The Ron Paul Thread!

[Zero]

Milton Friedman - another libertarian. What terrible extremists these guys are :lol: :lol: :lol:

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/d6vjrzUplWU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

[Craig de Tering]

Meanwhile, some friends around here are absolutely salivating at the thought of going to the States empty-handed and returning with crates, engine parts and WalMart-bought luggage full of stuff for peanuts.

I try explaining to them the financial problems in the States and its possible ramifications for Europe but no-one seems to care.

Depressing, isn't it? For as long as I can remember I've always flip-flopped in a manic-depressive sort of way between, at times, compassion for my fellow man and a desire to help for the betterment of society, and at others, such utter contempt for the stubbornly ignorant fools that I considered how one might become recruited into the leadership of the New World Order. It's like people are begging for someone to shove a dildo up their arse, just so they'll know they're serious. Maybe the NWO are right... maybe treating humans like the pigeons and seagulls they are is really the best way to get things done. We have managed a good deal of progress this past century, after all... :?

Same here, if the world starts going to hell I'm signing up with an NWO-approved corporation like Hallibendover and cash in fo sho.
'Cuz I don't think things'll get back to normal in my lifetime any more after that.

O yeah, Milton Friedman PWNZ!

[RealmofOpeth]

Meanwhile, some friends around here are absolutely salivating at the thought of going to the States empty-handed and returning with crates, engine parts and WalMart-bought luggage full of stuff for peanuts.

I try explaining to them the financial problems in the States and its possible ramifications for Europe but no-one seems to care.

Depressing, isn't it? For as long as I can remember I've always flip-flopped in a manic-depressive sort of way between, at times, compassion for my fellow man and a desire to help for the betterment of society, and at others, such utter contempt for the stubbornly ignorant fools that I considered how one might become recruited into the leadership of the New World Order. It's like people are begging for someone to shove a dildo up their arse, just so they'll know they're serious. Maybe the NWO are right... maybe treating humans like the pigeons and seagulls they are is really the best way to get things done. We have managed a good deal of progress this past century, after all... :?

I've often entertained the same idea before. Despite all the horrible things going on...I think to myself...who is really to blame here? So there are times where I think if I were in that position looking down upon the hordes of sheep bumping into each other..I wouldn't care too much about them if they're not going to lift a finger to make things better. But then again..I also come back and realize that the main reason that people are so dumbed down and apathetic is because their sources of information are controlled. So they got you by the balls whether you are an inherently sheepish person or not and it starts from conception.
Even if their actions are for some 'greater good' that we're unaware of, who the hell are they to decide that (beyond simply their positions)?

[Zero]

^ yeah, I always end up back there too, and for largely the same reasons. :lol:

[The Cook]

Zero, what I meant when I wrote that the "USA is libertarian enough" is that the free market and corporate rule constitute a form of anarcho-capitalism (I think the term is yours?) and that this, to me, is libertarianism.

Look at the free market in the United States. Working people have seen real wages decline for the past 10 years. Union membership is on a quick decline. How well does the free market serve the 45 million Americans with out health insurance? Governments acquiesce to the corporate agenda, and George Bush can spend one-half of a trillion dollars on the continuing occupation of Iraq, again serving the needs of corporate greed.

I said last time I wasn't going to post in this thread again, but this is my last time fer sure

[Craig de Tering]

Zero, what I meant when I wrote that the "USA is libertarian enough" is that the free market and corporate rule constitute a form of anarcho-capitalism (I think the term is yours?) and that this, to me, is libertarianism.

Look at the free market in the United States. Working people have seen real wages decline for the past 10 years.

Inflation caused by the Fed printing money AND the minimum wage having been increased this year for the first time since the 70's by a buck or so.
If your money's value decreases 35% in 30 years and you're still earning the same then yes you will be dirt poor.
The policies that permitted this to happen were in place all these years and can hardly be called Anarcho-Capitalism or Libertarianism. It's called Government-sanctioned rip-off of the working class.

Union membership is on a quick decline. How well does the free market serve the 45 million Americans with out health insurance? Governments acquiesce to the corporate agenda, and George Bush can spend one-half of a trillion dollars on the continuing occupation of Iraq, again serving the needs of corporate greed.

Angry at "Health Insurance"?? You can thank Tricky Dick Nixon for bending over to lobbyists. He signed the law in 1971 that introduced the HMOs.
Healthcare in the USA has gone downhill ever since that day.

I said last time I wasn't going to post in this thread again, but this is my last time fer sure

Suuuuuuuure ;-)

[Zero]

Zero, what I meant when I wrote that the "USA is libertarian enough" is that the free market and corporate rule constitute a form of anarcho-capitalism (I think the term is yours?) and that this, to me, is libertarianism.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no.... The US is ANYTHING but libertarian and corporatism is closer to fascist populism than anything else.

This is the problem - the US would be libertarian, at least economically, if they dispensed with most taxation, duties, excise, economic legislation, regulations, favourtism, etc. There's a basic concept of Freidman-ish economics, but layered on top is a big-brother, Keynesian central bank and corporate favourtism, tax loopholes for the rich, and loads of other crap that beats down the middle and lower classes to benefit the rich. True free markets actually do the "voodoo" trickle-down economics that Bush Sr. coined in 1980. (not to absolve him of any economic or political crimes to the contrary, of course...)

Right now the US government spends about 40% of the nation's gross domestic product. That's HUGE. A libertarian government would probably see that number closer to 10-15% - fewer services delivered by governments and more money in the hands of the people. Someone taking home $20,000 a year after taxes would suddenly find themselves with an extra ten grand or more - money that could be invested much better in thing the government so inefficiently provides... education, healthcare, etc. Think of the healthcare policy you could buy with even a thousand dollars a year!

Education - imagine you got a choice of school to go to. If you take the government school, everything is paid for. If you don't, you get, say, $5,000 per student to spend at another school. If the cost of that school is less, then you get to keep the difference - if the cost is more, you can supplement the difference. Now there's competition between schools to better themselves - to provide better teachers and extracurricular programmes, to produce better students who fare better when going to universities, etc. It wouldn't take long before good schools were much favoured and poor schools shaped up or went out of business.

The key is choice - this is how you can tell libertarianism apart.** The more choice you have, the more libertarian the system. When people can choose how their money is invested, they always do a better job than when a government does it. This is based on Friedman's basic principle that we are always more careful in spending our own money than when we spend someone else's.

A government healthcare system, for example, creates a de-facto monopoly - exactly the terrible thing that everyone fears from free markets. But that's not at all what happens. Strange that nobody criticises socialism for creating one supergigantic monopoly.

Minimum wage laws discriminate against people with low skills. If I MUST pay someone $8 an hour for a job when their skills do not provide that much output, then I am forced to do one of two things - either I hire them for $8 an hour, thus providing "charity" in the amount in excess of their productivity, or I simply don't hire them. Charity is fine, but most companies can't afford to be charities - they have a business to run, so they simply don't hire those people. They're locked out of the job market and, worse, locked out of opportunities to learn on-the-job skills which would increase the rate of pay they could command. This keeps the poor not only poor, but unskilled as well!

In short, the only sorts of regulations a libertarian government would place on the economy would be those regulations which controlled and restricted economic aggression - coersion, extortion, etc. Otherwise, any business transaction would be between two independent parties who would not, logically, agree to the transaction unless it were mutually beneficial. If one party or the other is not offering a fair deal, the free market is completely open to competition - to someone else stepping in with a deal that is more favourable. The scammers lose out because they are quickly spotted and shunned and those who give good, honest, deals are the ones who prosper. It's almost in line with Dawkins' theories on natural selection (suckers, grudgers, and cheaters) - eventually, the wary grudgers win out because they are too clever to be cheated by cheaters and leech the suckers out of the market.

This is what is lacking in society right now - people with their wits about them. People who are clever buyers and investors - who are "in shape" when it comes to doing business. As it is, people have become complacent, dependent on big brother to make the world safe and comfy for them, so we've grown into a population of suckers - spineless and witless automatons who assume that everyone out there is happy and friendly, wanting to sell us colourful things on TV that can't possibly be overpriced or bad for us, etc. Free markets not only improve the quality of life for the middle and lower classes, but create a stronger society of vastly more empowered and intelligent people.

Look at the free market in the United States. Working people have seen real wages decline for the past 10 years. Union membership is on a quick decline. How well does the free market serve the 45 million Americans with out health insurance? Governments acquiesce to the corporate agenda, and George Bush can spend one-half of a trillion dollars on the continuing occupation of Iraq, again serving the needs of corporate greed.

This is exactly because of the lack of true free markets. The Federal Reserve is a private bank whose policies have forever shown nothing but a priority to keep bankers and investors floating in liquid cash. They expand the money supply by lowering interest rates and stimulating growth and consumer spending, but then raise rates to contract the money supply, causing debts to become heavy liabilities. In contraction cycles, people end up paying higher amounts in interest, pumping wealth back into the banks and markets, and if they default on their loans, the banks seize their real assets, consolidating their grasp on the products of working society. It's the banks' way of enticing people to work hard and produce things of value, and then to later take those things of value away from them. Criminal shit and anything but free-market stuff.

Just look at what has happened in the markets recently - after a run of stupidly low interest rates, the economy boomed, particularly in the US and the UK. Compounded by excessive government spending (and thus creation of money), the bubble of credit suddenly became untenable and the market started to panic. Loads of people will be losing their houses because banks lent them more money than they could afford to repay at rates which were too cheap to pass up. Now when their payments start to creep up, they end up having to declare bankruptcy or foreclose on their mortgages, essentially moving all of this real estate into the hands of the banks.

What's more, Arab investors from the Emirates are now moving to buy almost 20% of the Nasdaq and 30% of the London Stock Exchange! These are most likely shell companies of american corporations who operate overseas to exploit government loopholes - they have the bankers crash the markets and then move in to buy everything up when the prices fall through the ground. It is crafty and subtle manipulation of money to pump wealth out of the hands of normal people and into the hands of banks, corporations, and governments. NOT free markets at all.

I said last time I wasn't going to post in this thread again, but this is my last time fer sure

damn, I hope so, because I may end up writing an entire book next time :lol: :lol: :lol:


** Neo (addressing the Architect of the Matrix) : Choice. The problem is choice. :idea:

[Coffey]

Zero said about all that can be said. Just a couple thing to make some of his points maybe more concise. Think of it this way, you have an important package to send, and it must be there at a certain date, do you choose:
A) The USPS, or
B) Fedex, or UPS?
Things like the USPS, and Secretary of State's office are the perfect example of the inefficiency of government.
Here's the problem I have with the increase in minimum wage. First, it helps no one. Most minimum wage jobs are in the service industry, because of this, owners of these service providing businesses have two choices as I see it. They either hire less people, or the prices of their goods and services go up to compensate. Either way, the poor person looses. Whatever extra money they may earn will go to pay for necessities which have increased in price, or, they just won't get the job in the first place. This brings us to the second part of my problem. If the person working for minimum wage is suddenly said to be "worth more," what does that mean for the people in management? Is their labor suddenly worth less comparatively? Or must their pay also be increased by the same percentage as the minimum wage earner? Neither option looks very appealing, one for the owner, the other for the worker. I was hoping to make this a short compliment to Zero's comments, but fear I have failed. But hell, at least that's off my chest :lol:

[Zero]

:lol: This is the threefold fundamental problem with politics and economics.

First, in the modern world, it is such a terribly complex and boring system that trying to be concise is almost impossible without sacrificing clarity and trying to be clear results in putting people to sleep.

Second, in the modern world, it is more important than ever that ordinary people understand where their money comes from and where it goes.

Third, in the modern world, people are too damned busy with their own lives to bother taking the time to figure out what the hell governments and banks get up to.

Corruption ensues...until things get so bad that ordinary people can no longer afford to take the system for granted. :?

[Coffey]

Exactly, things like social services, and minimum wage laws sound great... in theory. But when you take a step back, and look at things impartially, you see how screwy and corrupt everything is. It is infuriating to see how many people in America are content to ask no questions, as long as they are not personally affected. And even when they are affected, it takes a lot to get them riled up enough to try and change things ***SIGH***

[Zero]

I think the big problem is that people have this idea that government services are somehow "free"... as opposed to ones you would HAVE to pay for. But when the government is taking a third of what you own and giving you shit in return save for rich Halliburton execs and Ritalin dispensers in schools, well...

[Coffey]

^ I would almost find that funny, if it wasn't so damn true! I've got to quit this thread for a while. This is making me more depressed than I normally like to be on the weekends. I think I'll have a drink :wink:

[Zero]

now you see why I've become a depressed alcoholic... and I've not even hit 30 yet :lol: :lol: The state of the world is soul-crushing if you think about it for long enough.

**cracks open a Grolsch** 8)


ps : you may find this amusing : http://www.kickthemallout.com/



<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RWsx1X8PV_A" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

[Craig de Tering]

That's "GrolsCh", buddy. Cheers!
Anduh... I swear that mr. Friedman is an Einstein in his own way.

Oh, and thanks for kickthemallout.com link. Great find!

[Zero]

lol, fixed. My spelling gets careless by about 3am... I was literally staring at the can as I was typing too and distinctly remember an odd feeling that my fingers had slipped a letter somewhere but my brain was too off to care why the word looked funny and I thought I was just getting that thing where words just start to look funny when you stare at them too long, even if they're spelled right. I guess that's a cue that I should sleep more :lol: