|
 Economist
in training
Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
 Why Ron Paul scares me 
#7226539 - 07/26/07 12:46 PM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I started this post because of something GettinJiggyWithIt posted in another thread, but I didn't want to derail that one.
Ron Paul scares me because he doesn't seem to understand how the American economy works.
Note that I'm not refering to my own beliefs about free-markets, or the teachings of Milton Friedman, I'm talking about very basic facts, like where our money supply comes from, how it's created, and what the Federal Reserve has to do with it.
I found this note online written by Ron Paul:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul292.html
I can't even begin to describe the problems with it, so I'll break down the myths and take them one-by-one.
1) The US dollar should be strong.
This is perhaps the biggest myth of all. Why are so many people right now asking for a revaluation of China's currency, the Yuan? It's because the dollar is being held artificially strong by China (or the Yuan artificially weak) making goods in China cheaper than domestically produced goods. If the US dollar was weaker, domestic clothing would become relatively cheaper compared with Chinese-produced clothing, and the American manufacturing sector would benefit.
A strong dollar means two things: first that it is cheaper to import goods (higher imports), and second that it is harder for other countries to buy our goods (lower exports). This is economics 101, a more expensive good (strong dollar) is harder to buy and easier to spend.
Now, I'm not personally concerned about the trade deficit for reasons enumerated in other threads. However, according to his campaign, Ron Paul IS concerned with ending the trade deficit.
So, why would someone who wants to reduce the trade deficit support a policy that would increase imports and decrease exports?
2) Inflation is out of control
This is actually just shameful. A quick check of inflation numbers will reveal that inflation has been LOWER since 1980 than it was during the entire decade preceding Reagan's presidency (ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt ).
Ron Paul is actually flat-out lying by claiming that inflation is out of control. I don't know if he didn't check his facts, or if he's a nut, but this is of MAJOR concern for me.
3) Increasing the money supply 5-times since 1980s is responsible for the non-existant out of control inflation
Again, the dollar is like any other good, something Ron Paul seems to understand when he compares it to gold (http://www.321gold.com/editorials/taylor/taylor031706.html ). Where the break-down occurs is that Ron Paul doesn't seem to understand what happens when there exists demand for the dollar that outstrips supply.
If there is more demand for dollars than there are dollars in the world (something Ron Paul concedes has occured) then the value of the dollar should increase. If the value of the dollar is increasing because demand outstrips supply, then you can safely increase the supply (i.e. print more dollars) without the value of the dollar dropping.
For some reason Ron Paul does not seem to understand this last point. He goes off suggesting that the Federal Reserve is causing all of us to become poor while ignoring basic economic fact that inflation actually is in check, and that when demand for dollars excedes supply for dollars, the only option is to print more money or else risk deflation. As we know from the current situation in Japan, deflation is good for no one.
This next myth actually comes from other statements be Ron Paul, not the link at the top, but I felt it needed to be addressed as well:
4) The Federal Reserve allows the US Government to deficit spend
Anyone who believes this is the case does not actually know how the Federal Reserve works. I would recommend beginning with Secrets of the Temple by William Greider. It is a fairly even-handed look at the Fed, and gives some good nuts-and-bolts data.
For anyone who doesn't want to read a whole book, check out the Wikipedia Article on Open Market Operations and specifically how they work in the United States.
In the US, the Federal Reserve DOES NOT loan money to the US government. The US government finances deficit spending by selling US Treasury Securities. These treasury securities are bought by both financial institutions and private individuals, NOT the Federal Reserve.
The confusion occurs because the Federal Reserve does buy Treasury Securities as part of the process to change the money supply, however, it NEVER buys them from the government, only from private investors. Every single treasury security that is owned by the Fed was purchased from a bank or similar financial institution, none are bought from the government. This means that by the time the Fed is involved, the loan has ALREADY HAPPENED.
Even if the Fed were not allowed to buy treasury securities, little if anything would change, as banks and financial institutions would continue to buy them so long as they were good investments, further allowing the government to deficit spend. If you want the government to stop borrowing, you have to prevent the Treasury Department from continuing to sell Treasury notes, the Federal Reserve is not involved.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: Economist]
#7226867 - 07/26/07 02:19 PM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I wish I understood economics enough to debate with you on this. (When it comes to understanding accounting/economy/money, I am a literal fool.)
For example:
> Anyone who believes [that the Federal Reserve allows the US Government to deficit spend] does not actually know how the Federal Reserve works.
You lost me at deficit spend...  (Though I will go read the wiki entry you linked to above.)
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
Economist
in training
Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: Seuss]
#7226904 - 07/26/07 02:30 PM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Actually, the Wikipedia link is not the best one for the job.
The best descriptor is actually the How The Fed Works, Chapter 3 pdf put out by the Federal Reserve itself. The language is a little less technical (though some of it still is) but at 24 pages it's a heck of a lot shorter than Greider's book.
Unfortunately, posting it on these forums before has resulted in posts to the effect of "Why should we beleive anything the Federal Reserve has to say!?!"
Though, if anyone feels that way, I would be happy to provide non-affiliated sources that back up the Fed's description of its own functions (but I cannot promise those soures will be non-technical).
|
 OneMoreRobot3021
Registered: 06/06/03
Posts: 61,026
Loc: the sky
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: Seuss]
#7226910 - 07/26/07 02:32 PM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said:
I wish I understood economics enough to debate with you on this. (When it comes to understanding accounting/economy/money, I am a literal fool.)
For example:
> Anyone who believes [that the Federal Reserve allows the US Government to deficit spend] does not actually know how the Federal Reserve works.
You lost me at deficit spend... (Though I will go read the wiki entry you linked to above.)
My sentiments exactly! 
--------------------
Acid doesn't give you truths; it builds machines that push the envelope of perception. Whatever revelations came to me then have dissolved like skywriting. All I really know is that those few years saddled me with a faith in the redemptive potential of the imagination which, however flat, stale and unprofitable the world seems to me now, I cannot for the life of me shake.
-Erik Davis
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: Economist]
#7226961 - 07/26/07 02:49 PM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Ron Paul would agrees with you looking at the overall good of the moment. His concerns are related too, where current policy is going to take us, because the good of the moment has been created with a false bottom.
Federal Reserve Chair Bernake- agrees with Ron Paul that if we continue as we have been, we will not have long term sustainability. Though Bernake agrees with Ron Paul, at the end, when pressed, he just says, "It's our job to control steady inflation rates and I do not believe we will see '79 again. 
Which is it Bernake? Talk about double talk and no explanation for the Feds Plan to keep from happening, what both Paul and Bernake agree will happen if nothing changes.
This was just last week-
Please watch it, it's a short exchange and gives you a better feel for Paul.
In short, if the guy scares you, research HIM further and see if you can come to a greater understanding of where he is coming from OR just don't vote for him.
I want to ask a question, as you spent some time making your post. The MSM carries on calling him a long shot, saying he barely registers on scientific polls, has no chance in hell and YET, this candidate comes under more pre-emptive attacks then any other out there.
Why is this?
My editorial comment is that, Ron Paul has managed his congressional Budget for his district so well, he has money left over each year. His constituents of the 14th district are so thrilled with him, they have voted him in for ten terms now. His personal finances ethics and standings are impeccable, and he is very wisely handling his campaign donations and budget as well.
( Look at the train wreck McCain was for example. If that clown stays in the race, the Federal matching program will have us tax payers covering his campaign finance debts )
Pauls understanding of economics/finance doesn't scare me at all. He walks his talk and proves himself and the strengths of his philosophies/ethics by his own actions.
The Federal Reserve on the other hand, has the talk of "it's our job to keep inflation rates steady" yet, they have bungled it- '79. The Federal Reserve can't back its talk and they are the ones that "scare" me.
--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
|
Bullshit. Inflation has been incredibly steady since the 80s.
--------------------
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: zappaisgod]
#7227202 - 07/26/07 04:00 PM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Bullshit. Inflation has been incredibly steady since the 80s.
Where did I say otherwise? I did note a time when it wasn't just prior to that.
What are your comments about relating the steady increase and economic boom of the 80s 90 and 2000's to the 8 trillion dollars worth of National debt that paid for it?
FYI, inflation is relative. Here in Florida we had a pretty bad real state bubble burst. I timed some moves just right, and keep my fingers crossed, but I have neighbors that have already watched the value of their homes drop by $300,000. in one year. Tell them how steady things are and they will give you a black eye I'm sure.
edit- typo
--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.
Edited by gettinjiggywithit (07/26/07 04:01 PM)
|
Economist
in training
Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
|
I just don't know what to tell you, that video clip really makes Ron Paul look foolish.
A quick example would be his obsession with the "savings rate". It's been known for years that the savings rate is an obsolete measure of the true "savings" of Americans.
From: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/USSavingsRateFallsToZero.aspx
Quote:
In fact, other analysts contend the situation may not be as dire as the official statistics indicate. That's because when the Commerce Department calculates the savings rate, it doesn't include things like capital gains and investments in pension plans.
Currently, there are about $12 trillion dollars in various structured retirement accounts that are not included in the savings rate, says Dallas Salisbury, president and chief executive officer of the Employee Benefit Research Institute in Washington.
Contemporary American retirement plans include investments in mutual funds, bonds, etc. All of this isn't counted as savings when generating the savings rate. This makes Ron Paul's statements seem uninformed. (Pension plans are the "corporate savings" that Bernanke refers to)
Bernanke also DOES NOT contradict himself, if anything Ron Paul appears to not understand what the difference is between Bernanke's Fed (and Greenspan, and Volker before them) and the 1979/1980 Fed.
You have to remember that the 1970s were the decade that disproved Keynsian economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynsian_economics#Postwar_Keynesianism ). Under the ideas of Keynes, which had dominated economics since WWII, if you have joblessness you solved it by increasing the money supply. Remember that Keynes suggested unemployment and inflation were diametrically opposed. You either had high unemployment and low inflation or low unemployment and high inflation. Stagflation disproved Keynes by showing the world that high unemployment and high inflation were both possible.
Monetarism, by and large replaced Keynsian thought (enter Reagan, Friedman, and Volker). Monetarism argues that inflation is ALWAYS a product of the money supply. During the 1970s, the Fed attempted to solve the problem of unemployment by printing more money, this led to record inflation. Volker's Fed changed this policy. He scaled back money creation, lowered inflation, and produced economic growth as a result.
Greenspan continued Volker's ideas (and Milton Friedman's, as he was Reagan's economic advisor at the time), and Bernanke continues them further.
Looking at Bernanke's policy speeches (this one in particular: http://www.federalreserve.gov/Boarddocs/Speeches/2003/20030325/default.htm ) we see that Bernanke wants to deal with monetary policy by targetting inflation. Inflation is not "just a concern" as Ron Paul attempts to dismiss Bernanke's comments, but rather inflation is THE ONLY CONCERN. This is fundamentally different from how things were done in the 1970s, and it is the very mechanism that will stop 1979 from ever happening again. Bernanke makes no contradiction, rather Paul is trying to manufacture one that doesn't exist.
However, given Ron Paul's dismissiveness, his obvious lack of information, and his painful posturing, can you really fault Bernanke for his response?
As for Ron Paul being the target of pre-emptive strikes, I can't answer for why Republicans or Democrats do that. I can answer for myself.
I believe in the Libertarian Party. The LP has quietly gathered more and more votes each election and is very close to winning a congressional seat or two (came within 5% of a win in 2004). Ron Paul will steal votes from that party in favor a Republican bid for power.
I am also very concerned because Ron Paul seems to have wholeheartedly bought into the fringe Austrian School of Economics (see Ron Paul's book http://www.mises.org/store/Mises-and-Austrian-Economics-A-Personal-View-P154C0.aspx?AFID=1 ).
I could go on at length about how and why the Austrian School is dangerous, but given other replies in this thread, I'll try and give an analogy that Shroomery Posters are likely to appreciate:
Austrian School of Economics : Free Market Economics :: People looking to trip ballz : Users of Psychadelics
The Austrian School comes to conclusions that look like free-market economics, but it does so for all of the wrong reasons and includes healthy doses of very scary ideas (read: racism, isolationism, social darwinism).
|
Economist
in training
Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
OneLessForeskin said:
Quote:
Seuss said:
I wish I understood economics enough to debate with you on this. (When it comes to understanding accounting/economy/money, I am a literal fool.)
For example:
> Anyone who believes [that the Federal Reserve allows the US Government to deficit spend] does not actually know how the Federal Reserve works.
You lost me at deficit spend... (Though I will go read the wiki entry you linked to above.)
My sentiments exactly!
Okay, let me try again without technical lingo. I really think it's important to flesh these ideas out, otherwise I am genuinely concerned about what could happen to America's economy.
The US needs to print dollar bills. If it doesn't, bad things happen (see the San Francisco "Money Famine" of 1848-1849).
The question is: how many dollar bills need to be printed?
The dollar isn't backed by anything except the willingness of people to accept dollars for their goods, meaning that a simple formula i.e. 1 dollar = 1 gold ounce is not good. If you print too many dollars, each individual dollar will quickly become worthless. This is inflation, and everyone is familiar with it.
What people are less familiar with is deflation. Deflation and deflaitonary spirals are every bit as bad for the economy as inflation. Imagine, if you know that your dollar will buy more tomorrow than it will today (i.e. deflation) why would you spend it today? And if no one is spending, then prices drop further as businesses seeks any money they can get, causing more people to not spend, and you have a spiral that kills business as surely as inflation. (Japan is the most recent example of how bad deflation can be: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_11/b3774063.htm )
Now, we could argue all day long about whether or not there should be a gold standard or similar currency peg, but that's another argument, and one that Ron Paul does not seem to be making right now.
What he is arguing is that the Federal Reserve should not be printing more money, and that this power should be returned to Congress. As the President, he would (arguably) have the power to do this.
However, as Ron Paul points out, the money supply has increased 5 fold since 1980, and yet we have only seen inflation of about 2-3% per year. So, even though prices have only increased between 65 and 80% since 1980, the total number of dollars has increased by 500%.
This gap between the increase in the number of dollars and the increase in the value of prices indicates an ever increasing demand for dollars (otherwise a 1% increase in the money supply would mean a 1% increase in prices, which makes sense if people want money and the goods money can purchase equally, if people want money more than they want the goods that money can buy, a 1% increase in the money supply will cause prices to increase by less than 1%, which is exactly what we have seen between 1980 and today). If this demand is not met, you would see deflation because people would want dollars more than they would want goods that they exchange dollars for.
The Fed is pretty good at what they do, hence inflation has been kept fairly low. Their mechanisms for keeping inflation low are mostly based in the market. Open Market Operations (which Ron Paul refers to as "printing money") utilize a system of auctions to ensure that the market determines how many dollars it wants.
Insofar as I can tell from Paul's speeches he wants to do away with this and either:
1) Stop printing money all together, something that will surely result in deflation as there is a demonstrable demand for more and more dollars every year
2) Give congress direct control over money printing, an idea the merits of which I cannot possibly understand. Can you imagine the sheer number of "Money Bills" that would flood the House Floor every day of the year? How many congressmen would want to just print money like madmen in order to buy re-election?
The scariest part of all of this (for me anyway) is that Ron Paul could concievably execute these policies without the consent of congress. He could either issue an executive order ending the printing of money, or appoint a new head of the Federal Reserve who would do things Ron Paul's way.
Hopefully this will clear up some of what I'm trying to say in this thread.
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 13 years, 21 days
|
|
RON PAUL vs BEN BERNANKE That was great!
BERNANKE: The Federal Reserve is committed to maintaining low and stable inflation, and I'm very confident we'll be able to do that. We can resort to borrowing overseas. And we are permitted because we have the reserve currency of the world to export our inflation.
PAUL: You're not answering whether or not you anticipate the problem.
BERNANKE: I'm not anticipating a problem like '79-80. No.
PAUL: With your fingers crossed, I guess. 
"we can resort to borrowing overseas. And we are permitted because we have the reserve currency of the world to export our inflation."
FUCK THE FEDS....
Ron Paul does not scare me, we lived through that fucking IDIOT Jimmy Carter.....
Ron Paul would do alot better than people want to give him credit for....
--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"
We have "reckless fiscal policies"
America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.
Americans deserve better
Barack Obama
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: Economist]
#7227413 - 07/26/07 04:55 PM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
There is nothing for you to tell me. I witnessed the new Alan Greenspan, Chair of the Federal Reserve Bernake, who trumps you by light years, just agree with Ron Paul on all of Paul's stances raised about the stability of our economy and dollar.
At the end, when Paul asked what was going to be done about it, Bernake replies, "It's the job of the Federal Reserve to keep inflation increases stable."
And that was the end of that discussion. No explanation for how it would be done, coming from a man who agreed something needed to change, and coming from a group, that does not have a history of keeping inflation rates steady. Why should anyone trust Bernake that "They have it covered, nothing to see here, move along?"
Engage in economic mental masturbation here all you want too. I heard from the two that matter related to your thread topic. I heard Bernake agree with Paul about he's concerns, the same stuff you are attacking. If you think you are smarter then the chair of the Federal Reserve, go for his job!
--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 13 years, 21 days
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: Economist]
#7227415 - 07/26/07 04:56 PM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Economist said:
"I am also very concerned because Ron Paul seems to have wholeheartedly bought into the fringe Austrian School of Economics
The Austrian School comes to conclusions that look like free-market economics, but it does so for all of the wrong reasons and includes healthy doses of very scary ideas (read: racism, isolationism, social darwinism)."
So how is this Austrian School Racist? I'm sure Hillary will do a lot better job of taking care of the people....
--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"
We have "reckless fiscal policies"
America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.
Americans deserve better
Barack Obama
|
Economist
in training
Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
|
You're confusing problems and solutions.
Quote me where I said that I disagreed with Ron Paul's points about government deficit spending if you still think I disagreed about what Ron Paul identified as problems.
I'm talking about solutions. I don't agree with Ron Paul's solutions, and clearly Ben Bernanke doesn't either (hence his dismissive "79 won't happen again") comment.
Ben Bernanke does not ask for a strong dollar, does not think the Fed's functions need to be modified, and does not think inflation is out of control at present. I think you are ignoring what was actually said in a rush to "score points".
I have only attacked Ron Paul's solutions, and Ben Bernanke has not agreed with Ron Paul's solutions either. Agreeing that there is a problem is not the same as agreeing on a solution.
|
Economist
in training
Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
lonestar2004 said:
So how is this Austrian School Racist? I'm sure Hillary will do a lot better job of taking care of the people....
What does Hillary have to do with this? I posted above that I planned on voting for the Libertarian Party.
As for the Austrian School of economics:
One of the major "economists" of the Austrian School of Economics of Murray Rothbard. Ron Paul is a big fan of Rothbard's, even going so far as to recommend his book (http://www.teamliberty.net/id447.html).
Here's a quote from Murray Rothbard's 1978 book For a New Liberty (available here http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp):
Quote:
Albanian-Americans are an extremely poor group, and in New York they are almost invariably poor slum dwellers. Statistics are scanty, but their average income is undoubtedly lower than that of the more highly publicized blacks and Puerto Ricans. Yet there is not a single Albanian-American on welfare. Why? Because of their pride and indeÂpendence. As one of their leaders stated: "Albanians do not beg, and to Albanians, taking welfare is like begging in the street."16
A similar case is the decaying, poor, largely Polish-American and almost totally Catholic community of Northside, in Brooklyn, New York. Despite the low incomes, blight, and old and deteriorating housing in the area, there are virtually no welfare recipients in this community of 15,000. Why? Rudolph J. Stobierski, president of the Northside ComÂmunity Development Council, supplied the answer: "They consider welÂfare an insult."17
In addition to the impact of religion and ethnic differences on values, Professor Banfield, in his brilliant book, The Unheavenly City, has demonÂstrated the importance of what he calls "upper-class" or "lower-class" culture in influencing the values of their members. The definitions of "class" in Banfield are not strictly income or status levels, but they tend to overlap strongly with these more common definitions. His definiÂtions of class center on the different attitudes toward the present and the future: upper- and middle-class members tend to be future-oriented, purposeful, rational, and self-disciplined. Lower-class people, on the other hand, tend to have a strong present-orientation, are capricious, hedonistic, purposeless, and therefore unwilling to pursue a job or a career with any consistency. People with the former values therefore tend to have higher incomes and better jobs, and lower-class people tend to be poor, jobless, or on welfare. In short, the economic fortunes of people tend over the long run to be their own internal responsibility, rather than to be determined—as liberals always insist—by external factors.
So, to sum up: blacks and Puerto Ricans are poor because they come from a culture that values hedonism, laziness, and capriciousness.
Maybe you don't think this is racism, but I for one do, particularly the bit about "Ethnic differences on values".
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 13 years, 21 days
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: Economist]
#7227657 - 07/26/07 06:39 PM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
This Rothbard dude is right! 
Imagine someone being responsible for their own problems...
Anyway he apologized for writing this back in 1973. I'm sure Thomas Jefferson author of the Declaration of Independence would also apologize for some of his crazy ass writings if given a chance. Other than then their race views I find them both interesting writers.
Economist are you a welfare state, income redistribution, the "New Deal" kinda guy?
Not me, I used to work in welfare projects.
I'll never forget one Monday morning "N Da Hood" talking to a group of unemployed dudes hanging around drinking beer and cooking chicken. One of them said:
"Look at those DUMB-ASS Mexicans roofing OUR complex for $5 bucks an hour"
Welfare destroys the soul!
IMO Poor Americans of all races ought to emulate those immigrants!
--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"
We have "reckless fiscal policies"
America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.
Americans deserve better
Barack Obama
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 13 years, 21 days
|
|
This Rothbard dude is a GENIUS!
Of Ronald Reagan Rothbard writes,
"It is no accident that the same administration that manages to combine the rhetoric of "getting government off our back" with the reality of enormously escalating Big Government, should also have brought back a failed and statist Keynesianism in the name of prosperity and free enterprise."
"Since the beginning of the Reagan administration, the much heralded "cuts" in the officially dubbed "income-tax" segment of our payroll taxes have been more than offset by the rise in the "Social-Security" portion. But since the public has been conditioned into thinking that the Social Security tax is somehow not a tax, the Reagan-Bush administrations have been able to get away with their pose as heroic champions of tax cuts and resisters against the tax-raising inclinations of the evil Democrats."
SAME SHIT HAPPENED AGAIN MURRAY!!!!!!!
--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"
We have "reckless fiscal policies"
America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.
Americans deserve better
Barack Obama
|
Economist
in training
Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
lonestar2004 said:
Imagine someone being responsible for their own problems...
Anyway he apologized for writing this back in 1973. I'm sure Thomas Jefferson author of the Declaration of Independence would also apologize for some of his crazy ass writings if given a chance. Other than then their race views I find them both interesting writers.
Economist are you a welfare state, income redistribution, the "New Deal" kinda guy?
No, I don't believe in income redistribution, and I hate the "New Deal".
However, I also do not believe that values are "ethnically based" something that Rothbard believed. If you want to say that values are culturally, religiously, politically, based, that's fine, but by claiming they are ETHNICALLY based you are suggesting that entire races are "lazy" and should more or less be written off.
I believe that people can learn and grow, and that being born into a race that tends to be poor does not doom you to poverty because of genetics.
Rothbard would disagree, as he believes your mere ethnicity can make you lazy.
As for apologizing in 1973, the quote I offered was from a 1978 book, so I don't really see how the apology is relevant...
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: Economist]
#7229603 - 07/27/07 06:34 AM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
> The dollar isn't backed by anything except the willingness of people to accept dollars for their goods
The dollar used to be backed by gold or silver. Why did they stop doing this? (hehe... never mind... just saw that you speak towards this point later in your post)
> And if no one is spending, then prices drop further as businesses seeks any money they can get, causing more people to not spend, and you have a spiral that kills business as surely as inflation.
You lost me at "causing more people not to spend". If prices are dropping, then wouldn't people tend to spend more as goods are cheaper? I can see the business owners spending less as they are taking a hit, but I don't see the why this would be so with the general population?
One of the few things I do remember from macro-economics is that money out of circulation (money stashed in the matress, or savings account for example) is a bad thing for the economy... so I see that side of what you are saying about not spending being bad... I'm just missing why people wouldn't spend money if goods are getting cheaper?
> If this demand is not met, you would see deflation because people would want dollars more than they would want goods that they exchange dollars for
Ah... so if the dollar is worth more than the various products that I can buy, then I would tend to hold on to the dollar rather than spending it on product... I think I understand that...
Who actually profits (directly) from the printing of money?
> So, to sum up: blacks and Puerto Ricans are poor because they come from a culture that values hedonism, laziness, and capriciousness.
I can back up the claim towards Puerto Rican culture leaning towards... less work and more play (trying to be polite). Some of my vendors are located in Puerto Rico and I have problems with all of them. The entire territory takes week long vacations at the drop of a hat... (what other country takes off the entire week for election day, for example)
> I believe that people can learn and grow, and that being born into a race that tends to be poor does not doom you to poverty because of genetics.
In America I would agree with you. The true American Dream isn't about being able to write what you want, do drugs that you like, or any of that type of stuff... instead, it allows anybody, regardless of social or racial background, to be able to become "somebody" (i.e. rich). It doesn't matter if you were born into a noble family, or if you were born into an upper class caste, or any other such barriers that appear in other cultures.
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
Economist
in training
Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: Seuss]
#7229778 - 07/27/07 09:05 AM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said:
You lost me at "causing more people not to spend". If prices are dropping, then wouldn't people tend to spend more as goods are cheaper? I can see the business owners spending less as they are taking a hit, but I don't see the why this would be so with the general population?
One of the few things I do remember from macro-economics is that money out of circulation (money stashed in the matress, or savings account for example) is a bad thing for the economy... so I see that side of what you are saying about not spending being bad... I'm just missing why people wouldn't spend money if goods are getting cheaper?
I think you actually got a handle on this idea already, you just don't realize it yet.
The key here is that you notice that prices are, and have been, dropping. Now, normally, if prices are low, you want to spend. But, if you have reason to believe that prices are going to be even lower tomorrow, and even lower the next day, and the day after, and so on, you wouldn't spend any money because you'd want to see how low the prices drop. Of course, if everyone is doing this, the prices won't stop dropping and spending won't start again for months or even years.
Obviously this doesn't apply as much to things like food, but new homes, cars, computers, etc. all easily suffer if consumers begin to believe that buying in another couple of months will lead to a lower price.
Quote:
Seuss said:
Who actually profits (directly) from the printing of money?
Under the current system there are a group of private banks (Called Primary Dealers, if you want to look them up) that could (concievably) make a profit if enough money was printed, because that money is used to purchase bank assets (Treasury Notes) which is how new money enters the system.
The only problem with this is that the market mechanism the Federal Reserve uses to determine "how much money to print" is based upon how good a deal they can get from these primary dealers. Once the dealers begin to make significant profits, the Fed takes it as a signal that it's time to stop printing money.
Aside from that, it's not really clear. The Federal Government *could* benefit if there was absolutley no, or very little, purchasing of Treasury Notes by foreigners (the reasons are complicated, but I'd be happy to go through them if you'd like), but this hasn't been the case for decades.
Quote:
Seuss said:
I can back up the claim towards Puerto Rican culture leaning towards... less work and more play (trying to be polite). Some of my vendors are located in Puerto Rico and I have problems with all of them. The entire territory takes week long vacations at the drop of a hat... (what other country takes off the entire week for election day, for example)
I can understand if some cultures tend to value play over work. Where I see a break down is claiming that the ethnicity and not the culture is the basis for these values. If a Puerto Rican is raised by foreign parents (or even raised by Puerto Ricans who emigrated to a different culture), I believe that they could have completely different values. Rothbard believes this isn't the case and that the ethnicity will bring the values with it no matter what.
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 13 years, 21 days
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: Economist]
#7230100 - 07/27/07 11:03 AM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Economist said:
I can understand if some cultures tend to value play over work. Where I see a break down is claiming that the ethnicity and not the culture is the basis for these values. If a Puerto Rican is raised by foreign parents (or even raised by Puerto Ricans who emigrated to a different culture), I believe that they could have completely different values. Rothbard believes this isn't the case and that the ethnicity will bring the values with it no matter what.
Yep, but IMO cultural values is sometimes exaggerated.
I believe IQ is to a certain extent is genetic, and maybe some races have higher IQ than others... Is that racist? I,m sure a lot of people will think so....
For example If some Puerto Rico kids were adopted and raised by Asian American parents who value hard work and education and some Asian kids were raised by some Puerto Ricans who value loud music and parties.... 20 years later i would not be surprised if the Asian kids outperform the Puerto Rico kids on a standardized IQ test. smirk:
BTW i have come to this racist view from playing sports all my life. Some races just seem IMO to be Genetically gifted...and I attend a lot of Doctors functions and parties and it seems that the TOP SURGEONS are always from INDIA?????? wtf
NO scientific proof.
Edited by lonestar2004 (07/27/07 11:36 AM)
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger
Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: Economist]
#7230945 - 07/27/07 03:29 PM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Ron Paul is just doing what any good politician does - taking a common prejudice and exaggerating it. He may be completely wrong, but sensationalism and arrogance seem to have a much stronger effect on the American public than the dull truth that everything is fine (or, at least, not THAT bad.)
Ron Paul for Messiah '08
|
xFrockx
Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,458
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 15 hours, 41 minutes
|
|
Paul scares me because he wants to get rid of most of the government. I read about the 20's, I don't want to have to have lots of money to be able to get basic services that the government provides me now. I refuse to support him blindly on the fact that he wants the DEA gone, but it is tempting, and I can understand why so many do.
Government can be a great thing I think, it just can't be run by a majority choosing, the people are too dumb. I had this idea once, a Lottocracy, rule by random selection...
Edited by xFrockx (07/27/07 06:53 PM)
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: xFrockx]
#7231705 - 07/27/07 07:33 PM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
> Paul scares me because he wants to get rid of most of the government.
Funny, that is the main reason why I like him. Return power to the states to decide what is best for their citizens. If we don't like something in one state, we can move to another. I fail to see why everything in the US must be regulated at the federal level?
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
xFrockx
Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,458
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 15 hours, 41 minutes
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: Seuss]
#7231882 - 07/27/07 08:27 PM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I apply for a patent in Texas, some shmuck in Tenessee decided he wants to market it for me, without my permission. Problem?
I live in Lousiana, my state is wraked by hurricanes and flooding, we have no money to help ourselves, and while donations are coming in, it simply isnt enough, where are we to turn, and more importantly, who will organize the numerous out of state relief efforts?
My enemy decides to buy a gun, he lives in Alaska, which decided to remove all of their gun control laws, so he can buy a gun even though he has commited felonies in other states, including currently under a restraining order in my home state of California. Problem?
I buy some meat at a market in a nearby neighboring state, the state has lax policies on checking their meat, and thusly it is cheaper. The free market guides me to buy the cheaper meat in the neighboring state (god bless Ron Paul for separating all this shit out in 2009.) Two weeks later myself and my wife are struggling with E. Coli, my youngest daughter, only 2, has already succumb to the infection because she needed special antibiotics to treat the highly-resistant strain form the meat that were in a shortage here in my home state.
We need a federal government. If every state had autonomous policies for all the shit the federal government does then we would be living under more government, not less, not to mention we'd still need a federal government to regulate interstate trade, laws, ect. Its a really nice, rosy way to look at things, but its not realistic.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: xFrockx]
#7233655 - 07/28/07 01:02 PM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
xFrockx said:
I apply for a patent in Texas, some shmuck in Tenessee decided he wants to market it for me, without my permission. Problem?
I dunno, this seems a reasonable exercise of federal power. It even seems to be relatively effectively dealt with internationally.Quote:
I live in Lousiana, my state is wraked by hurricanes and flooding, we have no money to help ourselves, and while donations are coming in, it simply isnt enough, where are we to turn, and more importantly, who will organize the numerous out of state relief efforts?
Buy insurance or.....MOVE. Hurricane country, tornado alley, fault lines, these are no great secrets. I'm not so stupid as to move to a place that regularly floods or threatens to slide into the sea, why should I bail your idiot ass out?Quote:
My enemy decides to buy a gun, he lives in Alaska, which decided to remove all of their gun control laws, so he can buy a gun even though he has commited felonies in other states, including currently under a restraining order in my home state of California. Problem?
This is pretty much the current situation. But I have no problem with a federal database for felons and federally mandating that they can't have guns. Or votes or a whole shit load of things. Likewise I wouldn't mind the Supreme Court ruling that NYC's restrictive gun laws are unconstitutional. Reasonable federal issues both.Quote:
I buy some meat at a market in a nearby neighboring state, the state has lax policies on checking their meat, and thusly it is cheaper. The free market guides me to buy the cheaper meat in the neighboring state (god bless Ron Paul for separating all this shit out in 2009.) Two weeks later myself and my wife are struggling with E. Coli, my youngest daughter, only 2, has already succumb to the infection because she needed special antibiotics to treat the highly-resistant strain form the meat that were in a shortage here in my home state.
Well no, the market did NOT at all guide you to buy meat there. You CHOSE price over safety. Way to go, cheapskate, you killed your daughter. But I also have no problem with some federal regulation.Quote:
We need a federal government. If every state had autonomous policies for all the shit the federal government does then we would be living under more government, not less, not to mention we'd still need a federal government to regulate interstate trade, laws, ect. Its a really nice, rosy way to look at things, but its not realistic.
Not even the arch-idiot Ron Paul espouses the positions you mention. I think. You raise childish straw men.
--------------------
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News
Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: Economist]
#7234598 - 07/28/07 06:28 PM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Ron Paul is a stooge for the anarcho-commies to throw their vote away to.
|
xFrockx
Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,458
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 15 hours, 41 minutes
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: zappaisgod]
#7235107 - 07/28/07 09:52 PM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
On the Daily show when he did his interview he said he'd eliminate just about every 'unnecessary' federal program, I remember him specifically mentioning FEMA, the DEA, the FDA, FCC, and a few others that are pretty necessary federal programs. One could argue many of the departments do need some fixing, but it beats the hell out of nothing.
Also, FEMA may suck, but it still beats he hell out of a "Got a problem with the weather? Sell all your shit and get the fuck out!" policy. Also, where could you possibly live on earth that is safe from all natural disasters?
Zappa, in my experience you seem to thrive on a sort of narrow minded tendency to assume that simply because you have not experienced something that others don't experience it either. You can say I'm setting up straw men, but your arguments are truly no better.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: xFrockx]
#7236195 - 07/29/07 11:04 AM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not defending Paul. I think he's an extremist nutcase. I also think the same of some posters here but in the other direction. You might be able to guess a few (or one anyway). I could do without FEMA and the DEA. The FDA and FCC? I think they're useful without being overly harmful. Not tremendously competent but that's gummint for you. On further thought, I'd even keep FEMA but not as a charitable organization. It would have to be paid back. Like mountaineers should have to pay for their rescues or their estates for the search for their bodies.
Quote:
Also, FEMA may suck, but it still beats he hell out of a "Got a problem with the weather? Sell all your shit and get the fuck out!" policy. Also, where could you possibly live on earth that is safe from all natural disasters?
I'm going to be charitable and assume that you can comprehend the concept of differential risk. If you move to Tornado Alley and find that the insurance is expensive don't you think that is a choice YOU made. As opposed to where I live where the tornadoes are quite rare and relatively wimpy. Or you move to San Francisco which could go at any time. As opposed to where I live where the earthquakes are extremely rare and quite wimpy. Or you can live on the Hurricane Coast where you are guaranteed to get some huge blow at some point and no one will sell you flood insurance. As opposed to where I live where the hurricanes are rare but wimpy. Or you can live in the Mississippi River Valley, that floods every few years and you can't get flood insurance. As opposed to where I live where the floods are few and far between and not so bad. In each of these scenarios someone has chosen to take a greater KNOWN risk, for whatever reason. Why should prudent people have to bail them out when the inevitable happens? If I tell you repeatedly that an area is more dangerous and you live there anyway than YOU assume the risk. Not me.
Quote:
Zappa, in my experience you seem to thrive on a sort of narrow minded tendency to assume that simply because you have not experienced something that others don't experience it either. You can say I'm setting up straw men, but your arguments are truly no better.
You do erect more straw men than anybody else I can think of.
As to my supposedly narrow viewpoint, I certainly understand quite well that others' experience is not similar to mine. What I object to is the notion that we should strive to please and protect everyone no matter the cost. There is a whole lot of "Gee that's too bad" in the world that just cannot be removed no matter what. The utopian (some might say psychotic) notion that everybody is going to get a perfect path from birth to death is absurd. If we lowered the speed limit and put governors on vehicles to prevent them from exceeding 10 MPH there would be almost zero traffic fatalities. But that safety comes at extreme cost.
We mostly just argue about how few people we think it is reasonable to allow to get fucked before the cost rises too high for the rest of us. Diminishing returns. I also have very little sympathy for people who fuck themselves through the exercise of their government given freedom to be stupid.
--------------------
|
xFrockx
Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,458
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 15 hours, 41 minutes
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: zappaisgod]
#7236442 - 07/29/07 01:08 PM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Not everyone has the option to live where they choose to. Children, the poor, people who need to be somewhere to work, you get the idea.
While I do understand the possible merits of a republic comprised of autonomous states, I think our current system, although definitely in need of streamlining, is a better solution. I fail to see how a state-by state system could be any better than a microchasm of our current system. What is now "I'm moving to Canada if Hilary Clinton gets elected" would just turn into "I'm moving to West Virginia if Ed Rendell gets re-elected" Yes, another delightful straw man, but if it really would be such a world of difference then please enlighten me.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: xFrockx]
#7236468 - 07/29/07 01:19 PM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
xFrockx said:
Not everyone has the option to live where they choose to. Children, the poor, people who need to be somewhere to work, you get the idea.
Children are stuck with their parents. Every body else can move if they choose. Unless they made some cripplingly stupid choices that I don't feel sorry for either.Quote:
While I do understand the possible merits of a republic comprised of autonomous states, I think our current system, although definitely in need of streamlining, is a better solution. I fail to see how a state-by state system could be any better than a microchasm of our current system. What is now "I'm moving to Canada if Hilary Clinton gets elected" would just turn into "I'm moving to West Virginia if Ed Rendell gets re-elected" Yes, another delightful straw man, but if it really would be such a world of difference then please enlighten me.
You won't get me defending Paul, I think he's a grandstanding asshole.
--------------------
|
xFrockx
Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,458
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 15 hours, 41 minutes
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: zappaisgod]
#7236507 - 07/29/07 01:35 PM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
There are plenty of people who are required to live in a certain area because of their work. Now, sure, they could quit their job to get away, but thats pretty extreme, especially if the only thing they dislike about their job is the state they are in.
If someone who will defend Paul's stance has an answer to my problems I raised other than the normal "If you actually listened to him you would find out that he agrees with you" response, that would be peachy.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: Economist]
#7240205 - 07/30/07 02:33 PM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
The following link is a good read to understand Paul's perspective on economics for anyone interested. He has been a passionate student of economics since the Nixon years and economics is why he got into legislation.
He published this book a few years ago and you can get it for free now here.
http://www.mises.org/books/paulmises.pdf
I think some of your fears eco can be resolved through understanding him from a more in depth and well studied perspective.
--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
Economist
in training
Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
|
I don't understand why you keep suggesting that I don't understand Ron Paul.
I believe I do understand him, and I have personally studied the Austrian School of economics (which he heartily supports) and that is what scares me.
I would suggest that possibly you do not understand the full reaches of the Austrian School, such as their blatantly racist assertions that certain ethnicities are inherently lazy (see my posts earlier in this thread, complete with sources).
Believe me, I desperately want to see a Libertarian in the White House. But I want to see one that acts because of rational economic study, not someone who buys into the dogma of the Austrian School and who could cause serious damage to our economy as a result.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: Economist]
#7242457 - 07/31/07 04:44 AM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
> I don't understand why you keep suggesting that I don't understand Ron Paul.
Because you don't agree with him... see, if you don't agree with him, it is obviously because you don't understand him... 
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
kotik
fuckingsuperhero
Registered: 06/29/04
Posts: 3,531
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: Economist]
#7244499 - 07/31/07 05:42 PM (16 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Economist said:
Ron Paul scares me because he doesn't seem to understand how the American economy works.
Note that I'm not refering to my own beliefs about free-markets, or the teachings of Milton Friedman, I'm talking about very basic facts, like where our money supply comes from, how it's created, and what the Federal Reserve has to do with it.
I would say the exact opposite. He understands completely how the current economy works, and that's precisely the reason he wants to change it. I happen to agree, although working on a huge machine while it's running (like the american economy) is a huge risk - HUGE.
that being said, I'm still all for it.
--------------------
No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.
|
bugabuga420
bUgAbUgaBOO
Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 488
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: Economist]
#7739985 - 12/10/07 10:57 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
what scares me is the fact that 90% of americans think the federal reserve is part of the federal government. what also scares me is that congress has no access to m3 stats or any ability to audit the fed. heres a nice quote to ponder:
"The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered. " -Thomas Jefferson
|
BrAiN
Art Fag
Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
OneLessForeskin said:
Quote:
Seuss said:
I wish I understood economics enough to debate with you on this. (When it comes to understanding accounting/economy/money, I am a literal fool.)
For example:
> Anyone who believes [that the Federal Reserve allows the US Government to deficit spend] does not actually know how the Federal Reserve works.
You lost me at deficit spend... (Though I will go read the wiki entry you linked to above.)
My sentiments exactly!
Agreed.
Although I can sympathize with #1.
Back in the day in 2003-2004 I was working for myself as a freelance programmer. I couldn't find a lot of worth, went back to the corporate sector and I am NOW on my own again.
Back in 2003-2004 I couldn't compete with the Indians for programming jobs because they charged like 1/10th of what I did as an American.
Now that the dollar is weaker people are more likely to pick my proposals over the Indians. Sure they still charge less, but the gap is less and people who were bordering the fence on whether to take my services as American was more important than saving themselves money. These people will more likely be swayed towards me now.
Although I would like to travel occasionally to Europe.. it WOULD be nice not to waste half my dollars on the defecit and blow 10 american dollars for a beer. I'll be bankrupt by day 1 :P
|
BrAiN
Art Fag
Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: bugabuga420]
#7740026 - 12/10/07 11:11 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bugabuga420 said:
what scares me is the fact that 90% of americans think the federal reserve is part of the federal government. what also scares me is that congress has no access to m3 stats or any ability to audit the fed. heres a nice quote to ponder:
"The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered. " -Thomas Jefferson
btw thanks for bumping this.. it answered some questions in another post I made today
|
SlashOZ
:D
Registered: 10/20/06
Posts: 3,557
Loc: Following the water cycle
|
Re: Why Ron Paul scares me [Re: Economist]
#7740330 - 12/10/07 12:21 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
he still doesn't scare me any more than any of the attack first ask questions later republicans with big business buddies who could care less about my welfare or the welfare of any other american. he still scares me less than the democrats who are either trying to start a dynasty, have no platform, or are crooked lawyers. given the choices ron paul is far and wide the best choice this election.
also just because the american economy works in a certain way right now doesn't mean we can't work without a federal reserve. thats like saying if we switched to metric nothing would work when in reality nothing could be further from the truth.
--------------------
"Life sucks but in this really beautiful way" - Axl Rose
"Life's a bitch and then you die that's why we get high cuz you never know when you're gonna go." - NAS
"When people don't know what you're about they put you down and shut you out" - Black Sabbath
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi
"Look up at me I am God, look down on me and I am evil, look at me I am you." - Charles Manson.
"Don't question my reality." - Me (as far as I know)
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 all )
SquattingMarmot
JonnyOnTheSpot
gettinjiggywithit
Bridgeburner
Ythan
Disco Cat
OneMoreRobot3021