Cagematch: Ron Paul's two views - wacky or sane?

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
LK as far as an actionable plan to abolish the Federal Reserve I have no idea why you expect me to have such a thing at my disposal, I didn't realize that was the premise of the topic at hand. I thought the premise was to defend why such a proposal was not only reasonable but attainable? You were the one who claimed it be loony?

If you are the one to claim it to be loony it should be you who is taken to task to prove as to why it is loony, not the other way around.

ROFL, so you think the system sucks, have no alternative, have no plan, have nothing except for a theory as to why the Fed should be run by computers.

Are you fucking kidding me?

If I think an idea sucks at work, I present a viable alternative and how to achieve it. Not a theory on why it sucks, drop a few names, be countered that those theories/names suck, and move on.

Sorry, you wonder why RP can't get more than 10% of the vote? It's because he, like you guys, have no viable alternatives. All you can toss around is names and theories, nothing that works, nothing that's actionable, nothing that's viable.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Palehorse and others. Your grasp of our historical involvement around the world is severely lacking, it is too troublesome to debate with those who do not grasp the simple reasoning behind action versus reaction and why our actions inherently have reactions. Please understand this is not an attack on you or your intelligence it is merely your lack of historical reference and understanding of "relative ethics" that makes this subject impossible to debate with you on.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Let me agree with a few hard facts. I would say close 70% of those bases. They arent needed and could save us tons of cash.

on what "hard facts" do you base that percentage? From where was it derived?

Was it www.pulledfromyourass.com?

Seriously... where did you get that number, and which ~490 bases do you plan to close?

Jesus Christ, not getting the fight you wanted earlier mr instigator?


Either I didn't write it correctly or you didn't read it correctly. I agree with Bamacre, but included "hard facts" as to say what I would like to see. I was only trying to give a ballpark as to what I would accept. As for which bases need to be closed? I haven't a clue where to start, but I am sure 70% could be pulled (leaving 210) without harming "national security".

But how are you "sure"? On what strategic analysis did you base your conclusions? what evidence have you been shown that closing ~490 bases would have little or no negative effect on "national security"? On what did you base this "ballpark" of yours?

My point is to demonstrate that you're pulling those numbers from your arse, and that you have not actually conducted an analysis on which to base those conclusions. You have picked a random number of bases to close, or keep, based on absolutely no data or analysis whatsoever.

I'm sorry, but your layman's gut instincts just won't cut it when you're proposing something as drastic as a total 180 degree shift in our global military strategy.

I made bold the most telling sentence in your reply...

Most telling? LOL it is my opinion.

We cannot afford to keep those bases there. You can say its needed and I'll agree some are. But you must come up with how we will fund it.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Palehorse and others. Your grasp of our historical involvement around the world is severely lacking, it is too troublesome to debate with those who do not grasp the simple reasoning behind action versus reaction and why our actions inherently have reactions. Please understand this is not an attack on you or your intelligence it is merely your lack of historical reference and understanding of "relative ethics" that makes this subject impossible to debate with you on.

So since you can't counter anything you bow out? Goodbye loonie. I see you used up your same bag of dropping names, stupid theories, and leave when countered by superior points, history, and knowledge.

Good riddance to another bot.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Let me agree with a few hard facts. I would say close 70% of those bases. They arent needed and could save us tons of cash.

on what "hard facts" do you base that percentage? From where was it derived?

Was it www.pulledfromyourass.com?

Seriously... where did you get that number, and which ~490 bases do you plan to close?

Jesus Christ, not getting the fight you wanted earlier mr instigator?


Either I didn't write it correctly or you didn't read it correctly. I agree with Bamacre, but included "hard facts" as to say what I would like to see. I was only trying to give a ballpark as to what I would accept. As for which bases need to be closed? I haven't a clue where to start, but I am sure 70% could be pulled (leaving 210) without harming "national security".

But how are you "sure"? On what strategic analysis did you base your conclusions? what evidence have you been shown that closing ~490 bases would have little or no negative effect on "national security"? On what did you base this "ballpark" of yours?

My point is to demonstrate that you're pulling those numbers from your arse, and that you have not actually conducted an analysis on which to base those conclusions. You have picked a random number of bases to close, or keep, based on absolutely no data or analysis whatsoever.

I'm sorry, but your layman's gut instincts just won't cut it when you're proposing something as drastic as a total 180 degree shift in our global military strategy.

I made bold the most telling sentence in your reply...

Most telling? LOL it is my opinion.

We cannot afford to keep those bases there. You can say its needed and I'll agree some are. But you must come up with how we will fund it.

We were able to fun them in the past. The bases aren't the problem. The give-away programs are.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

We have given Osama recruiting tools as we attempt to uproot and install our own democracies throughout the middle east. Our intervention has done the exact opposite of what was intended. How one can not see that is beyond me.

Speaking of interventionism, where is that post where you completely misunderstood both world wars, their causes and their consequences?

You tell me, because I'm pretty sure it was indeed our intervention who helped bring Mr. Hitler into power in the 1930's.

Treaty of Versailles. Sanctions are intervention after all, and they are indeed an act of economic warfare.

Hitler's rise to power was basically a perfect storm of events. First, the Treaty of Versailles, which the US helped broker, created a situation in which none of Germany's core demands were met. Like I said in previous post, Germany needed security, needed acceptance as a Great Power and, after the demise of Austria-Hungary, needed a Great Power ally to offset Russia and France mostly.

The United States' biggest mistake of the interwar period was abandoning Germany. Following the Second World War, the US facilitated the Marshall Plan to help Germany emerge from the war. After World War I, the US did exactly what you want - we left everyone alone. Germany's economy collapsed, our economy collapsed, and Hitler, who was a fringe player, at best, was made the man by those in power. They believed they could control him.

Instead, Hitler proved to be an adept politician and, after the death of President Hindenburg, Hitler assumed all power within Germany. The re-militarization of the Rhineland was the first point at which Hitler could have been stopped. In fact, it appears that if the French had simply mobilized their forces, the Wehrmacht would have overthrown Hitler to avoid a war with France. Instead, the French caved and Hitler got his way.

This scenario is repeated over and over again. Britain and France (but not non-interventionist America) had ample opportunities to stop Hitler, but refused to take action. When they finally DID take action, they had alienated Russia and Hitler was too powerful. Instead of immediately attacking, they sat back and hoped the 'Phony War' would blow over.

Hitler's rise to power taught the US a valuable lesson - we cannot sit back and let the rest of the world figure things out for itself. The Second World War in Europe cost the US billions of dollars and, in an effort to avoid making the same mistake again, the US took a very active role in postwar Europe. The Marshall Plan, the stationing of US troops in Germany, all were the beginning of US interventionism.

Hitler's rise to power can only be blamed in a very, very small part on the actions the US took. In hindsight, there were simple things we could have done to stop it, but we didn't. That's a silly way to approach history though.

From the 1950s through the end of the Cold War, the United States pursued the most interventionist policies we could find and, at the same time, emerged as, first, one of two superpowers and, then, as the only superpower. Interventionism WAS the policy we pursued while becoming the world's most powerful country... from 1939 through today.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
LK as far as an actionable plan to abolish the Federal Reserve I have no idea why you expect me to have such a thing at my disposal, I didn't realize that was the premise of the topic at hand. I thought the premise was to defend why such a proposal was not only reasonable but attainable? You were the one who claimed it be loony?

If you are the one to claim it to be loony it should be you who is taken to task to prove as to why it is loony, not the other way around.

ROFL, so you think the system sucks, have no alternative, have no plan, have nothing except for a theory as to why the Fed should be run by computers.

Are you fucking kidding me?

If I think an idea sucks at work, I present a viable alternative and how to achieve it. Not a theory on why it sucks, drop a few names, be countered that those theories/names suck, and move on.

Sorry, you wonder why RP can't get more than 10% of the vote? It's because he, like you guys, have no viable alternatives. All you can toss around is names and theories, nothing that works, nothing that's actionable, nothing that's viable.

Ron Paul does indeed have a viable alternative, but it is you who have claimed that the abolishment of the Fed is loony because everyone else is doing it. Do you not see how this logic is flawed and that you have utterly failed to prove your point?

Do you not see how you have been utterly and completely bitchslapped because it was indeed you who claimed that his idea (without even hearing or understanding it) was indeed loony? Do you not see that you have utterly and miserably failed to prove why Friedman or Mises were incorrect or Loony?

If you can't grasp this very simple and easily defined logic than you have no business thinking you have made any rhetorical basis for your position on this topic. You have utterly and miserably failed to prove your ascertain that Ron Paul's idea (which you have admitted knowing nothing of) is indeed loony.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Let me agree with a few hard facts. I would say close 70% of those bases. They arent needed and could save us tons of cash.

on what "hard facts" do you base that percentage? From where was it derived?

Was it www.pulledfromyourass.com?

Seriously... where did you get that number, and which ~490 bases do you plan to close?

Jesus Christ, not getting the fight you wanted earlier mr instigator?


Either I didn't write it correctly or you didn't read it correctly. I agree with Bamacre, but included "hard facts" as to say what I would like to see. I was only trying to give a ballpark as to what I would accept. As for which bases need to be closed? I haven't a clue where to start, but I am sure 70% could be pulled (leaving 210) without harming "national security".

But how are you "sure"? On what strategic analysis did you base your conclusions? what evidence have you been shown that closing ~490 bases would have little or no negative effect on "national security"? On what did you base this "ballpark" of yours?

My point is to demonstrate that you're pulling those numbers from your arse, and that you have not actually conducted an analysis on which to base those conclusions. You have picked a random number of bases to close, or keep, based on absolutely no data or analysis whatsoever.

I'm sorry, but your layman's gut instincts just won't cut it when you're proposing something as drastic as a total 180 degree shift in our global military strategy.

I made bold the most telling sentence in your reply...

Most telling? LOL it is my opinion.

We cannot afford to keep those bases there. You can say its needed and I'll agree some are. But you must come up with how we will fund it.

We were able to fun them in the past. The bases aren't the problem. The give-away programs are.

I won't say they "aren't the problem", but I will say they are apart of the problem. I think 210 bases around the world is a reasonable number.

 

[Mavtek3100]

So blinderbomber's conclusion is that he agrees that our own intervention is what allowed Hitler to come to power, but his solution is more intervention.................

Good one......... No great one.....

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74
We disagree mainly because you are complicit with the USA being the world's policeman. As if we should break up every fight, take a side on every issue. If peace and freedom were our goals in all instances, we would likely obtain some respect. But that is not the case, in fact, it is far from it. We act as the world's police only out of our own interest, whether that means propping up a democracy here, or providing security for a dictatorship there. Whichever better suits our needs, so it is done. In that light, we are not in fact a world's policeman, we are a tyrant. We are not in fact a beacon of hope, we are a rather large target for those brave, or even stupid, enough to fight us. However patience is their virtue, because it is our fiscal irresponsibility in regards to our empire that will eventually bring us down.

uhh... nice rhetoric... but once again, you completely failed to answer any single one of my questions. You went, like, 0 for 15... so... uhhh... GG?

[/quote]

You are only confused because you see the US as something it wasn't meant to be, can't be, and won't ever be.[/quote]

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Palehorse and others. Your grasp of our historical involvement around the world is severely lacking, it is too troublesome to debate with those who do not grasp the simple reasoning behind action versus reaction and why our actions inherently have reactions. Please understand this is not an attack on you or your intelligence it is merely your lack of historical reference and understanding of "relative ethics" that makes this subject impossible to debate with you on.

LOL! :roll: nothing you said there excuses your inability to answer my direct questions concerning the logistics and specifics of Ron Paul's loony plans to close every foreign base in the world. The questions were put forth given a presumption of agreement on the other factors -- such as the proper "historical reference" and "relative ethics." Even so, each of my direct questions is answerable regardless of those factors -- that is, if you actually had any genuine analysis and data to back up RP's grand plans... but, as we've suspected all along, you don't.

what a joke...

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
LK as far as an actionable plan to abolish the Federal Reserve I have no idea why you expect me to have such a thing at my disposal, I didn't realize that was the premise of the topic at hand. I thought the premise was to defend why such a proposal was not only reasonable but attainable? You were the one who claimed it be loony?

If you are the one to claim it to be loony it should be you who is taken to task to prove as to why it is loony, not the other way around.

ROFL, so you think the system sucks, have no alternative, have no plan, have nothing except for a theory as to why the Fed should be run by computers.

Are you fucking kidding me?

If I think an idea sucks at work, I present a viable alternative and how to achieve it. Not a theory on why it sucks, drop a few names, be countered that those theories/names suck, and move on.

Sorry, you wonder why RP can't get more than 10% of the vote? It's because he, like you guys, have no viable alternatives. All you can toss around is names and theories, nothing that works, nothing that's actionable, nothing that's viable.

Ron Paul does indeed have a viable alternative, but it is you who have claimed that the abolishment of the Fed is loony because everyone else is doing it. Do you not see how this logic is flawed and that you have utterly failed to prove your point?

Do you not see how you have been utterly and completely bitchslapped because it was indeed you who claimed that his idea (without even hearing or understanding it) was indeed loony? Do you not see that you have utterly and miserably failed to prove why Friedman or Mises were incorrect or Loony?

If you can't grasp this very simple and easily defined logic than you have no business thinking you have made any rhetorical basis for your position on this topic. You have utterly and miserably failed to prove your ascertain that Ron Paul's idea (which you have admitted knowing nothing of) is indeed loony.

Yes, I say it is loony and that nobody else does it, but I have also provided why.

Me? Bitchslapped? By whom? You who tosses out a couple names and claims victory? Show me once where you took any time or effort to create a post like I have in the 2nd post of this thread? The problem is, you fail to even begin to articulate your point, the problem, or a soluation.

You just run around "ZOMGWTFBBQ FRIEDMAN AND MISES".

I already stated why they are both wrong, so it's time for you to counter. Can you counter that computers are programmed by humans and thus are flawed? Can you provide any evidence that Mises or Friedman have any other correct ideas?

You have thus failed to provide any information of why the Fed should be abolished. You have no unique ideas, no solutions, and no actual theories. Anybody beyond your "ZOMGWTFBBQ FRIEDMAN AND MISES" friends get anything out of your posts.

You fail at any semblance of debate because you can't even form a correct post.

REPLY TO MY FIRST POST WITH A SIMILAR WELL ROUNDED ARGUMENT WITH POINTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND A PLAN

Until you have a well-rounded argument, with points, a solid argument, and thought-out debate, you'll be nothing but fringe. That's exactly what everybody tells you and why I will win this argument every time.

I don't drop names and leave. I don't ignore posts (like you did re: computers).

 

[Mavtek3100]

LK you have been taken to task, you claimed the abolishment of the Fed was a loony idea. You have utterly failed at proving as to why this is such a loony notion.

Game, Set, Match.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Let me agree with a few hard facts. I would say close 70% of those bases. They arent needed and could save us tons of cash.

on what "hard facts" do you base that percentage? From where was it derived?

Was it www.pulledfromyourass.com?

Seriously... where did you get that number, and which ~490 bases do you plan to close?

Jesus Christ, not getting the fight you wanted earlier mr instigator?


Either I didn't write it correctly or you didn't read it correctly. I agree with Bamacre, but included "hard facts" as to say what I would like to see. I was only trying to give a ballpark as to what I would accept. As for which bases need to be closed? I haven't a clue where to start, but I am sure 70% could be pulled (leaving 210) without harming "national security".

But how are you "sure"? On what strategic analysis did you base your conclusions? what evidence have you been shown that closing ~490 bases would have little or no negative effect on "national security"? On what did you base this "ballpark" of yours?

My point is to demonstrate that you're pulling those numbers from your arse, and that you have not actually conducted an analysis on which to base those conclusions. You have picked a random number of bases to close, or keep, based on absolutely no data or analysis whatsoever.

I'm sorry, but your layman's gut instincts just won't cut it when you're proposing something as drastic as a total 180 degree shift in our global military strategy.

I made bold the most telling sentence in your reply...

Most telling? LOL it is my opinion.

BASED ON WHAT?! Where did you pull those very specific numbers from? What factors did you use to decide which bases to keep, and which to close down? Approximately how much money would be saved each year? How many troops would return home? etc etc etc.... FVCKING ETC!

We cannot afford to keep those bases there. You can say its needed and I'll agree some are. But you must come up with how we will fund it.

once again, is the reason for your closing of ~490 bases entirely fiscal? Yes, or no?

 

[bamacre]

dp

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
So blinderbomber's conclusion is that he agrees that our own intervention is what allowed Hitler to come to power, but his solution is more intervention.................

Good one......... No great one.....

No, our abandonment of Europe made it much easier for a Hitler-like character to arise in Germany and for another World War.

WE, the United States, did not play a big role in the rise or non-rise (if you will) of Hitler. We were fringe players. Lay the blame at the feet of the French and British who first wrote a treaty that was too harsh, and then refused to enforce it.

edit: I re-read my post, just in case I'd really implied anything like what Mavtek said. I don't see it. I think I outlined my point well - Britain and France should shoulder a lot of the blame for making a treaty too harsh. Even with that treaty they had ample opportunity to prevent Hitler from becoming so powerful, but chose not to (the reasons for that are complicated). The US, who stayed out of 20s and 30s Europe, woke up to another World War which we were dragged into and, from then on, assumed an interventionist stance in order to try and prevent the same thing from happening again.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
LK you have been taken to task, you claimed the abolishment of the Fed was a loony idea. You have utterly failed at proving as to why this is such a loony notion.

Game, Set, Match.

My first post? Every post that follows? Where's your detailed posts? All you have done is drop 2 names and something stupid about computers which I already countered.

Yeah, keep thinking that sparky. Your peeps are getting fucking owned in this thread.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
So blinderbomber's conclusion is that he agrees that our own intervention is what allowed Hitler to come to power, but his solution is more intervention.................

Good one......... No great one.....

No, our abandonment of Europe made it much easier for a Hitler-like character to arise in Germany and for another World War.

WE, the United States, did not play a big role in the rise or non-rise (if you will) of Hitler. We were fringe players. Lay the blame at the feet of the French and British who first wrote a treaty that was too harsh, and then refused to enforce it.

So it was someone else's intervention combined with our own? Yet again you advocate more intervention.

Wasn't it Einstein who said "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity'?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: bamacre
We disagree mainly because you are complicit with the USA being the world's policeman. As if we should break up every fight, take a side on every issue. If peace and freedom were our goals in all instances, we would likely obtain some respect. But that is not the case, in fact, it is far from it. We act as the world's police only out of our own interest, whether that means propping up a democracy here, or providing security for a dictatorship there. Whichever better suits our needs, so it is done. In that light, we are not in fact a world's policeman, we are a tyrant. We are not in fact a beacon of hope, we are a rather large target for those brave, or even stupid, enough to fight us. However patience is their virtue, because it is our fiscal irresponsibility in regards to our empire that will eventually bring us down.

uhh... nice rhetoric... but once again, you completely failed to answer any single one of my questions. You went, like, 0 for 15... so... uhhh... GG?

You are only confused because you see the US as something it wasn't meant to be, can't be, and won't ever be.

:roll: I see that my direct and pointed questions are still too difficult for you, or any other RPB, to answer.

/not surprised...

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
LK you have been taken to task, you claimed the abolishment of the Fed was a loony idea. You have utterly failed at proving as to why this is such a loony notion.

Game, Set, Match.

My first post? Every post that follows? Where's your detailed posts? All you have done is drop 2 names and something stupid about computers which I already countered.

Yeah, keep thinking that sparky. Your peeps are getting fucking owned in this thread.

How very mature of you, owned, "bitchslapped". Amazing how it is the instigator of the thread who claims I'm being "owned" not a 3rd party or mod.

You have unequivocally never proven how abolishing the Fed is Loony, which is in fact your entire premise, yet somehow you believe you are winning.............

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Let me agree with a few hard facts. I would say close 70% of those bases. They arent needed and could save us tons of cash.

on what "hard facts" do you base that percentage? From where was it derived?

Was it www.pulledfromyourass.com?

Seriously... where did you get that number, and which ~490 bases do you plan to close?

Jesus Christ, not getting the fight you wanted earlier mr instigator?


Either I didn't write it correctly or you didn't read it correctly. I agree with Bamacre, but included "hard facts" as to say what I would like to see. I was only trying to give a ballpark as to what I would accept. As for which bases need to be closed? I haven't a clue where to start, but I am sure 70% could be pulled (leaving 210) without harming "national security".

But how are you "sure"? On what strategic analysis did you base your conclusions? what evidence have you been shown that closing ~490 bases would have little or no negative effect on "national security"? On what did you base this "ballpark" of yours?

My point is to demonstrate that you're pulling those numbers from your arse, and that you have not actually conducted an analysis on which to base those conclusions. You have picked a random number of bases to close, or keep, based on absolutely no data or analysis whatsoever.

I'm sorry, but your layman's gut instincts just won't cut it when you're proposing something as drastic as a total 180 degree shift in our global military strategy.

I made bold the most telling sentence in your reply...

Most telling? LOL it is my opinion.

BASED ON WHAT?! Where did you pull those very specific numbers from? What factors did you use to decide which bases to keep, and which to close down? Approximately how much money would be saved each year? How many troops would return home? etc etc etc.... FVCKING ETC!

We cannot afford to keep those bases there. You can say its needed and I'll agree some are. But you must come up with how we will fund it.

once again, is the reason for your closing of ~490 bases entirely fiscal? Yes, or no?

LOL calm down. Such a angry man.

How do you suppose we continue to finance it? How much money would be saved? Alot more saved with 210 bases rather than 700. Closing those bases is to save money and remove unneeded presence in some parts of the world.

How will we continue to pay for this? Borrow from China? Then lend it to Dictator Mushariff?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
LK you have been taken to task, you claimed the abolishment of the Fed was a loony idea. You have utterly failed at proving as to why this is such a loony notion.

Game, Set, Match.

Actually, I have yet to see an articulated response to LK's second post in this thread -- wherein he took the bots to task and thoroughly spelled out several reasons, of his own design, as to why the abolishment of the Fed is a bad idea.

The same is true with the bots' responses to my direct questions concerning the military isolationism. Not once has a single bot replied with an answer to even ONE of my very pointed and direct questions.

I'm beginning to see a trend... a predictable one, but a trend nonetheless. This is essentially how many of us predicted any debate with the bots would go... for us. YAY!

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
LK you have been taken to task, you claimed the abolishment of the Fed was a loony idea. You have utterly failed at proving as to why this is such a loony notion.

Game, Set, Match.

Do you ever actually bring any content to the table, or is your game entirely made up of telling people that you've won an argument.

I've got a hint for ya - if you have to continually tell an entire forum that you're winning an argument, chances are you aren't.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
LK you have been taken to task, you claimed the abolishment of the Fed was a loony idea. You have utterly failed at proving as to why this is such a loony notion.

Game, Set, Match.

My first post? Every post that follows? Where's your detailed posts? All you have done is drop 2 names and something stupid about computers which I already countered.

Yeah, keep thinking that sparky. Your peeps are getting fucking owned in this thread.

How very mature of you, owned, "bitchslapped". Amazing how it is the instigator of the thread who claims I'm being "owned" not a 3rd party or mod.

You have unequivocally never proven how abolishing the Fed is Loony, which is in fact your entire premise, yet somehow you believe you are winning.............

And you still haven't countered my first post, nor replied to my reply about computers.

But I'll craft this into my first post, I expect you to reply to it and the first post since I am accommodating your laziness.


1. The Fed shouldn't be abolished because it's essential to have a central banking authority to keep control over the proper flow of funds through the economy, the amount of currency in the economy, and the overall liquidity of the economy.

2. A hard currency is deflationary by nature. Furthermore, it doesn't allow #1 to exist, since being able to manage the liquidity of the economy and control the "smoothness" of the economy cannot exist under a hard currency.

3. A fed must exist because without a central bank controling the liquidity, runs on banks and panics are rampant, see CitizenKane's post in the other thread, which pointed out several panics. Some of those panics were only prevented by bankers themselves, such as JP Morgan.

4. The Fed is not a private entity and has quarterly and annually audited financials that are presented to Congress and the President. THe President appoints the Governors that control the fed and he can remove them at any time. Thus, oversight is there and can be undertaken at any time.

5. Having Congress or any other non-quasi-independent authority control the monetary supply will only result in short-term thinking.

6. A measured amount of expected and managed interest is *good*, because it maintains projections and reduces variability. It allows businesses, lenders, financiers, and the capital markets in general to plan investments, hirings/firings, and economic stability. In the times before the Fed, as this country was becoming more integrated, it was plagued by bank runs, rampant inflation or deflation, all inhibiting the growth of the country.

7. Competing currencies is a horrible idea. It results in a dis-aggregated economy, further reducing predictability and reducing the desire to invest when times are uncertain. Furthermore, competing currencies allow for arbitrage opportunities, uncertainty of the banks, added complexity, and reduced liquidity and transparency.

All of those are reasons why gettng rid of the Fed, or other RPB ideas, are loony.


There, there is 7 points, PLUS my original post to work from. I fully expect you to address them, point by point. Failure to do so is admittance of defeat. I fully expect a post of no less than the length of my first post, otherwise you have not articulated your ideas thoroughly or completely. Mention of Mises or Friedman shouldn't be considered as an effective post, since it details nothing but somebody else's idea. Unlike mine, which detail my own thoughts, ideas, conclusions, and facts.

I am really looking forward to this, as it will be the first time any RPB has gone anywhere with me. Don't let me, or Ron Paul, down.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
LK you have been taken to task, you claimed the abolishment of the Fed was a loony idea. You have utterly failed at proving as to why this is such a loony notion.

Game, Set, Match.

Do you ever actually bring any content to the table, or is your game entirely made up of telling people that you've won an argument.

I've got a hint for ya - if you have to continually tell an entire forum that you're winning an argument, chances are you aren't.

The original instigation by LK was that Ron Paul was Loony because he wanted to abolish the Fed. He went on to explain what the Fed does and why it does it.

Assuming that I along with others don't know what the Fed does indeed attempt to do with the markets. I took him to task to prove how Ron Paul's argument against the Fed was loony.

Have you seen a tangible response to this appointed task? I haven't, he keeps pointing back to his original post about what the Fed is and why it exist, which is irrelevant to the topic at hand.