I'm pretty sure this is the same Marcello that posts on other libertarian websites. What a guy!
 

PS, what makes this even greater is that Ron Paul has already decided he's voting against his own bill!
 

I guess this means that Prof. Murphy, Tom Woods, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Walter Block, Mark Thornton et al. have all been officially declared "non-academics" by the WSJ.
 

Come on, the pitchforked legions are just lowly villagers that are banding together to kill Frankenstein's monster.
 

'I cannot believe the attitude of these “Populists” who want to audit the Fed. It doesn’t matter that 70% of the American people want an audit of the Federal Reserve.'

So, he feels scientists should set their opinion by popularity poll? When 90% of the American people thought invading Iraq was a great idea, di that sway Marcello?

'The American people are ignorant and can’t be trusted to look after their own interests.'

Isn't the whole libertarian platform based on the idea that in Democratic politics, they can't?

'These 270 economists and academics are way more qualified to decide that the secret central bank needs no oversight whatsoever.'

The bank does have an has always had 'oversight' -- so Macello does't even know how the Fed runs now, but has a strong opinion as to how that could be improved!
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/1/2/9/p151292_index.html

'After all, it is hard for the average boobus American to understand how the Fed can create money out of thin air...'

And, since they can't, his statement shows it is pretty hard to understand! Even many economists pretend to mis-understand this, but I think that's just popular sloganizing.

'I’m sure that these “academics” are totally unbiased and would never let their relationships or benefits from the current system influence their decision.'

Stupid ad hominem. How many of the 270 work for the Fed, or would suffer any impact on their tenured jobs if Paul's bill passed? Very few, I bet.

"After all, we’ve seen how honest and unbiased the climate research scientists are in their pursuit of the truth."

So, Climategate tars all scientists -- so why does he believe the economic science Paul's bill is supposedly based upon?

Sorry, Bob, we've got us an ignorant, pitch-fork-wielding rube here.
 

Funny, the first place I've seen 'boobus' used to describe Americans was the LRC blog.
 

Gene should take a step back, and read up on "sarcasm".
 

2nd Anon,

There are many things that annoyed me about Gene's post, but failure to appreciate sarcasm is not one of them. He got that the guy was being sarcastic, and was arguing that the guy's points (adjusted for sarcasm) were stupid.

If you prefer, Gene was agreeing with the literal text, meaning he was disagreeing with the actual meaning once we adjust for the sarcasm.
 

* Actually Gene wasn't agreeing with the literal text. He was saying that the guy's points were non sequiturs even after we adjust for the sarcasm.
 

Anon said:

Funny, the first place I've seen 'boobus' used to describe Americans was the LRC blog.

Yeah but those were different boobi.
 

"'After all, it is hard for the average boobus American to understand how the Fed can create money out of thin air...'

And, since they can't, his statement shows it is pretty hard to understand! Even many economists pretend to mis-understand this, but I think that's just popular sloganizing."

Does the average person know what an open market operation is? Doubt it.
 

Gene's the man, by the way.
 

Anon wrote:

Does the average person know what an open market operation is? Doubt it.

No Anon, you're missing Gene's point. Gene doesn't think anything can be created out of thin air--he's making a metaphysical argument, not a financial one.