In sanctimonious style, after his colleague at the Fed, David Andolfatto, called Ron Paul a pinhead and said Ron Paul's argument was stupid, after Williamson taunted me, after I replied to his email taunt by sending him a copy of my reply along with the sentence "Bring it on!" to which he replied in an email to me: "Sure, you cheap thug", he now writes:
I have just had an experience where two groups of readers met each other, neither appreciated what the other group was up to, and nothing of value got accomplished. So I deleted that post, and wrote it off to experience.Actually, I think a lot got accomplished. Two Federal Reserve economists were exposed for their sloppy thinking. To this day, although they have taunted me and called me a cheap thug, they have not responded to my arguments against their analysis.
David Andolfatto, Vice President in the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, has still not responded to my argument against his point that a 95% decline in the value of the dollar was not harmful. I wrote:
That's it, the beginning and end of Andolfatto's Fed defense of destroying 95% of the value of the dollar. It all works out in the end, says Andolfatto. But, please, Mr. Andolfatto explain to me how this works out for someone who has been a careful saver of his money and now sees the purchasing power of that money destroyed? Please explain to me how this works out for a retired person on a fixed income who sees the declining purchasing power of that income? Please explain to me how this works out for the rest of the country when Wall Street bankers are the first to get their hands on newly printed Fed money, so that they can bid up all kinds of prices, including rents on apartments, which makes it difficult for anyone but a Wall Streeter to afford to live in Manhattan?Now, it's not a case that Andolfatto hasn't seen my post or thought the post not worthy of reply. He wrote to me in an email:
These damages, Mr. Andolfatto, you somehow don't see and even think Ron Paul is stupid and a pinhead for raising questions about them.
You ask some good questions in your post and I'll do my best to address them.Perhaps, we will hear from him down the road with a reply.
But, Willaimson did reply with a post. He included the link in his "cheap thug" email to me:
This is the post that is now down. Let me guess as to why it was really taken down. Somebody else at the Fed, who perhaps understands a little more economics than Williamson, saw the post in horror and realized that Williamson, who I emphasize is a Fed economist, continued to totally confuse seignorage and modern inflation. (He does title his new post, about the removal of his earlier post:Taking Mike's Advice)
The post was a total embarrassment to the Federal Reserve. I planned this afternoon to take a bigger bite out of Williamson, with regard to his confusion on inflation. But alas the post is gone. Here's my challenge to Williamson:
Mr Williamson, if you think your post is so logically sound, put it back up for all to see. What can be the harm in that? It is your very own writing, i.e. the analysis of a college economics professor and economist at the Fed. Shouldn't the public know what your thinking on inflation is?
Or should I repeat the words you emailed to me:
....you don't seem to be holding up your end. Intellect feeling down?
UPDATE: Thanks to all of you who have sent me links to cached versions of Williamson's rant. There appears to be several versions, some with more detailed discussions on "seignorage'. I'll respond to the more detailed rant later this week.