YouTube of Ron Paul on Blitzer

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Abolition of the Fed, Austrian economics, return to gold standard - disasterous

[/ QUOTE ]
Could someone explain why this is disasterous? Talk to me like I'm 10. I recently saw this video on Fiat Empire with Ron Paul, so I'll like to get another point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Copernicus is under the impression that the government is smart enough to micromanage the economy <font color="red"> dont put words in my mouth </font> and angelic enough to print money without using that power for the purposes that any regular counterfeiter uses that power for. <font color="red"> hyperbole </font>

The rest of us realize that the free market, not governments, produced money in the first place, and that market based moneys have always worked perfectly well until governments interfere and monopolize them. <font color="red">examples? counter examples? </font> Then you get lovely effects like inflation, <font color="red">hyperinflation is government induced, moderate inflation is cyclical and inevitable </font> the business cycle (cyclic booms and depressions), <font color="red"> the govt is responsible for the business cycle???? youre as absurd as Ron Paul on that one </font> and ultimately hyper-inflation, collapse of the medium of exchange, and a return to a barter economy. <font color="red">must be great to have a crystal ball, does it tell you what your river card is going to be also? </font> Yay worthless money!

[/ QUOTE ]

There has never really been a long-lasting free market, so I'm not sure how this claim can hold water.

[/ QUOTE ]

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
No need. I am far from an advocate for the status quo. I simply don't see the point of espousing impossible ideals.

There has never been a long-term, successful, unregulated free market state, so it really does not stand that it must be the best way to run an economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what are you an advocate of? I assume it has been successful in the long term in the past.

[ QUOTE ]
Ideally run, a true Communist or Socialist state might be wonderful. Of course, we'll never know because there never has, nor will there ever be a stable example of either.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a submarine "AC is utopia" smear. AC is not utopia, and doesn't claim to be.

[ QUOTE ]
The interplay of economics, politics, and social modalities will always preclude the possibility of extreme forms of government and/or economic structure. At least in a state of substantial size, like ours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since we're not advocating a state of any size, this jibber-jabber is of no concern.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
So what are you an advocate of? I assume it has been successful in the long term in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

Immaterial. I never said I had all the answers.

[ QUOTE ]
This is a submarine "AC is utopia" smear.

[/ QUOTE ]

False. My point was that there are many "pure" governments that might work better than our current system, but it is impossible to know. "Might work" does not mean they'd be utopias.

[ QUOTE ]
Since we're not advocating a state of any size, this jibber-jabber is of no concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then what is the point of you arguing at all?

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
Markets are an impossible ideal, eh? Sure. Go with that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Long-lasting, completely unregulated free markets? They are certainly an unlikely ideal.

[ QUOTE ]
Gigantic fallacy. "There has never been a successful powered human flight, so it really does not stand that powered human flight is possible."

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a fallacy at all. You misread the quote. I said that since there has never been one, we can’t know that it is the best option. That is a completely logical statement, along the lines of “there has never been a successful powered human flight, so it really does not stand that powered human flight would be the fastest means of transportation.” I did not say the lack of a previous example means there will never be one in the future.

Granted, I did make the statement that I believe there will never be such a state, but I did not back that claim up with any reasoning, logical or not. I’ll amend my previous words to “there never has, nor will there likely ever be a stable example of either.”

[ QUOTE ]
For a tribe perhaps. For a large scale economy, no; it's impossible because of the economic calculation problem. You'd know that if you read the things you dismiss out of hand. But hey, don't let economic theory get in the way of you assuming you know everything about subjects you've read little or nothing about.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are still misunderstanding me. Of course it would be best for a “tribe.” Of course it’s impossible in a large scale economy. That was the point of me comparing them to an unregulated free market. At least debunk what I’m actually saying.

[ QUOTE ]
That's a pretty piece of pontification.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks! [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] I have a bit of a history here, actually. Ask Adios. If he remembers me, I’m sure he’ll have plenty of nice things to say!

[ QUOTE ]
"The interplay of economics, politics, and social modalities . . . ". It must be nice to be able to come up with such flowery reasons why you don't have to learn about things before dismissing them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’ll admit that I need to learn more about your particular brand of politics before I start debating the finer details of it, which is why I am sticking to the macro level, for now.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what are you an advocate of? I assume it has been successful in the long term in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

Immaterial. I never said I had all the answers.

[ QUOTE ]
This is a submarine "AC is utopia" smear.

[/ QUOTE ]

False. My point was that there are many "pure" governments that might work better than our current system, but it is impossible to know. "Might work" does not mean they'd be utopias.

[ QUOTE ]
Since we're not advocating a state of any size, this jibber-jabber is of no concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then what is the point of you arguing at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Put all three of your responses together.

1) NOBODY has all the answers.

2) MANY different "governments" might work - so there's no reason one needs to be selected and imposed while the others are violently suppressed.

3) _________ (an exercise for the reader)

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what are you an advocate of? I assume it has been successful in the long term in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

Immaterial. I never said I had all the answers.

[ QUOTE ]
This is a submarine "AC is utopia" smear.

[/ QUOTE ]

False. My point was that there are many "pure" governments that might work better than our current system, but it is impossible to know. "Might work" does not mean they'd be utopias.

[ QUOTE ]
Since we're not advocating a state of any size, this jibber-jabber is of no concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then what is the point of you arguing at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Put all three of your responses together.

1) NOBODY has all the answers.

2) MANY different "governments" might work - so there's no reason one needs to be selected and imposed while the others are violently suppressed.

3) _________ (an exercise for the reader)

[/ QUOTE ]

The discussion here was not about what I believe, is all that I am saying.

I realize now that I misunderstood your last statement, which was stupid of me since you are an anarchist. I read it as you not advocating any actual change to the current state, when of course, you meant it literally. My bad on that one.

[Taxman]

I realize I am probably treading on old ground here, and obviously I am not up to date on the theory of AC, so I do want to apologize to jumping into this discussion randomly without really taking a look at the current climate of the board. Recently, I’ve had the itch to argue, so I pretty much barreled into the first discussion I found here. Last time I was around this forum, it was the mainstream libertarians who were running amuck, who are certainly a different breed from yourself.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
Since I cant find a convenient "scorecard" on RP, I'll assume wiki is correct about these positions:

Letters of Marque and Reprisal against individual terrorists-tantamount to continuation of the Clinton policy to treat them as criminals, ignores their sources of funding and sanctuary-awful

Against Patriot Act - awful

Abolish Dept of Homeland Security - sure

For withdrawal from UN and other orgs that diminish US sovereignty - good

Against torture - depends on his definition of torture

Abuse of executive authority - that would change if he were ever elected

Free trade - good

Strong stance on illegals - good

Abolition of the Fed, Austrian economics, return to gold standard - disasterous

Taxes - good

Elimination of most cabinet departments - and do what with their responsibilities?

Eliminaton of electoral college but strengthen the role of states? Yeah-the big states, like Tx, at the expense of small states

Pro-life - who cares

Against capital punishment - bad

Gay rights - who cares

Health care relief - hows it going to be paid for?

Drug laws - he says its not a Federal issue..so is it a state issue? prohibition doesnt work...legalize? wiki isnt clear enough on his positions

So, on balance, he's a disaster on homeland security and defense and on economics; good on taxes and immigration; mixed on a bunch of extraneous garbage that are unlikely to ever change.

Theres a lot better out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you really want to find out about Ron Paul and where he stands on tons of issues then go here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

There you will find a ton of articles written by Paul over many years. He has remained consistent and mostly articulate.

The reason to return to hard money is to get rid of the inflation tax that has a disproportionate effect on the poor and hides the true amount of government taxation. Fiat money allows for all this out of control spending. It is like giving a teenager a credit card and saying your neighbors will pay the bill. A return to hard money returns us to gov't fiscal responsibility.

If the gov't said today that they wanted to start a war, but to do so they would have to take an additional 25k from every household this year they would have a riot on their hands, but if you print the money and de facto take that much from everyone they don't squawk. (I am only making up numbers here, don't shoot me for the example).

When I was a kid you got a paycheck with federal, state and city taxes taken out. Period. At the end of the year if you hadn't made much you could get back all of the federal taxes. (I was a kid, working 5 hours a week at minimum wage). Now they have separated out different areas of taxes, so your paycheck has federal, state, city, and SS and medicare and workers comp taxes taken out. But at the end of the year no matter how little you made you can't get the ss, medicare or workers comp money back. Just that one little "accounting" change cost the poor a ton of money. Of course, they don't count SS and medicare as "taxes" in the taxrate, so again it looks like they are taking less. Add in the inflation tax and look out. Not to mention the dozens of other taxes out of everything.

Ron Paul wants to return us to small gov't where they don't get to play tricks like that and you get to keep the money you earn.

I think I read somewhere that most of work Monday and Tuesday for the Gov't and the rest of the week for ourselves. That is a lot of tithing.

Anyway, good reading. The articles are great.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Could someone explain why this is disasterous? Talk to me like I'm 10. I recently saw this video on Fiat Empire with Ron Paul, so I'll like to get another point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can any fiat money lovers offer an explanation here?

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Could someone explain why this is disasterous? Talk to me like I'm 10. I recently saw this video on Fiat Empire with Ron Paul, so I'll like to get another point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can any fiat money lovers offer an explanation here?

[/ QUOTE ]

To the best of my understanding fiat money lovers believe in Keynsian economics and thus believe that by meddling with the money supply the fed can "create" things like jobs and "fix" the economy by shrinking or expanding the money supply. Us hard money folks have learned that Keynsian economics have been debunked years ago as a bunch of hooey and have learned Austrian economics that explains that federal meddling has unintended consequences and rarely if ever does what they want it to do, and instead it creates false bubbles of economic growth that are not sustainable and wastes resources. But if I have not explained it well, will a fiat lover jump in?