Trump election panel asks all 50 states for voter roll data

[CPUd]

Trump election panel asks all 50 states for voter roll data
BY BRANDON CARTER - 06/29/17 03:50 PM EDT 611


The vice chairman of President Trump’s commission on election integrity sent a letter to all 50 states Wednesday requesting information on their voter rolls.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach is seeking several pieces of information about voters, including their names, birthdays, the last four digits of their Social Security numbers and their voting history dating back to 2006.

The letter, sent to the secretaries of state of all 50 states and obtained by The Hill, directs states to turn over “publicly-available voter roll data including, if publicly available under the laws of your state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, [and] voter history from 2006 onward.”


Kobach’s letter asks states to respond to a list of questions about voting in their states, inquiring about “law, policies or other issues hinder your ability to ensure the integrity of elections you administer.” He also asks for information about “convictions for election -related crimes” since the November 2000 presidential election.

The letter also stipulates that documents submitted to the commission “will also be made available to the public.” States were given a deadline of July 14 to submit the info to the commission.

Jason Kander, the head the Democratic National Committee’s Commission on Protecting American Democracy from the Trump Administration, blasted the letter in a statement, calling it “very concerning.”

"It's obviously very concerning when the federal government is attempting to get the name, address, birth date, political party and Social Security number of every voter in the country,” Kander said. “ I certainly don't trust the Trump Administration with that information, and people across the country should be outraged."

Connecticut said it will comply with the commission's request "in the spirit of transparency," but its secretary of state, Denise Merrill, also issued a challenge to Kobach.

"In the same spirit of transparency, we will request that the Commission share any memos, meeting minutes or additional information as state officials have not been told precisely what the Commission is looking for," Merrill wrote.

"This lack of openness is all the more concerning, considering that the Vice Chair of the Commission, Kris Kobach, has a lengthy record of illegally disenfranchising eligible voters in Kansas."

Vice President Pence announced Wednesday that the election integrity commission would meet for the first time in July. Pence, who is chairing the commission, told its members that the group’s focus will be to “protect and preserve the principle of one person, one vote.”

Trump signed an executive order in May establishing the commission, stating that the purpose of the group is to “promote fair and honest federal elections.”

Kobach and Trump have both made unsubstantiated claims that large numbers of undocumented immigrants vote in U.S. elections.

In January, Kobach told Fox Business that “it will be impossible to ever know what the exact number is of non-citizens voting. I think it probably was [millions]."

"If you take the whole country, I think it is probably in excess of a million, if you take the entire country for sure," Kobach said at the time.

Trump, meanwhile, has said he would have won the popular vote in November had it not been for fraud.

"In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally," Trump wrote on Twitter in November.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/340117-trump-election-integrity-commission-requests-years-of-voter-data-from

[Natural Citizen]

relevant reading.... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?503978-The-very-first-thing-that-Trump-needs-to-do&p=6359428&viewfull=1#post6359428

[CPUd]

Governor McAuliffe Statement on Request from Trump Elections Commission


RICHMOND – Governor Terry McAuliffe released the following statement in response to a letter directed to Virginia and other states from the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity:

“Today the Commonwealth and the other 49 states received a lengthy request from Kris Kobach, the Vice Chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, requesting a list of all registered Virginia voters, the last four digits of their social security numbers, their addresses, date of birth, political affiliation, and their voting history. The Vice Chair’s letter also contained a list of vague inquiries about the election policies and laws of the Commonwealth.

“I have no intention of honoring this request. Virginia conducts fair, honest, and democratic elections, and there is no evidence of significant voter fraud in Virginia. This entire commission is based on the specious and false notion that there was widespread voter fraud last November. At best this commission was set up as a pretext to validate Donald Trump’s alternative election facts, and at worst is a tool to commit large-scale voter suppression.

“The only irregularity in the 2016 presidential election centered around Russian tampering, a finding that has been confirmed by 17 of our intelligence agencies and sworn testimony delivered to several congressional committees. In 131 days Virginia’s Department of Elections will again conduct a statewide election for the offices of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General, as well as 100 House of Delegates races and numerous other positions. I’m not going to divert resources that could potentially compromise that important work to enable this politically motivated and silly posturing.”

https://governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/newsarticle?articleId=20595

[William Tell]

I don't like this.

[Lamp]

Its a breach of privacy it is.

[timosman]

I hope they have nothing to hide.:cool:

[CPUd]

880594493799632897
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/880594493799632897

[CPUd]

880855717518901248
https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/880855717518901248

[specsaregood]

880855717518901248
https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/880855717518901248

I don't understand the point of this tweet. The directive specifically states:


“publicly-available voter roll data including, if publicly available under the laws of your state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, [and] voter history from 2006 onward.”

only publically available data, so whats the problem? Maybe there should be a reading and comprehension test before one can assume the role of SOS.

[dannno]

https://governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/newsarticle?articleId=20595

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448098/virginia-voter-fraud-report-noncitizens-voted-illegally

[CPUd]

I don't understand the point of this tweet. The directive specifically states:


only publically available data, so whats the problem? Maybe their should be a reading and comprehension test before one can assume the role of SOS.

It's a roundabout way of saying "get it yourself like everyone else does"

[opal]

I don't understand the point of this tweet. The directive specifically states:


only publically available data, so whats the problem? Maybe their should be a reading and comprehension test before one can assume the role of SOS.

Seconds the reading comprehension test.. also for anyone running for office or being considered for an appointed position

[specsaregood]

It's a roundabout way of saying "get it yourself like everyone else does"

No it is not. Its an intentional attempt to obfuscate the issue and look tough.

[dannno]

only publically available data, so whats the problem?

Trump is literally Hitler.

[CPUd]

No it is not. Its an intentional attempt to obfuscate the issue and look tough.

They're not authorized to give them the last 4 digits of their SSN or party registration

[specsaregood]

They're not authorized to give them the last 4 digits of their SSN or party registration

Maybe you should reread the directive yourself if you think that is even worth mentioning. Or go back to posting stupid cat photos.

[CPUd]

http://i.imgur.com/eQ9u1KW.jpg

[TheCount]

The magic word that gets neoconservatives to support national databases is terrorism.


Evidently, the magic phrase for many here is voter fraud.

[Swordsmyth]

The magic word that gets neoconservatives to support national databases is terrorism.


Evidently, the magic phrase for many here is voter fraud.

Setting aside the details of Dump's request and just dealing with the philosophy, the Constitution states that the Federal government is to: guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government
Voter fraud destroys a "republican form of government"
Federal investigation of voter fraud is therefore Constitutional, the details may not be.

[CPUd]

880895223978700801
https://twitter.com/MSTODAYnews/status/880895223978700801

[TheCount]

Setting aside the details of Dump's request and just dealing with the philosophy, the Constitution states that the Federal government is to: guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government
Voter fraud destroys a "republican form of government"
Federal investigation of voter fraud is therefore Constitutional, the details may not be.

Are you saying that you believe that it was the founders' intent for the Federal government to oversee elections inside the states?

[Swordsmyth]

Are you saying that you believe that it was the founders' intent for the Federal government to oversee elections inside the states?
To correct Voter Fraud or other tyrannical actions that steal the power of government from the people.
Constant oversight is not necessary but would not be unconstitutional.

[angelatc]

It's a roundabout way of saying "get it yourself like everyone else does"

It clearly says Indiana law doesn't allow the SOS to provide the data. Even though the directive clearly states that state laws reign supreme.

[angelatc]

Are you saying that you believe that it was the founders' intent for the Federal government to oversee elections inside the states?

ARTICLE I, SECTION 4, CLAUSE 1

[CPUd]

It clearly says Indiana law doesn't allow the SOS to provide the data. Even though the directive clearly states that state laws reign supreme.

yes

[angelatc]

Maybe you should reread the directive yourself if you think that is even worth mentioning. Or go back to posting stupid cat photos.

Yep. On the rare occasions it tries to speak for itself, we see why most of its posts are simply links.

[spudea]

If there's no voter fraud then there is nothing to fear of an audit. At least audit their voter registration practices. California doesn't require an SSN and gives government IDs / drivers licenses to non-citizens / undocumented immigrants.

[CPUd]

880893706517315584
https://twitter.com/GovernorTomWolf/status/880893706517315584

[specsaregood]

880893706517315584
https://twitter.com/GovernorTomWolf/status/880893706517315584

another dumbass that cant read. They requested only information that is already publically available and specifically states only such information as is available by state laws.

[CPUd]

880822280795938816
https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/880822280795938816

[timosman]

another dumbass that cant read. They requested only information that is already publically available and specifically states only such information as is available by state laws.

Can we grandstand on this? Please clap.

[TheCount]

ARTICLE I, SECTION 4, CLAUSE 1
Does the establishment of a national voter database relate to the time, place, or manner of holding an election?

[Swordsmyth]

Does the establishment of a national voter database relate to the time, place, or manner of holding an election?
The Manner. Do they let ineligible people vote?

[TheCount]

The Manner. Do they let ineligible people vote?Which election is this database for?

How does establishing a database of voters for an election that has already occurred affect the manner in which that election was conducted?

[timosman]

Which election is this database for?

How does establishing a database of voters for an election that has already occurred affect the manner in which that election was conducted?

It's about the future. If it helps you think about the children.

[Swordsmyth]

Which election is this database for?

How does establishing a database of voters for an election that has already occurred affect the manner in which that election was conducted?
It will be used for future elections.

[oyarde]

This guy should call me first . I will sell them all publicly available info .

[TheCount]

It will be used for future elections.

I'm sure that it would be. As a campaign database, certainly. Names, addresses, and voting histories? Decent money there.

Haven't heard anyone say that, but if what you claim is true, what empowered them to enact such a thing in the first place?

[Swordsmyth]

Does the establishment of a national voter database relate to the time, place, or manner of holding an election?


The Manner. Do they let ineligible people vote?


I'm sure that it would be. As a campaign database, certainly. Names, addresses, and voting histories? Decent money there.

Haven't heard anyone say that, but if what you claim is true, what empowered them to enact such a thing in the first place?


Setting aside the details of Dump's request and just dealing with the philosophy, the Constitution states that the Federal government is to: guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government
Voter fraud destroys a "republican form of government"
Federal investigation of voter fraud is therefore Constitutional, the details may not be.

I did not endorse this current effort, which I do not know enough about.
But 2 different pieces of the Constitution have already been cited to justify Federal action on voter fraud.

[TheCount]

But 2 different pieces of the Constitution have already been cited to justify Federal action on voter fraud.

Your article 4 argument makes no sense whatsoever, and the article 1 argument only applies if you just conveniently forget that article 1 is about the legislature and not the executive.


Edit: According to the Supreme Court, Article 4 enforcement is also a matter for the legislature. So that once's out too. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/48/1/

[Swordsmyth]

Your article 4 argument makes no sense whatsoever, and the article 1 argument only applies if you just conveniently forget that article 1 is about the legislature and not the executive.


Edit: According to the Supreme Court, Article 4 enforcement is also a matter for the legislature. So that once's out too. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/48/1/

Since the executive branch is tasked with carrying out the laws that congress has created, then if congress has made a law to deal with voter fraud then that would authorize Dump to act on it, I am not an expert on federal voting law but I would be highly surprised if there is not a law about it.

P.S. Both you and the supreme court are wrong about Article 4.

[Swordsmyth]

Edit: According to the Supreme Court, Article 4 enforcement is also a matter for the legislature. So that once's out too. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/48/1/

Just where in that case did they say that?

[TheCount]

Since the executive branch is tasked with carrying out the laws that congress has created, then if congress has made a law to deal with voter fraud then that would authorize Dump to act on it, I am not an expert on federal voting law but I would be highly surprised if there is not a law about it.

What law enacted and empowered Trump's Committee?



P.S. Both you and the supreme court are wrong about Article 4.

P.S. You're attempting some general welfare clause levels of extrapolating vast government powers that conveniently happen to align with your political views from text that says nothing of the sort.

[TheCount]

Just where in that case did they say that?

The court is wrong about it before you've even managed to find their argument? Fascinating.

[Swordsmyth]

What law enacted and empowered Trump's Committee?
If there is a law covering election fraud, then he does not need a law to create his committee.

[TheCount]

If there is a law covering election fraud, then he does not need a law to create his committee.

There's a law covering jaywalking. Can he create a committee to study jaywalking and use it to create a national database of the entire American population for the purpose of jaywalking prevention?

P.S. No.

[Swordsmyth]

The court is wrong about it before you've even managed to find their argument? Fascinating.
Yes I can read the constitution for myself, it says nothing about what branch is involved in article 4. Therefore all branches are involved.

[Swordsmyth]

There's a law covering jaywalking. Can he create a committee to study jaywalking and use it to create a national database of the entire American population for the purpose of jaywalking prevention?
There is no Federal law against jay-walking and there is no constitutional basis for one.

[TheCount]

There is no Federal law against jay-walking and there is no constitutional basis for one.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBfPzqjXoAEDO7v.jpg



There's a federal law against credit card fraud. Can Trump, by executive order, create a national database of all Americans and all credit cards in order to prevent credit card fraud?

[Swordsmyth]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBfPzqjXoAEDO7v.jpg



There's a federal law against credit card fraud. Can Trump, by executive order, create a national database of all Americans and all credit cards in order to prevent credit card fraud?

Voter records are already government records, financial data is not.
If you ask me the state should not be keeping "voter history from 2006 onward." and I do not think therefore that the feds have a right to that.
I already said "Federal investigation of voter fraud is therefore Constitutional, the details may not be."

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The magic word that gets neoconservatives to support national databases is terrorism.




The magic word that gets liberals to support national databases is "guns." Right, Count?

Can't have it both ways, Count.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

You're attempting some general welfare clause levels of extrapolating vast government powers that conveniently happen to align with your political views from text that says nothing of the sort.


Hunh. TheCount is actually saying this? No, it can't be. It's a mistake!

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

It's about the future. If it helps you think about the children.



LOL.

[UWDude]

Voter records are already government records, financial data is not.


Guess The Count didn't think of that. He did however find a waste of space cartoon to post, as he oft does.

We have now seen The Count try to argue that the military, the borders, and elections do not fall under constitutional federal jurisdiction. He tries to cite things like he is a lawyer... ...but he is just a fail machine. It's funny.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The Count...is just a fail machine.



http://new-img1.cosmochina.com.cn/cosmo/128/842/liKfsONO5WDE.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/lj11uKKMhr4Os/giphy.gif

[TheCount]

Voter records are already government records, financial data is not.

Credit card usage is inter-state commerce, therefore under the purview of the federal government if we decide to get all 'every clause means everything we want' with the Constitution.

State ID records are also government records. Do you support REAL ID?



If you ask me the state should not be keeping "voter history from 2006 onward." and I do not think therefore that the feds have a right to that.

They actually requested voter data from 2000 onward.

[Swordsmyth]

Credit card usage is inter-state commerce, therefore under the purview of the federal government if we decide to get all 'every clause means everything we want' with the Constitution.
This is just lame, the "guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government" clause is in no way the same as the "interstate commerce" clause, and if it were you are still stuck with the clause giving congress power over federal elections, and the exectuive branches power to enforce federal election law.


State ID records are also government records. Do you support REAL ID?
Real ID forces the states to conform to certain standards for their state issued ID, and not just for voter ID, that is not the same as gathering and studying voter data that falls within the federal governments constitutional duty.

[CPUd]

881137079958241280
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/881137079958241280

[TheCount]

This is just lame, the "guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government" clause is in no way the same as the "interstate commerce" clause, and if it were you are still stuck with the clause giving congress power over federal elections, and the exectuive branches power to enforce federal election law.

It's exactly the same. At least the interstate commerce clause says regulate. The word guarantee is even more vague. If the federal government drew the states' voting districts themselves, that could be said to be guaranteeing a republican form of government.



Real ID forces the states to conform to certain standards for their state issued ID, and not just for voter ID, that is not the same as gathering and studying voter data that falls within the federal governments constitutional duty.


SEC. 203. LINKING OF DATABASES.

(a) In General.--To be eligible to receive any grant or other type
of financial assistance made available under this title, a State shall
participate in the interstate compact regarding sharing of driver
license data, known as the ``Driver License Agreement'', in order to
provide electronic access by a State to information contained in the
motor vehicle databases of all other States.
(b) Requirements for Information.--A State motor vehicle database
shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:
(1) All data fields printed on drivers' licenses and
identification cards issued by the State.
(2) Motor vehicle drivers' histories, including motor
vehicle violations, suspensions, and points on licenses.

[Swordsmyth]

It's exactly the same. At least the interstate commerce clause says regulate. The word guarantee is even more vague. If the federal government drew the states' voting districts themselves, that could be said to be guaranteeing a republican form of government.
No that would be :
ARTICLE I, SECTION 4, CLAUSE 1

The time, place, or manner of holding an election.

Guaranteeing a republican form of government means to ensure that the states are being run as republics, voter fraud converts a republican government into a dictatorship.

And ARTICLE I, SECTION 4, CLAUSE 1 gives the federal government jurisdiction anyway.


SEC. 203. LINKING OF DATABASES.

(a) In General.--To be eligible to receive any grant or other type
of financial assistance made available under this title, a State shall
participate in the interstate compact regarding sharing of driver
license data, known as the ``Driver License Agreement'', in order to
provide electronic access by a State to information contained in the
motor vehicle databases of all other States.
(b) Requirements for Information.--A State motor vehicle database
shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:
(1) All data fields printed on drivers' licenses and
identification cards issued by the State.
(2) Motor vehicle drivers' histories, including motor
vehicle violations, suspensions, and points on licenses.

Real ID is an unfunded mandate in an area that is not part of the feds constitutional purview. However they get away with it because it is not strictly mandatory, I am against it but it is not the same at all, and it is not the subject of this thread so I will not get lost debating it's details.

Prove that what Dump is doing is unconstitutional on it's own merits if you can.

[Ender]

No that would be :
ARTICLE I, SECTION 4, CLAUSE 1

The time, place, or manner of holding an election.

Guaranteeing a republican form of government means to ensure that the states are being run as republics, voter fraud converts a republican government into a dictatorship.

And ARTICLE I, SECTION 4, CLAUSE 1 gives the federal government jurisdiction anyway.


Real ID is an unfunded mandate in an area that is not part of the feds constitutional purview. However they get away with it because it is not strictly mandatory, I am against it but it is not the same at all, and it is not the subject of this thread so I will not get lost debating it's details.

Prove that what Dump is doing is unconstitutional on it's own merits if you can.

Actually, a driver's license is essentially unconstitutional. A license was originally ONLY for things that would be otherwise illegal- the right to travel was always part of freedom- marriage licenses are also unconstitutional; they came into being to stop inter-racial marriages.

The SSN is also unconstitutional.

[Swordsmyth]

Actually, a driver's license is essentially unconstitutional. A license was originally ONLY for things that would be otherwise illegal- the right to travel was always part of freedom-
DL laws make it illegal to drive a motor vehicle on public roads without one, Should it be illegal? that is a question for another thread.


marriage licenses are also unconstitutional; they came into being to stop inter-racial marriages.
Actually The U.S. Constitution has nothing to say about marriage, and again marriage licenses are a debate that belongs in another thread.


The SSN is also unconstitutional.
Absolutely.

[Ender]

DL laws make it illegal to drive a motor vehicle on public roads without one, Should it be illegal? that is a question for another thread.


Actually The U.S. Constitution has nothing to say about marriage, and again marriage licenses are a debate that belongs in another thread.


Absolutely.

If your talking about the constitutionality of using driver's license info for Fed scrutiny, then it is quite viable on this thread.

[Swordsmyth]

If your talking about the constitutionality of using driver's license info for Fed scrutiny, then it is quite viable on this thread.
That was TheCount trying to distract, this thread is about the voter fraud commission and voter records.

[Ender]

That was TheCount trying to distract, this thread is about the voter fraud commission and voter records.

Which should be headed by individual states and not the Fed.

[Swordsmyth]

Which should be headed by individual states and not the Fed.
I have shown that the Feds have jurisdiction, if you wish to convince me otherwise it will take more than your assertion.

[Ender]

This is just lame, the "guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government" clause is in no way the same as the "interstate commerce" clause, and if it were you are still stuck with the clause giving congress power over federal elections, and the exectuive branches power to enforce federal election law.



Maybe the Fed should start with itself first- it has not operated like a republic since at least 1913 and even before.

[Ender]

I have shown that the Feds have jurisdiction, if you wish to convince me otherwise it will take more than your assertion.


Article 1, Section 4 of the US Constitution.


Clause 1. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Explanation:
The Constitution generally leaves it up to the states to organize congressional elections, but gives Congress the power to set new rules for federal elections as it sees fit. In 1842, Congress passed an important law requiring single-member district elections in every state, standardizing congressional election practices nationwide. The same law set one standard Election Day—the Tuesday after the first Monday in November—throughout the country. We still use the same Election Day today.


http://www.shmoop.com/constitution/article-1-section-4.html

[Swordsmyth]

http://www.shmoop.com/constitution/article-1-section-4.html


Since the executive branch is tasked with carrying out the laws that congress has created, then if congress has made a law to deal with voter fraud then that would authorize Dump to act on it, I am not an expert on federal voting law but I would be highly surprised if there is not a law about it.

[Swordsmyth]

Maybe the Fed should start with itself first- it has not operated like a republic since at least 1913 and even before.
Since Federal office holders are elected in elections held by the states it would be impossible for the feds to reform if the states are conducting voter fraud.

[CPUd]

Hopefully President Donald will use this database to eliminate voter fraud by purging the rolls of billions of dead Mexicans and on the next election we can get 100% turnout of Real Americans who will guarantee Donald gets reelected and also a tremendous popular vote win!

[TheCount]

Since the executive branch is tasked with carrying out the laws that congress has created, then if congress has made a law to deal with voter fraud then that would authorize Dump to act on it, I am not an expert on federal voting law but I would be highly surprised if there is not a law about it.

A law on a topic does not magically empower the executive branch to do whatever it pleases.

[Swordsmyth]

A law on a topic does not magically empower the executive branch to do whatever it pleases.
It authorizes it to enforce the law and investigate allegations of law-breaking.

[CPUd]

880821475577659392
https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo/status/880821475577659392

[specsaregood]

880821475577659392
https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo/status/880821475577659392

another grandstander that will quietly comply with the request while pretending to be tough. Otherwise, watching them go to prison for refusing to turn over public records requests will be fun.

[nikcers]

It wasn't the russians clinton has a clawhand.

[Ender]

It authorizes it to enforce the law and investigate allegations of law-breaking.

And states have the right of nullification. Here's Ron Paul on the subject:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?512488-Declaring-Independence-A-Novel-Idea!&p=6493523#post6493523

[Swordsmyth]

And states have the right of nullification. Here's Ron Paul on the subject:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?512488-Declaring-Independence-A-Novel-Idea!&p=6493523#post6493523

Nullification of laws against voter fraud would constitute declaring a non-republican form of government, the offending state should then be expelled from the union, or Federal intervention would be appropriate upon application for redress of grievances by the citizens of the offending state.

[TheCount]

Nullification of laws against voter fraud would constitute declaring a non-republican form of government, the offending state should then be expelled from the union, or Federal intervention would be appropriate upon application for redress of grievances by the citizens of the offending state.And you say that you're not a statist.

[Swordsmyth]

And you say that you're not a statist.
I'm most certainly not, if the citizens of that state enjoy having a non-republican form of government they can chose to leave or be expelled from the union.

CALExit.

[Ender]

Nullification of laws against voter fraud would constitute declaring a non-republican form of government, the offending state should then be expelled from the union, or Federal intervention would be appropriate upon application for redress of grievances by the citizens of the offending state.

We don't have a republic now- that was destroyed by the War Between the States and completely buried by 1913.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

And you say that you're not a statist.


Kind of ironic coming from you.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

A law on a topic does not magically empower the executive branch to do whatever it pleases.


Who said it did?

[Madison320]

Kind of ironic coming from you.

I'd like to ask Count if he's thinks the states have the right to secede, but I don't have the energy to ask 3 times and then decipher the answers.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I'd like to ask Count if he's thinks the states have the right to secede, but I don't have the energy to ask 3 times and then decipher the answers.


Too bad that schlep is stuck in South Carolina. He referred to it as the Anus of the Carolinas. He hates S Carolina more than he hates liberty.

[TheCount]

I'd like to ask Count if he's thinks the states have the right to secede, but I don't have the energy to ask 3 times and then decipher the answers.I don't think governments have rights.


If you're asking if states should be able to secede, then yes, I do think that they should be able to.

[Madison320]

I don't think governments have rights.


If you're asking if states should be able to secede, then yes, I do think that they should be able to.

Do you support the south's right to secede before the civil war?

[euphemia]

Setting aside the details of Dump's request and just dealing with the philosophy, the Constitution states that the Federal government is to: guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government
Voter fraud destroys a "republican form of government"
Federal investigation of voter fraud is therefore Constitutional, the details may not be.

Indeed, and anyone can walk into an election commission and ask for the records. It's public record.

[Madison320]

Indeed, and anyone can walk into an election commission and ask for the records. It's public record.

Yeah, I'm not sure this is a big deal anyway. Even if they pull your voting record, what does it tell them? They don't know who you voted for and that's seems to me to be the most important thing.

[TheCount]

Do you support the south's right to secede before the civil war?

...


I don't think governments have rights.


If you're asking if states should be able to secede, then yes, I do think that they should be able to.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Do you support the south's right to secede before the civil war?

I see TheCount avoided a direct answer to your question. I suspect he support CalExit, but not South Carolina's Civil War exit.

[Madison320]

I see TheCount avoided a direct answer to your question. I suspect he support CalExit, but not South Carolina's Civil War exit.

He put "..." followed by a sentence that says he supports secession. I'm assuming that means he supported the south's right to secede but I'm not sure why he can't just say "yes".

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

....but I'm not sure why he [TheCount] can't just say "yes".

I am sure why. It's why he skirts around all such issues.


http://masterthemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ObfuscateLarge.jpg

[Ender]

He put "..." followed by a sentence that says he supports secession. I'm assuming that means he supported the south's right to secede but I'm not sure why he can't just say "yes".

This looks pretty plain to me:
TheCount:

If you're asking if states should be able to secede, then yes, I do think that they should be able to.

[Swordsmyth]

This looks pretty plain to me:
He is saying "The Great and Mighty COUNT would deign to let them but they do not have the Right".

[Ender]

He is saying "The Great and Mighty COUNT would deign to let them but they do not have the Right".

NO.
TheCount said:


I don't think governments have rights.


And he is correct.

THEN he said:



If you're asking if states should be able to secede, then yes, I do think that they should be able to.

Also, correct- the original plan of the united States.

[TheCount]

Maybe we could re-ask the same question ten different ways and try to do some Alex Jones-level analysis on why it doesn't mean what it says.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Maybe we could re-ask the same question ten different ways and try to do some Alex Jones-level analysis on why it doesn't mean what it says.

Or maybe we could all do Count level obfuscation. :rolleyes:

[Madison320]

This looks pretty plain to me:


For most everyone I'd agree, but since TheCount has a well deserved reputation as a liberal democrat, I wanted to make sure.

[Ender]

For most everyone I'd agree, but since TheCount has a well deserved reputation as a liberal democrat, I wanted to make sure.

Only from those who don't understand sarcasm.

Most of TheCount's dialog is sarcastic- only lately with all the Trump carp and name-calling has he been a bit more straight forward.

He is NOT a liberal democrat- just more nonsense from people who jump to conclusions. It would certainly be great to move ahead in the forum dialog instead of pouncing on certain members and adding pages and pages of personal insults; if you don't like someone, ignore them.

[euphemia]

Yeah, I'm not sure this is a big deal anyway. Even if they pull your voting record, what does it tell them? They don't know who you voted for and that's seems to me to be the most important thing.

In Tennessee they can see if you voted in the Democratic or Republican primary. But name, address, and phone are there, and some of that can be cross checked with other public info like tax rolls or SS death indexes.

[Madison320]

[QUOTE=Ender;6494761
He is NOT a liberal democrat- just more nonsense from people who jump to conclusions. [/QUOTE]

LOL!

You must not read his posts.

[Ender]

LOL!

You must not read his posts.

Backatcha! ;)

[timosman]

Backatcha! ;)

Ender, the voice of sanity on RPF.:rolleyes:

[Ender]

Ender, the voice of sanity on RPF.:rolleyes:

Glad you finally noticed! ;)

[timosman]

883852143702233088

[Madison320]

Backatcha! ;)

Would you say most libertarians support QE like TheCount?



That's true, an increase in the base of 10%, 20% even 50% could easily be hidden by other factors and we might not ever notice it. But we increased it by something like 400-500%. It will get noticed.


If this is an economic fact, then the effects would have happened already.





Plus I believe we are going to print more.


People have been repeating that continuously on this forum since the end of the last round of QE. Anything is possible, of course, but the economy is performing very well and there's no reason to think that they would do so without a major change in economic conditions.






Don't you think the markets have tripled because of QE?



Not in the way that you mean, no. If the markets had tripled solely due to inflation, then it would be extremely apparent in all aspects of the market.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Would you say most libertarians support QE like TheCount?


You got it right, 320. These kinds of posts from TheCount are everywhere. Here's another (bolding is mine):







My primarily interests in this regard are foreign policy and the military. As I said above, I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will. In that area, spending on nuclear weapons would be my number one target - cut modernization and maintenance programs and reduce the arsenal to perhaps 300 weapons at the most. Likewise axe the vast majority of our military bases located overseas and associated spending. After that, the Marine Corps, quantity of aircraft carriers, and the like. I'd need a map and a compass to puzzle my way through all of the intelligence agencies and unfuck them into something reasonable.

Other departments I'd have to go through one by one. Many of them I think should continue to exist but in a dramatically reduced capacity. As an example, a Department of Education which is restricted to facilitating coordination among the departments of education of the various states in addition to providing reports and such to the executive and legislative branches. Would such a thing still be named a department? I suppose. Regardless, it would be a hundredth of its current size. The nuke changes I mentioned above would sure cut a lot of the DoE. So on through the rest of them.

Realistically, entitlement programs and in particular social security would need a phased rather than immediate end end.



Read between the lines. TheCount thinks that government is going to somehow gut itself. He thinks that states and locales should spend their time writing reports "and such" to the federal government. The US Dept of Education telling your grade school what to do is what TheCount calls "coordination." He thinks your local high school principal doing federal paperwork is a way to "nuke" the Dept of Education. That "magic wand" he cited says that report writing is going to reduce an agency to 1% of what it is now. His "primarily [sic] interests" is military cutting, even though welfare spending far outpaces it and has grown the most dramatically.

This guy presents today's mundane liberal view. He adds some vague and eggheaded nonsense to sell it on this forum, and some here think he is in lockstep with Ron Paul. :rolleyes:

[Madison320]

You got it right, 320. These kinds of posts from TheCount are everywhere. Here's another (bolding is mine):

Once I asked him why he only criticizes republicans and not democrats. He said something like he wants to show the "opposing view". Since this is a Ron Paul, free market, libertarian website what exactly is the "opposing view" other than the "authoritarian socialistic view"? Which is fine but it's annoying because he pretends to be a libertarian.

[TheCount]

Would you say most libertarians support QE like TheCount?

Relating facts is not the same as supporting.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Relating facts is not the same as supporting.


It is in your case.

[Ender]

It is in your case.

How about if I say Trump's a bag of shit? ;)

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

How about if I say Trump's a bag of shit? ;)


I would agree, but you are not TheCount. It's obvious and easy to see who is sincere and who is full of crap. Just because somebody is against D Trump doesn't mean they support liberty.

[Swordsmyth]

Relating facts is not the same as supporting.

“'Then you should say what you mean,' the March Hare went on. 'I do,' Alice hastily replied; 'at least—at least I mean what I say— that's the same thing, you know.' 'Not the same thing a bit!' said the Hatter. 'Why, you might just as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see!' ” ―Lewis Carroll

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

http://gif.hol.com/201601/Big-Slippery-Fish.gif

[Ender]

“'Then you should say what you mean,' the March Hare went on. 'I do,' Alice hastily replied; 'at least—at least I mean what I say— that's the same thing, you know.' 'Not the same thing a bit!' said the Hatter. 'Why, you might just as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see!' ” ―Lewis Carroll

“But I don’t want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.

"Oh, you can’t help that," said the Cat: "we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad."

"How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice.

"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn’t have come here.”

[timosman]

“But I don’t want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.

"Oh, you can’t help that," said the Cat: "we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad."

"How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice.

"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn’t have come here.”

Any sane people around here? Zippy?:cool:

[timosman]

http://gif.hol.com/201601/Big-Slippery-Fish.gif

Let's be optimistic.

[Madison320]

How about if I say Trump's a bag of $#@!? ;)

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure I've seen you post negative things about both parties. Most people here do. If you're a libertarian it's pretty hard not to find anything wrong with a political party whose core belief is theft.

What they say:

"We're going to ask that the most fortunate pay their fair share"

Reality:

"We're going to take at gunpoint from the most productive, way more than anyone else to buy your votes"

[TheCount]

“'Then you should say what you mean,' the March Hare went on. 'I do,' Alice hastily replied; 'at least—at least I mean what I say— that's the same thing, you know.' 'Not the same thing a bit!' said the Hatter. 'Why, you might just as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see!' ” ―Lewis Carroll

I did say what I meant. I was explaining (some of) the reasons why QE had not created a level of inflation equal to the level of monetary expansion. Anyone can see that a 3x expansion in the supply of money did not cause a 3x increase in prices over the same period of time. Why did that not happen? Because there are other factors that influence the market besides monetary policy.


jllundqu was in that thread too, pointing out another reason why QE hadn't had the effects on the economy that Madison320 had expected. Does mentioning the importance of money velocity make him a liberal democrat?


Any discussion about inflation without discussing velocity is fruitless. The stock market is NOT an indicator of health of the economy. Megabanks and corporations that get 0% interest money that buy their own stocks and maybe some commodities isn't great for main street. Dow 20,000 doesn't mean shit to the vast majority of people in the US.


I'm not even sure what the argument is here. Is there some sort of emotional attachment to the topic of monetary policy and the Federal Reserve such that discussion of facts is undesirable? What is the benefit to pretending that a increase of X in the money supply will always cause a predictable increase of Y in prices, whether stock prices or otherwise? It's simple and from the point of view of philosophy it may feel good, but it's not an convincing argument for anyone who bothers to look at the actual changes in the market because it will never pan out to be a direct 1-for-1 correlation.

[timosman]

What is the benefit to pretending that a increase of X in the money supply will always cause a predictable increase of Y in prices, whether stock prices or otherwise? It's simple and from the point of view of philosophy it may feel good, but it's not an convincing argument for anyone who bothers to look at the actual changes in the market because it will never pan out to be a direct 1-for-1 correlation.



I sense Zippy logic here and a strawman. Nobody is claiming the relationship is 1-1. Nice try. -rep

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Because there are other factors that influence the market besides monetary policy.

There are also other factors besides face value text that influence conclusions one can make about a user.







jllundqu was in that thread too, pointing out another reason why QE hadn't had the effects on the economy that Madison320 had expected. Does mentioning the importance of money velocity make him a liberal democrat?







Obviously not because anyone's posting history can be read for a usually quick and easy determination. One simple post doesn't mean much out of context.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I sense...a strawman. Nobody is claiming the relationship is 1-1.


This guy fancies himself some kind of economist. Maybe he's some teaching assistant at the college. Unfortunately, learning about supply & demand widgets didn't help him with logic.

[timosman]

This guy fancies himself some kind of economist. Maybe he's some teaching assistant at the college. Unfortunately, learning about supply & demand widgets didn't help him with logic.

I guess he gets away with this BS in college. Poor students.:cool:

[jllundqu]

Ok... looks like I have to read up on THIS thread for a few minutes....

[jllundqu]

I did say what I meant. I was explaining (some of) the reasons why QE had not created a level of inflation equal to the level of monetary expansion. Anyone can see that a 3x expansion in the supply of money did not cause a 3x increase in prices over the same period of time. Why did that not happen? Because there are other factors that influence the market besides monetary policy.


jllundqu was in that thread too, pointing out another reason why QE hadn't had the effects on the economy that Madison320 had expected. Does mentioning the importance of money velocity make him a liberal democrat?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRMbjtUGf8xzI8hwGSymLVRQsgcQ6Vvt PNndtXgpEfHiiUn5YwYzg

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I guess he gets away with this BS in college. Poor students.:cool:


Yep. Sounds to me like his comparison of the liberty user to himself is like comparing apples to trash bags.

[TheCount]

I sense Zippy logic here and a strawman. Nobody is claiming the relationship is 1-1. Nice try. -rep

X to Y is not 1-1. That would be X to X.

From my point of view, the argument that Madison made was that because the result of monetary expansion that he expected had not yet occurred, it must occur at some point in the future. As I said, that ignores other factors involved.

[dannno]

X to Y is not 1-1. That would be X to X.

From my point of view, the argument that Madison made was that because the result of monetary expansion that he expected had not yet occurred, it must occur at some point in the future. As I said, that ignores other factors involved.


Other factors, you mean like how our inflation gets exported and used as global trading reserves? Ya, global trading reserves is just the ether, that will all disappear, we will never see those dollars again :rolleyes:

[timosman]

X to Y is not 1-1. That would be X to X.

From my point of view, the argument that Madison made was that because the result of monetary expansion that he expected had not yet occurred, it must occur at some point in the future. As I said, that ignores other factors involved.

You are right, the economy is so great.

[Madison320]

X to Y is not 1-1. That would be X to X.

From my point of view, the argument that Madison made was that because the result of monetary expansion that he expected had not yet occurred, it must occur at some point in the future. As I said, that ignores other factors involved.

You ignored my post. I'll repost it for you.




That's true, an increase in the base of 10%, 20% even 50% could easily be hidden by other factors and we might not ever notice it. But we increased it by something like 400-500%. It will get noticed.

Also you appear to be a Schiff hater. That's a serious red flag considering Peter Schiff is a libertarian with very similar beliefs compared to Ron Paul. But I guess as you said, you're taking the "other side". Other side of what I ask. What's the other side of free markets and liberty?

[Madison320]

jllundqu was in that thread too, pointing out another reason why QE hadn't had the effects on the economy that Madison320 had expected. Does mentioning the importance of money velocity make him a liberal democrat?


It's the accumulation.

And you're missing the point. The current low velocity of money strongly supports my argument that we're due for high price increases. That's one reason why we haven't seen a corresponding increase in prices ....yet. Unless you think the velocity of money is never going to rise again. Or that the 2.5 trillion in reserves is always going to stay there. Or that the dollars held by foreigners is always going to stay there. Or whatever other temporary factors are keeping prices from rising are going to remain.

I'm getting deja vu. I swear I've had this argument with Zippy like 10 times.

[Swordsmyth]

I did say what I meant. I was explaining (some of) the reasons why QE had not created a level of inflation equal to the level of monetary expansion. Anyone can see that a 3x expansion in the supply of money did not cause a 3x increase in prices over the same period of time. Why did that not happen? Because there are other factors that influence the market besides monetary policy.


jllundqu was in that thread too, pointing out another reason why QE hadn't had the effects on the economy that Madison320 had expected. Does mentioning the importance of money velocity make him a liberal democrat?




I'm not even sure what the argument is here. Is there some sort of emotional attachment to the topic of monetary policy and the Federal Reserve such that discussion of facts is undesirable? What is the benefit to pretending that a increase of X in the money supply will always cause a predictable increase of Y in prices, whether stock prices or otherwise? It's simple and from the point of view of philosophy it may feel good, but it's not an convincing argument for anyone who bothers to look at the actual changes in the market because it will never pan out to be a direct 1-for-1 correlation.

My comment was general not specific, you "Mean what you say" with great frequency but you rarely "Say what you mean".
And you are wrong about the money policy somebody somewhere felt the impact of all that new money, just because you were temporarily and perhaps permanently shielded does not mean everybody in the world was.

But this thread has gotten way off topic so I will not discuss further anything but the original topic.

[TheCount]

Also you appear to be a Schiff hater. That's a serious red flag considering Peter Schiff is a libertarian with very similar beliefs compared to Ron Paul.I don't hate Schiff, I just think that he's mostly full of shit and generally gives poor advice.

A financial advisor's quality does not stem from his ideological purity, but rather from his accuracy.

[TheCount]

The current low velocity of money strongly supports my argument that we're due for high price increases. That's one reason why we haven't seen a corresponding increase in prices ....yet. Unless you think the velocity of money is never going to rise again.

Again, velocity is only one of many factors involved...



Or that the 2.5 trillion in reserves is always going to stay there. Or that the dollars held by foreigners is always going to stay there. Or whatever other temporary factors are keeping prices from rising are going to remain.

Or if the velocity increases slowly.

Or if the Fed intervenes to deal with the excess reserves.

Or if American growth outstrips the growth of other countries such that international demand for dollars increases.

Or a dozen other possibilities which neither of us have considered.


You seem to be saying that the monetary supply expansion must come home to roost at some point in the future... and then you list a number of possibilities for things that could change and affect the outcome. I don't see how you can say that we're "due" for the inflationary effects of QE while simultaneously understanding that other equally important factors exist. Perhaps it's just a differing point of view, but I look at that and say what I said before... It hasn't happened yet, I see no evidence that it's happening right now, and it's entirely possible that it will never happen.

Prices are definitely higher than they would have been without QE, but trying to make Schiff-esque predictions based upon ideology is a bad idea.

[Zippyjuan]

I don't hate Schiff, I just think that he's mostly full of $#@! and generally gives poor advice.

A financial advisor's quality does not stem from his ideological purity, but rather from his accuracy.

Financially, Schiff is a one- trick pony: The economy is going to crash at any moment and gold and silver will soar. Buy his gold and be safe. He was right once that the economy did crash- and has been wrong dozens of times since.

We haven't seen high inflation from the stimulus because the money supply did not increase by $2.4 trillion. The money held by banks in reserves did. That is where most of the money the Fed spent buying securities went. The monetary base soared, but the money supply didn't. That has continued a slow but steady growth. I have tried to explain that the monetary base cannot be used to try to predict anything about price inflation because it is not a useful measure of money supply.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?width=880&height=440&id=M2

Does increasing the money supply lead to increases in prices? Not necessarily. First, money has to be spent to impact prices. You need a higher supply of money relative to the supply of goods- more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. And that assumes that the costs to produce those goods does not change and productivity remains the same. Money in the bank vaults (those $2.4 trillion in excess reserves) isn't out there chasing any goods and services. It isn't impacting prices.

"But what about when those reserves get out?" Yes, that would increase the supply of circulating money. Would that lead to high price inflation? Again, that depends. It depends on how quickly that money enters the system. If it is slowly released in small amounts, it will have little to no impact on prices. If the money supply grows either at the same rate as the economy or at a slower rate, there should be no price inflation. The increase in the supply of goods would be matching the increase in the supply of money. If it is dumped in a very short period of time, it will have a very big impact on prices. Excess reserves have been starting to decline from their peak. Has inflation picked up? Nope. Reserves have been coming down slowly. The Fed will likely use a slow process when they decide to unwind their security holdings (should they decide to do so)- slowly over a long period of time.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?id=WRBWFRBL&nsh=1

[Madison320]

Again, velocity is only one of many factors involved...



Or if the velocity increases slowly.

Or if the Fed intervenes to deal with the excess reserves.

Or if American growth outstrips the growth of other countries such that international demand for dollars increases.

Or a dozen other possibilities which neither of us have considered.


You seem to be saying that the monetary supply expansion must come home to roost at some point in the future... and then you list a number of possibilities for things that could change and affect the outcome. I don't see how you can say that we're "due" for the inflationary effects of QE while simultaneously understanding that other equally important factors exist. Perhaps it's just a differing point of view, but I look at that and say what I said before... It hasn't happened yet, I see no evidence that it's happening right now, and it's entirely possible that it will never happen.

Prices are definitely higher than they would have been without QE, but trying to make Schiff-esque predictions based upon ideology is a bad idea.

If it was possible for the Fed to print money without an eventual corresponding increase in prices, it would be like inventing a perpetual motion machine. Something for nothing.

[TheCount]

If it was possible for the Fed to print money without an eventual corresponding increase in prices, it would be like inventing a perpetual motion machine. Something for nothing.
That's like saying 'it's not possible for a person to pour water into a tub without the water level within the tub rising.' Does the tub leak? Is the drain closed? How quickly is the water evaporating? How quickly is the person pouring water into the tub? Depending on the answers to these questions, the water level in the tub can go down even as the person continues to add water to it.

This concept is not all that different from an economy, as it's a system with inputs and outputs just like any other. Economically speaking, expansion of the money supply without increased prices is possible so long as there are matching or overpowering deflationary pressures. Keep in mind that, as I said in the post that you quoted, prices would be higher than they otherwise would have been; IE: there would have been deflation if the printing had not happened, and therefore a zero rate of inflation was substituted for a negative rate of inflation. The effect of the expansionary monetary policy is still there, it's just hidden by other factors.

For example, think of a town containing 1000 people, all of whom are using a currency with a total money supply of $100,000. If 1000 more people join the community, no other currency is printed, and nothing else is changed, then the money will tend to increase in value as there are more people desiring to possess and use it, as well as a larger total economic output of the town. If the central bank of the town printed more money, they could compensate for this effect - expanding the money supply without increasing prices.

Likewise, consider an economy in which the price of everything or nearly everything is dependent upon the price of oil. If the price of oil is falling, then the prices of all other products which rely upon the price of oil for production, transport, energy, etc. will also fall. Again, in this case a central bank could expand a money supply during this period and still have the end result be lower prices or zero price change on those oil-related products if the deflationary pressure upon the economy of the declining price of oil is greater than the inflationary pressure of the expansionary monetary policy.


All of these examples are similar to the ones I offered in my previous post. The central bank is not the only factor in the market.

[Swordsmyth]

That's like saying 'it's not possible for a person to pour water into a tub without the water level within the tub rising.' Does the tub leak? Is the drain closed? How quickly is the water evaporating? How quickly is the person pouring water into the tub? Depending on the answers to these questions, the water level in the tub can go down even as the person continues to add water to it.

This concept is not all that different from an economy, as it's a system with inputs and outputs just like any other. Economically speaking, expansion of the money supply without increased prices is possible so long as there are matching or overpowering deflationary pressures. Keep in mind that, as I said in the post that you quoted, prices would be higher than they otherwise would have been; IE: there would have been deflation if the printing had not happened, and therefore a zero rate of inflation was substituted for a negative rate of inflation. The effect of the expansionary monetary policy is still there, it's just hidden by other factors.

For example, think of a town containing 1000 people, all of whom are using a currency with a total money supply of $100,000. If 1000 more people join the community, no other currency is printed, and nothing else is changed, then the money will tend to increase in value as there are more people desiring to possess and use it, as well as a larger total economic output of the town. If the central bank of the town printed more money, they could compensate for this effect - expanding the money supply without increasing prices.

Likewise, consider an economy in which the price of everything or nearly everything is dependent upon the price of oil. If the price of oil is falling, then the prices of all other products which rely upon the price of oil for production, transport, energy, etc. will also fall. Again, in this case a central bank could expand a money supply during this period and still have the end result be lower prices or zero price change on those oil-related products if the deflationary pressure upon the economy of the declining price of oil is greater than the inflationary pressure of the expansionary monetary policy.


All of these examples are similar to the ones I offered in my previous post. The central bank is not the only factor in the market.
The water still has an effect on the floor or the sewer or the humidity.

[TheCount]

The water still has an effect on the floor or the sewer or the humidity.Madison isn't checking any of those, he's only looking at the water (price) level.