Republican Debate: Tonight

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

What about foresight, BEFORE any total collapse? Are we to just let the collapse occur and then react?

Hey bud, i totally agree. I firmly believe we should change the way we do things NOW before its too late. Unfortunately the status quo is easier for people to go with.

The major campaign against us is currently happening. Have you seen the value of the dollar versus all other currencies? versus gold and silver? Are we to ignore these signs? The only reason the dollar hasn't crashed is because China and Japan hold the purse strings. As the rest of the world has increased the purchasing power of their currencies, increasing their wealth, the U.S. is headed towards financial armageddon if/when China and Japan lose faith in the Almighty Dollar! Unless we bomb them of course....which our military seems to be the only real backing of the dollar.

I see what is happening with our currency, but its not drastic enough for the general public to make the major change. They don't care if gold, silver, platinum, and others are more expensive. They dont understand that we really need to take action now before its too late.

Romney, McCain, Clinton and Obama are clueless to the economics. Ron Paul isn't, and he knows something has to be done NOW!

But I am somewhat of a realist too and I do believe the collapse will come because Americans are, for the most part, ignorant. I do find great intelligence on this forum, but this is not a good representation of the comprehension Americans have of fiscal policy.

Fed Up

In the end I am not sure Ron Paul's idea is really 100% necessary to fix everything. The government just needs to quit fucking around with it. Economic down turns happen. We don't necessarily need to go to the gold standard. They need to leave interest rates alone unless its a last, last resort. They need to quit giving stupid ass tax rebates and such unless they cut spending to pay for it.

I think if we quit giving 30 billion a year to Israel, cut our defense budget by 100 billion (to a measly 400 billion), brought in much of our empire so we don't have to pay to maintain these bases all over the world, ended this shit in Iraq asap, leave taxes alone the way they are, at minimum be back on the right track.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I'll bring it up once again since it gets ignored...you say that the current politicians are all clueless and can't do a single thing. Well, if Paul is President, you realize all those useless politicians are in Congress? How is Ron Paul going to make Congress do a 180 from total incompetence to complete compliant status? Here's how...he can't do it. He can spout all these ideas and all his rhetoric all he wants...he can get out his pen and write elegant bills and laws...none of it matters unless Congress passes any of it. Guess what? They won't. I've said it before, i'll say it again...Paul winning THIS presidency will be the downfall of your party...your ideals...your wave of change. Have your party get their shit together and get a majority in Congress...THEN attempt to put someone in the White House. Until you can win the small elections, you have no hope in the big one. Until you can implement change on a local level...you have no hope on a Federal or global level. Period.

You keep saying "your party." Ron Paul is running as a Republican and has been elected as a Republican for 10 terms. If you want to talk about "your" party, then I'm sure you're talking about the "New" Republican party....the one with the mantra of "Islamofacism!" The one that never met a spending bill they didn't pass!

Back to Paul....

Congressmen are voted in right? His election would have an impact on those who are running for office because The People would have spoken that the same garbage in has resulted in garbage out and not reelect that garbage. There are more and more youth who have become interested in politics and what he started today, in 2 to 4 years can really take off. My nephew will be one of them. But it's an unknown at this point as to how congress would work with Ron Paul. There are more people who think like Ron Paul that are running for office.

But you forget a couple things....

The President can pretty much do anything he wants via Executive Order. See: Executive Orders Issued by President George W. Bush to see how active GW has been. Ron Paul has said that executive orders are constitutional, so he could possibly use them to swell or shrink departments and agencies which were created via legislation.

also I found this which is relevant to your questioning; "Any US president can basically require that all bills, including budgets, need a 2/3 majority by vetoing every bill that comes across his desk and making congress override the vetoes. If the president can get 33% of either the house or senate to go along with the vetoes he can certainly starve federal agencies and end benefits due to lack of authorization to spend fedral money on them."

This would be a reasonable possibility IMO.

Paul getting elected would actually save the Republican Party as it would have to return to its roots of a humble foreign policy; the party that got us out of wars and was fiscally responsible by cutting the size of government. It's clearly not the case with today's Republican party.

If you think this "New" Republican party can win in November with the same platform that lost the House and the Senate in 2006, then it is your party that needs to get it's sh*t together.

Fed Up

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Hey bud, i totally agree. I firmly believe we should change the way we do things NOW before its too late. Unfortunately the status quo is easier for people to go with.



I see what is happening with our currency, but its not drastic enough for the general public to make the major change. They don't care if gold, silver, platinum, and others are more expensive. They dont understand that we really need to take action now before its too late.



In the end I am not sure Ron Paul's idea is really 100% necessary to fix everything. The government just needs to quit fucking around with it. Economic down turns happen. We don't necessarily need to go to the gold standard. They need to leave interest rates alone unless its a last, last resort. They need to quit giving stupid ass tax rebates and such unless they cut spending to pay for it.

I think if we quit giving 30 billion a year to Israel, cut our defense budget by 100 billion (to a measly 400 billion), brought in much of our empire so we don't have to pay to maintain these bases all over the world, ended this shit in Iraq asap, leave taxes alone the way they are, at minimum be back on the right track.

I concur...

Fed Up

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Romney has a MBA from Havard and graduated in the top 5% of his class, he has had a ton of succuess in private business so he certainly knows quite a bit about economics.

RP is an OB/GYN, how does that qualify him as an economist?

His understanding of Austrian Economics is second to none. Austrian Economics is not taught at our universities for a reason. It doesn't line the pockets of the King and Queen politicians.

Romney wants to continue this lining of pockets of these Kings and Queens at the expense of the serfs.

Fed Up

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

You keep saying "your party." Ron Paul is running as a Republican and has been elected as a Republican for 10 terms. If you want to talk about "your" party, then I'm sure you're talking about the "New" Republican party....the one with the mantra of "Islamofacism!" The one that never met a spending bill they didn't pass!

If it smells like a Libertarian...

Originally Posted by Fed Up

Back to Paul....

Congressmen are voted in right? His election would have an impact on those who are running for office because The People would have spoken that the same garbage in has resulted in garbage out and not reelect that garbage. There are more and more youth who have become interested in politics and what he started today, in 2 to 4 years can really take off. My nephew will be one of them. But it's an unknown at this point as to how congress would work with Ron Paul. There are more people who think like Ron Paul that are running for office.

Yet they have shown they don't show up at the polls.

Originally Posted by Fed Up

But you forget a couple things....

The President can pretty much do anything he wants via Executive Order. See: Executive Orders Issued by President George W. Bush to see how active GW has been. Ron Paul has said that executive orders are constitutional, so he could possibly use them to swell or shrink departments and agencies which were created via legislation.

Ah, so Paul is actually advocating the same ol bullshit and this change mantra is all garbage, correct?

Originally Posted by Fed Up

also I found this which is relevant to your questioning; "Any US president can basically require that all bills, including budgets, need a 2/3 majority by vetoing every bill that comes across his desk and making congress override the vetoes. If the president can get 33% of either the house or senate to go along with the vetoes he can certainly starve federal agencies and end benefits due to lack of authorization to spend fedral money on them."

This would be a reasonable possibility IMO.

But only in your opinion. It's not a reality. He can't sway enough votes from either side of the aisle to be worth a damn.

Originally Posted by Fed Up

Paul getting elected would actually save the Republican Party as it would have to return to its roots of a humble foreign policy; the party that got us out of wars and was fiscally responsible by cutting the size of government. It's clearly not the case with today's Republican party.

If you think this "New" Republican party can win in November with the same platform that lost the House and the Senate in 2006, then it is your party that needs to get it's sh*t together.

Fed Up

When Republicans don't consider him Republican...kind of pointless to even go by that name. Besides, he's not getting the Republican nomination, so he would be running independent or libertarian right?

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

When Republicans don't consider him Republican...kind of pointless to even go by that name. Besides, he's not getting the Republican nomination, so he would be running independent or libertarian right?

The libertarian side of Paul and the Republican side has been discussed on a separate thread.

As far as your comment above, Ron Paul is more like the "Old" Republicans than this "New" version.

As far as how he runs, that's a good question. I wouldn't mind him running as the Constitutional Party nominee. I interviewed the current guy running at FreedomFest last April and wasn't too happy him. Forget his name.

Libertarian a possibility as well. He knows it would be a struggle with either. I just want him around for 9 more months challenging the status quo....and it give me more time to get his "message" out:


Fed Up

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

The libertarian side of Paul and the Republican side has been discussed on a separate thread.

As far as your comment above, Ron Paul is more like the "Old" Republicans than this "New" version.

As far as how he runs, that's a good question. I wouldn't mind him running as the Constitutional Party nominee. I interviewed the current guy running at FreedomFest last April and wasn't too happy him. Forget his name.

Libertarian a possibility as well. He knows it would be a struggle with either. I just want him around for 9 more months challenging the status quo....and it give me more time to get his "message" out:


Fed Up

And if the people reject his message? They are the idiots, right?

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And if the people reject his message? They are the idiots, right?

Not at all...

Free Will

Fed Up

[kombayn]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Actually libertarian ideas in the market place and in many other areas are happeneing everyday. They are well tested and true. We just don't teach them anymore. But they keep the better half of our very mixed economy alive.

The problem is that the free market system works so well in this country it continues to pump money into a growing government, and that special interest continues to turn around and sell more of itself to the public. They are actually able to use your own money against your own self-interest. At some point the balance will tilt to far to the left and another real conservative revolution will happen. But many people will be hurt in the meantime while that very same special interests fights to preserve it protected monopoly racket.

What the left never want to tell you is that Government is the largest and most powerful monopoly ever invented. Something as horrible as North Korea should not even exist in this modern age, but it does. And it does because the end goal is to eliminate a market place of ideas. Get over your delusion that the far left are free thinking people.

I completely agree.

As for Donkey, how can you say these ideas cannot work in the modern age. First getting rid of the NATO & WTO agreements would help us immensely, our product rates would go up and we'd get paid more for it because our products made here are good, checked and shipped with 100% satisfaction guranteed. The reason places like China get all the trade money now is because they do it cheap, they don't inspect it and they don't care if it comes to us. They sent out toys with GHB?! How the hell does that happen? A communist (*cough*socialist*cough*) government that is already getting there money. They have one of the world's most polluted waters on the planet, why? Because they're a communist (*cough*socialist*cough*) government. Plus with a 1 billion person population, they want you to die.

America doesn't stand for that. Our founding values with been taught since kids is our patriotism. Ron Paul would bring change, he would imply a kind of fair tax, get rid of the IRS and Federal Reserve, change the economy (Trust me it would slow down for a bit cause of the change but it work help to have an actual number from the beginning and not "printing money out of thin air"), immediate with-drawl, and real change. Ron Paul would exercise his authority as President to give back to the American Community, it's weird to have a candidate that actually gives a shit about the American People and not only "selective" American People.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by kombayn

I completely agree.

As for Donkey, how can you say these ideas cannot work in the modern age.

Not sure where I said that?

[kombayn]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I'll bring it up once again since it gets ignored...you say that the current politicians are all clueless and can't do a single thing. Well, if Paul is President, you realize all those useless politicians are in Congress? How is Ron Paul going to make Congress do a 180 from total incompetence to complete compliant status? Here's how...he can't do it. He can spout all these ideas and all his rhetoric all he wants...he can get out his pen and write elegant bills and laws...none of it matters unless Congress passes any of it. Guess what? They won't. I've said it before, i'll say it again...Paul winning THIS presidency will be the downfall of your party...your ideals...your wave of change. Have your party get their shit together and get a majority in Congress...THEN attempt to put someone in the White House. Until you can win the small elections, you have no hope in the big one. Until you can implement change on a local level...you have no hope on a Federal or global level. Period.

Right there, sir.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by kombayn

Right there, sir.

I don't think that's the same...but I will say I explained why as well in that paragraph. He will not have the backing of either party...nor Congress. A President needs that in order to get anything accomplished.

[Dylith]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

....you know nothing about the economics of it all, let alone the financial ramifications relating to investments, where big government and anti-capitalism ARE the problem, and neither does most of America.

Personally, my goal, my passion in life, is to wake people up to that for which they do not know about the economics of it all; the misrepresentation by our politicians and the collusion with the Federal Reserve as they drive America into a black hole of depression caused by a monetary crisis from creating too much money to pay for all of these government programs/wars/subsidies. More government is NOT the answer!

I find it rather amusing that an anarcho-capitalist is complaining about others "knowing nothing about the economics of it all." Certianly capitalism is very important to a strong economic system, but the free market is not the cure all that Rothbardian economics makes it out to be, and anyone who has ever bothered to look at the area of public finance in any detail knows this.

The free market has its failures. The free market needs the government to correct it where it fails. Certainly, we need to reduce spending, but that does not mean that new legislation such as a national health insurance system isn't economically justified.

We can't make blanket statements like "more government is not the answer" because the simple fact is that it is the answer in specific situations. The problem is that we need to, as a nation, be able to better distinguish between when government is and is not needed.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Dylith

I find it rather amusing that an anarcho-capitalist is complaining about others "knowing nothing about the economics of it all." Certianly capitalism is very important to a strong economic system, but the free market is not the cure all that Rothbardian economics makes it out to be, and anyone who has ever bothered to look at the area of public finance in any detail knows this.

The free market has its failures. The free market needs the government to correct it where it fails. Certainly, we need to reduce spending, but that does not mean that new legislation such as a national health insurance system isn't economically justified.

We can't make blanket statements like "more government is not the answer" because the simple fact is that it is the answer in specific situations. The problem is that we need to, as a nation, be able to better distinguish between when government is and is not needed.

My point is that our government keeps us ignorant as to what actually can work, because by educating the masses to alternatives would cut the lifeline to their royal road to riches.

IMO, there is a reason why Keynes was knighted by England. There's a reason why Greenspan, who was a devoted advocate of the gold standard in the 1960's, was knighted by England. There's a reason why Austrian Economics is not taught at our Universities.

So I beg to differ with your "amusement," but you are entitled to your opinion.

Recipe for an Anarcho Capitalist society

Any questions?

Fed Up

[Dylith]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

My point is that our government keeps us ignorant as to what actually can work, because by educating the masses to alternatives would cut the lifeline to their royal road to riches.

IMO, there is a reason why Keynes was knighted by England. There's a reason why Greenspan, who was a devoted advocate of the gold standard in the 1960's, was knighted by England. There's a reason why Austrian Economics is not taught at our Universities.

So I beg to differ with your "amusement," but you are entitled to your opinion.

Recipe for an Anarcho Capitalist society

Any questions?

Fed Up

I do have questions. How does your system take into account negative and positive externalities? How does your system take into account the market failures generated by the free rider problem? How does your system solve other market failures such as the problem of adverse selection and the overpricing of consumption smoothing (in insurance markets)?

The answer is simple: It doesn't. Anarcho-capitalism ignores these failures and market forces. It seems to simply pretend that they do not exist, which is silly since they are so pervasive in our economy. It relies on high levels of altruism in a world where man is generally self-interested.

Anarcho-capitalism would destroy the United States. I am curious to know the extent of your economic education.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Dylith

I do have questions. How does your system take into account negative and positive externalities? How does your system take into account the market failures generated by the free rider problem? How does your system solve other market failures such as the problem of adverse selection and the overpricing of consumption smoothing (in insurance markets)?

We've actually talked about certain externalities on these boards in the past, for instance, pollution. The answer is different from person to person, but it is my opinion that it is in each state's best interest to protect it's land, water, and air and that does not alter a free market because it is the demand of the people that those things not be tainted. I think the current failure is in the nationalization of environmental protection, as we have talked about in the past. I was surprised that bheld, who often supports a stronger federal system, was in agreement with me that the EPA is too powerful which is evident in their misuse of that power (blocking states from achieving a minimum higher than their set minimum).

But really, your terminology is far too broad to represent your position. Like, if you're saying that to smooth out overpricing and negative externalities that cause people to not be able to afford a good you think we should price fix and subsidize industries, then your ideas are completely off and end up causing more grief than otherwise would have been achieved. This can very easily be seen in the relationship between medical care and insurance which has been made worse by the government regulating to "protect" us from malpractice, but has created a system wrought with abuse. The result is that all medical consumer costs, no matter the resulting marginal cost, is set at the cap. And this always happens. Price capping causes eventual cap charging.

From a supply chain economics perspective, that's how you deal with variability in cost. You make the people who achieved a low marginal cost pay for those who cause a higher marginal cost. In more free markets the idea from supply chain is to segregate the market into people with different willingness to pay, thus maximizing your profits by increasing your system's utilization and having preference to those market sectors willing to pay more.

Didn't mean to go off on an supply chain economics lesson there, but it is a large part of Industrial Engineering.

[Dylith]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

We've actually talked about certain externalities on these boards in the past, for instance, pollution. The answer is different from person to person, but it is my opinion that it is in each state's best interest to protect it's land, water, and air and that does not alter a free market because it is the demand of the people that those things not be tainted. I think the current failure is in the nationalization of environmental protection, as we have talked about in the past. I was surprised that bheld, who often supports a stronger federal system, was in agreement with me that the EPA is too powerful which is evident in their misuse of that power (blocking states from achieving a minimum higher than their set minimum).

But really, your terminology is far too broad to represent your position. Like, if you're saying that to smooth out overpricing and negative externalities that cause people to not be able to afford a good you think we should price fix and subsidize industries, then your ideas are completely off and end up causing more grief than otherwise would have been achieved. This can very easily be seen in the relationship between medical care and insurance which has been made worse by the government regulating to "protect" us from malpractice, but has created a system wrought with abuse. The result is that all medical consumer costs, no matter the resulting marginal cost, is set at the cap. And this always happens. Price capping causes eventual cap charging.

From a supply chain economics perspective, that's how you deal with variability in cost. You make the people who achieved a low marginal cost pay for those who cause a higher marginal cost. In more free markets the idea from supply chain is to segregate the market into people with different willingness to pay, thus maximizing your profits by increasing your system's utilization and having preference to those market sectors willing to pay more.

Didn't mean to go off on an supply chain economics lesson there, but it is a large part of Industrial Engineering.

Environmental protection should be a function of the federal government. The level of government involvement can be debated, but it is needed. Pol