political-correctness like I'm some gape-mawed eaglet. Be offended, be offended all you like.
That is all.
See what I mean? Read your latest comment again. Where the hell can you find our discussion of the Federal Reserve? You are using this Forum to discuss love for your Mother – for heavens' sake!
Molly, my six-year-old grandchild who loves her mother so much can, hands down, beat you to it! But we are not going there, and you cannot make me go there where you lost yourself.
The topic – or to help put you back into the line of discussion when you strayed and relished on personalities, the SUBJECT of this online debate -- is MONETARY ECONOMICS-cum-FEDERAL RESERVE. Author Sumcad wrote down a lot of eye-openers about this subject out of his experience in the field of discipline and from the academe. And you sounded too condescending on what he wrote on his essay. SHOW US WHAT YOU GOT on monetary economics and the Federal Reserve. If you cannot come up with something relevant to the subject, I suggest this space should be given to others who need it.
To show you how to start a talking point outside of the personal bias towards personalities – this does not belong here – read my comments and yours. Two-copy comment was posted on purpose to make you read it twice.
Compare them to yours. You will see the difference … yes, you can. That's what you need. It will guide you to what you are supposed to do in this Forum!
Don't thank me as of yet … maybe later. We need to talk about our economic debacle. How nice is your Mom to you – we will talk about it in some other time.
If American people control own money, they not be subjected to outside forces spending trillions of dollars of money they no have when Fed give beaucoup dollars to already rich foreign banks. They laugh as they stick it to regular American. "Ha Ha douchebag", they say.
This leave American people very, very sad and in debt forever. Maybe cause collapse of entire system and lead to revolution.
So, essence of arguement is, no Federal Reserve, no revolution. Then no problem. You see now?
That is Prize-worthy.
In total awe, :-)
charzhome