"Gold is at $1757.20 up $31.30 (+1.85%)"
And where is gold from its recent high? And silver?Uh Gene,
Hey, let's cherry pick the prices we need to make our case!
The post was titled, The Developing Price Inflation. I was simply pointing out a trend, I see developing.
Do you not think gold, silver, oil and copper will hit new highs over the next 12 months?
Do you not expect accelerating price inflation?
Are you in Paul Krugman's deflation camp?
Gold is within a hair's breadth of a new high. Should I wait until it spikes to new highs before I bring this to the attention of EPJ readers?
His comment is idiotic on many levels and I think you do a disservice to your site by giving it this much attention.
ReplyDeleteIf Gene replies he will correctly point out that just because he highlighted a weakness in your argument, that doesn't necessarily mean he is in the deflation camp (or any camp) nor does his opinion of whether or not gold/silver will move higher have any relevance to your "cherry picking data to make your case."
What Gene will not admit to is that you have done no such thing. In a post prefaced with "TODAY'S price future changes" you correctly report on the price changes. As any regular reader of EPJ is aware, this is one of hundreds of posts in which you are making the case for
developing price inflation.
As you correctly point out, developing price inflation refers to what is coming. Not only is referencing where gold is in relation to its all time high, an example of the very thing Gene was criticizing you for - cherry picking your data! - it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not price inflation will begin increasing, from where we are today.
What is even more hilarious is that he again cherry-picks from this very one post. If we want to ignore the enormous body of work you have written the past 6 months making the case for coming price inflation and erroneously treat one short post titled "today's price future changes" as being emblamatic of your entire argument for coming price inflation, (which obviously is absurd) he cherry picks even further by ignoring the other commodities you listed in the post and cherry-picks only gold/silver!
Which he then arbitrarily decides to compare to their all time high. Why not where they were 30 days ago? Or 60 days ago? In a case for what is occurring now and will increase in the future, one would think ignoring the trend and focusing on the all time high is about as helpful as dismissing an increase in yr/yr CPI change from 2010 -2011 because the CPI rose much faster during stagflation of the 70s...
I'm a little perplexed by Gene's recent comments on EPJ. As someone who wrote a great book (that I've recommended to beginners), his recent comments don't match up.
ReplyDeleteI imagine the most sensible thought Gene is having in response to this one is...
ReplyDelete"I was simply pointing out a trend, I see developing."
should read:
"I was simply pointing out a trend that I see developing."
Why even give Gene the time of day?
(PS: This is a reference to Gene's recent blog post "He's in It to Wing It!" in which Gene criticized Robert Wenzel's grammar)
What is with Gene Callahan? 5 years ago he admonished minarchists and rightly pointed out that they still sought to use violence in achieving political aims:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan154.html
Now he is spending his days as a snarky blogger who when is not hating gold or theorising inane situations to mock anarcho-capitalists is either trying his best to marginalise Ron Paul (despite having expressed a willingness to work with minarchists on political aims in the LRC article) or is authoring hit pieces on yourself.
This is a guy who only 10 years ago was a fully fledged Rothbardian (see Economics for Real People) and is now a proud statist.
http://gene-callahan.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/weakest-argument-for-anarchism-ever.html?m=1
^In the comments at his blog article above he describes himself 5 years ago as a nitwit and casually dismisses the views which he no doubt spent decades forming into his books and LRC writings. This is just a shocking transformation but I guess it makes sense, not everyone has the mental grit to withstand decades of opposition and total marginalisation and still remain steadfastly true to their principles like the greats Mises and Rothbard did and consequently not everyone will be remembered something heroically like some of the greats, remember 'tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito'.
interesting...this answers the perplexity that I mentioned above. I had no idea he abandoned his earlier views. Sad to hear.
DeleteGene Callahan loves him some Gene Callahan. He's just not as important or as smart as he believes himself to be.
Delete