bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
I think you have that the other way around.
There couldn't have been a bubble if we had sound money, a 100% reserve system, and market-priced interest rates.
Look, let's say we had all of those. First of all, interest rates would have been high considering we had a low savings rate. But let's just say this wasn't the case. Let's say the savings rate was high, and all of a sudden, people start borrowing, building houses, buying houses, refurnishing their house, whatever. As this starts to happen, the interest rates would have gone up, because reserves would start drying up, banks wouldn't have the capital to loan out. Just supply and demand of money. So, when interest rates go up, people would be much less inclined to borrow, and more inclined to save. Of course that's not what happened, because the Federal Reserve kept interest rates low and flooded the market with new money. So it all just kept going, and the bubble kept inflating until all the malinvestment came home to roost. The market itself is confused, because the government distorts the perception of market conditions. It gives the false notion that it's a great time to invest, when in reality, savings are depleted, and future resources just aren't there, they've already been spent.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
I'm sorry but your ignorance is exactly why Woods wrote his book. I suggest you open your mind a bit, read his book, or at least watch his lecture I linked to above. It really is not difficult to understand. We are never ever going to prevent these problems until we understand how they come into existence.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
Well, yeah, you can't remove a few cards from the bottom and expect there not to be a crash when everything else on top comes tumbling down. Deregulation needs to be done carefully and responsibly. Ron Paul opposed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, so that should tell you something. Doesn't matter, you can regulate, deregulate, whatever you want, however you want, but until you get rid of the root of the problem, none of it'll make a difference. Bottom line though, as long as we have a central bank flooding the market with new money with artificially low interest rates, we aren't practicing free market capitalism.
Okay, so you read it, but you either chose not to attempt to comprehend it, or you tried to and simply cannot understand it. Neither would surprise me with you.
LOL. One of the greatest lies an RPB tells, that 95% of the world is more dumb than them. It's funny, when the vast majority of even more intelligent people than yourself are the ones who disagree with you and the only ones who agree with you are conspiracy theory nuts, smelly anarchists, and the other dregs of society, you might want to re-evaluate your position.
He opposed it on the basis that it would create more regulation, not less, which was a lie, since it resulted in less regulation. Thus, your whole argument is bullshit. If he had his way there'd have been even less checks against an overzealous financial system.
Your assertion of "new money and artificially low interest rates" being the problem is yet another retarded grasp at straws you don't understand.
Wow, that's proves a lot.
In many cases they do. Depends on how the contract was structured.
You couldn't even figure out how to do a DuPont breakdown let alone figure out a bond document. Go troll elsewhere sparky.
At least I had more than a lame-ass one-line simplistic strawman argument that is wholly incorrect and mis-states my point.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
The concept of public goods offered to everyone and sharing the wealth sounds like a great idea but in reality I think it does far more harm than good.
Food for thought...
1) Charity - Canadians/Europeans donate far less to charity per capita than their American counterparts and I attribute this directly to excessive taxation where people see more than half their paycheck going to support social programs and tend not to donate over and above that...even with tax incentives.
2) Retirement - Average people think the government will provide for them in their old age, they even see a tax/fee taken from their paycheck for this purpose. Unfortunately this creates a disincentive for people to actually save for retirement and the government plan is never enough to support these people in retirement.
3) Education - The government has offered huge tax incentives, funding to institutions, and access to money for post-secondary education. A great investment for those who apply their education, make things more productive and increase wealth of the nation. But if you have everyone with a degree, the highschool diploma is as useless as no education at all and you have people with diplomas and degrees doing unskilled work adding nothing to wealth or productivity. Yet it was an opportunity lost in allocating resource to that person.
4) Healthcare - Offering free healthcare to people, there is no incentive to eat properly, be active, and take a preventative approach to health. People need to be accountable for their bad habits; why should I pay for the smoker, the criminal or the jackass who jumps off his parents garage roof?
Social assistance, Pension, Education, Healthcare....all great things but as mentioned above, I don't think it really helps in the way we intend.
Right now 60% of our GDP is taxed in one way or another and redistributed by politicians and I still see people complaining about poverty, crime, lack of education funding, lack of healthcare funding, etc etc. What is it going to take? I can guarantee I can spend my money better than the government. Hell I could almost support a family of 4 on just my taxed income.
Food for thought...
1) Charity - Canadians/Europeans donate far less to charity per capita than their American counterparts and I attribute this directly to excessive taxation where people see more than half their paycheck going to support social programs and tend not to donate over and above that...even with tax incentives.
2) Retirement - Average people think the government will provide for them in their old age, they even see a tax/fee taken from their paycheck for this purpose. Unfortunately this creates a disincentive for people to actually save for retirement and the government plan is never enough to support these people in retirement.
3) Education - The government has offered huge tax incentives, funding to institutions, and access to money for post-secondary education. A great investment for those who apply their education, make things more productive and increase wealth of the nation. But if you have everyone with a degree, the highschool diploma is as useless as no education at all and you have people with diplomas and degrees doing unskilled work adding nothing to wealth or productivity. Yet it was an opportunity lost in allocating resource to that person.
4) Healthcare - Offering free healthcare to people, there is no incentive to eat properly, be active, and take a preventative approach to health. People need to be accountable for their bad habits; why should I pay for the smoker, the criminal or the jackass who jumps off his parents garage roof?
Social assistance, Pension, Education, Healthcare....all great things but as mentioned above, I don't think it really helps in the way we intend.
Right now 60% of our GDP is taxed in one way or another and redistributed by politicians and I still see people complaining about poverty, crime, lack of education funding, lack of healthcare funding, etc etc. What is it going to take? I can guarantee I can spend my money better than the government. Hell I could almost support a family of 4 on just my taxed income.
My problem with healthcare isn't so much lack of funding, it's lack of access and affordability. As a young adult cancer survivor, health care is not a choice in my world, yet it is extremely difficult to acquire. Private market isn't an option, and employer based coverage is not ideal due to the high likelihood I will move around during my lifetime.
Portability and access, along with affordability, would be ideal.
Portability and access, along with affordability, would be ideal.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
In all honesty in the case of healthcare I do think it's more efficient to have a single payer system (especially in the case of small cities). I mean from a productivity standpoint it's very inefficient to have a workforce who cannot get medical care/treatment or suffers from disease. Even the free market fans can understand the concept of 'economies of scale' and monopolies sometimes being the most efficient means to offer a product/service.
I am however a big fan of service fees and insurance based on behavioral risk factors. Much like car insurance, speeding tickets, DUI, accidents increase premiums and fees but no fault like crimes, natural disaster or other person's fault...don't impact your fee. In Carmen's case, I would consider the cancer to be natural at such a young age and premiums could not be increased. Smokers on the other hand, or others who don't eat properly, or others who make jackass videos get their premiums increased. This would offset the cost of the single payer system.
I also think that wealthy people should have the opportunity to purchase premium services outside the public system. This would reduce the burden and ensure only basic care is administered and maintain a certain level of satisfaction when receiving care.
I am however a big fan of service fees and insurance based on behavioral risk factors. Much like car insurance, speeding tickets, DUI, accidents increase premiums and fees but no fault like crimes, natural disaster or other person's fault...don't impact your fee. In Carmen's case, I would consider the cancer to be natural at such a young age and premiums could not be increased. Smokers on the other hand, or others who don't eat properly, or others who make jackass videos get their premiums increased. This would offset the cost of the single payer system.
I also think that wealthy people should have the opportunity to purchase premium services outside the public system. This would reduce the burden and ensure only basic care is administered and maintain a certain level of satisfaction when receiving care.
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Paul's stances on civil rights/liberties are fantastic and sensible. Problem he always runs into is that he's an extremist through and through. For example, on foreign policy he'd like to withdraw, essentially, every U.S. citizen/soldier from abroad, something even fringe conservatives with foreign policy experience laugh at (they wouldn't laugh at reducing the total, of course, but Paul goes to the extreme and says just bring them all back, including soldiers in Taiwan, ME, etc.). He wants to go back on the gold standard, something overwhelmingly laughed even by his own party. Though on that point, economics isn't really ideology nearly as much as it is about human behavior, which Paul and Austrian's have failed to model correctly for many many decades (something that can and has been proven empirically). Paul also wants to get rid of the CIA, Fed, IRS and income tax, probably all the most fringe ideas and clearly the most impractical of the bunch. Regardless of partisan affiliation, Paul's stances hold no water with virtually anyone studied, experienced, or not blinded by ideology which, unfortunately, most Paulbots continue to be. His point about fixed exchange rates is also particularly funny, as he continually fails to cite any research showing it would be a success and even has gone so far as to say we should make up on the fly a new and different gold peg based on, apparently, the thoughts in his head; just watching him fumble his way through the wide gap in success between gold and fiat in New Hampshire last year was very sad to watch, as he claims to know of a better than 19th century gold standard that would work (per usual, nothing substantive to support said claim).
Paul's ideas do appear very appealing on the surface and some are quite legitimate. But even a cursory overview of his policies and proposals on foreign affairs, domestic spending programs, economics, etc. reveals nothing more than a partisan with little to no evidence of tried or true models to support his claims. Which, predictably, has left him on the fringe where he and his followers will die a predictable political death. The only question is how fast and severe it will be. Of course, looking back at history you're always going to have your conspiracy theorists, Paulbots, etc., usually the laymen. But at least it's entertaining to watch. Though, it has to be said that this thread alone is a sad reminder of what a lack of education can do to a country. When you literally cannot reconcile cold, hard mathematics with reality and can't articulate it into anything resembling semi-concrete models (or, if it's infeasible to build those models, at least provide credible evidence of your viewpoints), it becomes an unfortunate case of partisan hackery we see from every party.
Paul's ideas do appear very appealing on the surface and some are quite legitimate. But even a cursory overview of his policies and proposals on foreign affairs, domestic spending programs, economics, etc. reveals nothing more than a partisan with little to no evidence of tried or true models to support his claims. Which, predictably, has left him on the fringe where he and his followers will die a predictable political death. The only question is how fast and severe it will be. Of course, looking back at history you're always going to have your conspiracy theorists, Paulbots, etc., usually the laymen. But at least it's entertaining to watch. Though, it has to be said that this thread alone is a sad reminder of what a lack of education can do to a country. When you literally cannot reconcile cold, hard mathematics with reality and can't articulate it into anything resembling semi-concrete models (or, if it's infeasible to build those models, at least provide credible evidence of your viewpoints), it becomes an unfortunate case of partisan hackery we see from every party.
MrColin
Platinum Member
- May 21, 2003
- 2,403
- 3
- 81
The government actually doesn't control the cost of money, the federal reserve does. They aren't a part of the government although the federal reserve chairman is appointed by the president he can do what he wants in secret. If you're into Dr. Paul you probably know that he's pushing for the first audit of the fed (HB1207). Of course the government can influence the value of money (almost always downward) by overspending.
The gold standard is the only thing I disagree w/ Dr. Paul on. I do support some reform of the federal reserve. Also, I think the libertarian platform could be easily perverted to become a fascist corporatocracy even more than what we have now.
TRENDING THREADS
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 236
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter