Would Ron Paul be more of a common mans'/peoples' president than Obama?

[LegendKiller]

Yeah, I really don't know how an unregulated free market could produce a feudal system or huge inequalities in wealth if people who wanted to make money did things right. There already are huge inequalities in wealth and corporate control of Congress. The fact of the matter is is that the U.S. has never had an unregulated free market, at least not after Lincoln. There were subsidies, banking regulations, protective tarriffs, land grants, and Federal troops provided for big business in the gilded age, and the workers who went on strike could've found a better job and then the Pullmans and Rockefellers of that time would've had no one that would work for them. The free market regulates itself.

Dude, shut the fuck up. You dodge and hustle more than a professional politician caught with his dick in a goat's ass.

You can't even answer one simple question.

 

[LegendKiller]

I disagree. In a truly free market there is always room for a better idea and change can be blindingly fast. Witness the overhead vertical waterwheel coupled with mechanical fulling, which allowed those men who previously controlled wool production to become completely isolated as new men took the market completely. Previous centuries' attempts to limit the free market, whether through guilds or royal monopolies or charters or laws, have been mostly attempts to maintain a privileged position for the few, recognizing that a free market has dangers mostly for those at the top. But just as the freedom of the towns proved the downfall of the feudal lords, a true free market provides considerable churning in those at the top as some of the wealthy inevitably find themselves heavily invested in suddenly obsolete technology or other bad investments. On the other hand, a heavily controlled market protects the wealthy by limiting the speed of transitions and giving them considerable advantages in manipulating the market to their own advantage; witness our own bail-outs. I prefer it only because it mitigates the worst of bad effects on the majority who work for wages.

LOL. Yeah, compare something from a different century to today. Please dude, any modern economy needs regulations, the late 19th and early 20th centuries proved that.

Providers of capital will dominate those who need capital. This eventually results in an eventual destruction of the society as welath aggregates.

 

[First]

Yeah, I really don't know how an unregulated free market could produce a feudal system or huge inequalities in wealth if people who wanted to make money did things right. There already are huge inequalities in wealth and corporate control of Congress. The fact of the matter is is that the U.S. has never had an unregulated free market, at least not after Lincoln. There were subsidies, banking regulations, protective tarriffs, land grants, and Federal troops provided for big business in the gilded age, and the workers who went on strike could've found a better job and then the Pullmans and Rockefellers of that time would've had no one that would work for them. The free market regulates itself.

rofl. There were three banking panics (not recession, all out panics) between 1800 and 1861 before the Civil War. As in runs on banks, as in 50% of the banking system going up in smoke. i.e. you're full of shit.

 

[Noobtastic]

Ron Paul is a loon.

If he was President he'd cut ties with virtually all countries, and allow Russia and China to exploit our isolationist policies.

Oil would sky-rocket, our national security would be compromised, and our status as the most powerful country on the planet would end.

Perhaps that's what people want.

 

[werepossum]

I'm quoting you because your post touches on barriers to entry (e.g., guilds).

In today's world capital functions as a huge and powerful barrier to entry, which inhibits competion.

Way back when you could start an auto manufacturing company with 10 workers and renting cheap some warehouse space.

More and more these days you need enormous amounts of capital to start anything other than a local niche-type business, and those aren't really cheap either. Technology, specialization and regulation have greatly enhanced capital requirements.

Fern

True, but not unique. While capital needs are much higher today, there are still people who come up with a good idea and become very successful. Bill Gates for instance became fabulously wealthy over a few decades by starting from nothing and having a better idea. Shaheen Shaheen, founder of World Carpet Mills, started with a $1,500 loan from a girlfriend and became fabulously wealthy competing with huge existing corporations in a very capital-intensive manufacturing industry. I'd argue that getting a $1,500 loan today is much easier than a sixteenth century subsistence-level worker finding the capital to build a prototype of a hosiery knitting machine - plus the worker today enjoys the IP protection afforded by a much stronger patent law process.

LOL. Yeah, compare something from a different century to today. Please dude, any modern economy needs regulations, the late 19th and early 20th centuries proved that.

Providers of capital will dominate those who need capital. This eventually results in an eventual destruction of the society as welath aggregates.

I don't deny that a modern economy needs regulations, I agree wholeheartedly. But I'm saying that those regulations are to protect us from adverse effects (boom/bust recessions, depressions, pollution, extreme poverty) rather than to generate more wealth. A throttle governor will help you not go so fast as to lose control of your vehicle, not make you go faster. As to eventual destruction of society due to wealth concentration, name me one such collapsed society with a true free market. Societies inevitably restrict the free market, either to maintain an advantage or to limit wealth concentration. Such restrictions tend to maintain the power of those in power whether or not they are so intended. Witness today's heavily regulated market - how many truly rich people have gone broke in today's recession versus the past severe recessions or the Great Depression? It's hard to truly compare because there are no completely free markets, but in general the same regulations that protect those of us working for wages also protect those working with capital.

 

[ky54]

It's tough to listen to Ron Paul talk about government spending when he sits at the trough and shovels it in with both hands as fast as he can. Just because he votes no means he magically cleanses the taxpayers monies? No, I have very little use for someone who wants it both ways.

 

[nonlnear]

It's tough to listen to Ron Paul talk about government spending when he sits at the trough and shovels it in with both hands as fast as he can. Just because he votes no means he magically cleanses the taxpayers monies? No, I have very little use for someone who wants it both ways.

What exactly do you expect him to do in order for you to acknowledge that his beliefs are valid? Blow Congress up? Seriously, your complaint boils down to "He only voices his defiance in the proper legal, civil manner befitting a Congressman. How dare he!"

How exactly do you substantiate your assertion that he truly "wants" the programs which he opposes?

You are better off just saying that you disagree with Paul's views on the merits than accusing the man of being a liar. Like him or not, Ron Paul is one of the least duplicitous people in DC. That is precisely why he is a rather unremarkable politician in terms of accruing power and influence.

 

[Anarchist420]

rofl. There were three banking panics (not recession, all out panics) between 1800 and 1861 before the Civil War. As in runs on banks, as in 50% of the banking system going up in smoke. i.e. you're full of shit.

Um, 1 of those three were during the SBUS and the other was due to banks practicing FRB during the free-banking era.

If there was no banking regulations except a law that said all banks had to practice 100% reserve banking, then there wouldn't be any bank runs and no boom bust cycles. No inflation either.

 

[ky54]

What exactly do you expect him to do in order for you to acknowledge that his beliefs are valid? Blow Congress up? Seriously, your complaint boils down to "He only voices his defiance in the proper legal, civil manner befitting a Congressman. How dare he!"

How exactly do you substantiate your assertion that he truly "wants" the programs which he opposes?

You are better off just saying that you disagree with Paul's views on the merits than accusing the man of being a liar. Like him or not, Ron Paul is one of the least duplicitous people in DC. That is precisely why he is a rather unremarkable politician in terms of accruing power and influence.

Whoa, slow down, there Tiger. I'm saying his is a hypocrite for railing against earmarks all the while loading up on them himself then do a showboat move by voting no on the budget. Doesn't seem very damn principled to me. Look, there's a lot things he says I agree with him particularly when he says we should reduce the size, scope, and reach of our federal government and return power back to the states ( ie. Roe v Wade). I just question his sincerity.

 

[Anarchist420]

Whoa, slow down, there Tiger. I'm saying his is a hypocrite for railing against earmarks all the while loading up on them himself then do a showboat move by voting no on the budget. Doesn't seem very damn principled to me. Look, there's a lot things he says I agree with him particularly when he says we should reduce the size, scope, and reach of our federal government and return power back to the states ( ie. Roe v Wade). I just question his sincerity.

You do know that the money is going to be spent anyway right? They have a certain amount appropriated for earmarks. He's not requesting additional tax-payer money.

 

[heyheybooboo]

You do know that the money is going to be spent anyway right? They have a certain amount appropriated for earmarks. He's not requesting additional tax-payer money.

No.

They don't.

I would like, however, statutory provisions that delegate x amount of funds to each Rep and Senator.

Therefore, $10 billion let's say, could be equally apportioned in Congressional districts and states as political 'spoils' --- taxpayers equally share the pain and the 'gain'.




--

 

[LegendKiller]

Um, 1 of those three were during the SBUS and the other was due to banks practicing FRB during the free-banking era.

If there was no banking regulations except a law that said all banks had to practice 100% reserve banking, then there wouldn't be any bank runs and no boom bust cycles. No inflation either.

You're still clinging to this, yet you can't even answer questions or debate A = L + E?

Really, you're lack of knowledge or insight makes you look massively moronic. People like you are *exactly* why you're "cause" will never get beyond 5% of the vote.

If you were actually adroit in your arguments and knowledgeable about your positions you might convince people like me, the people who would be great advocates. Instead, you ignore the tough questions and keep shoveling the shit.


How would there be no bank runs?

How would there be no inflation?

 

[nonlnear]

You're still clinging to this, yet you can't even answer questions or debate A = L + E?

I can't believe A420 didn't make the easy retort to this. (Well I can, but I digress...) A = L + E works just fine until the underlying assets start depreciating. Then A != L + E. That's why so many finance experts were talking about the potential for a solvency crisis not too long ago.

I was hesitant to post it because to me it's not a total deal breaker. It's kind of sad when the anti Fed zealots can't even come up with the easy talking points...

Really, you're lack of knowledge or insight makes you look massively moronic. People like you are *exactly* why you're "cause" will never get beyond 5% of the vote.

If you were actually adroit in your arguments and knowledgeable about your positions you might convince people like me, the people who would be great advocates. Instead, you ignore the tough questions and keep shoveling the shit.

How would there be no bank runs?

To be fair to A420, there would be no bank runs due to reserve scares. There still could be bank runs if there were other institutional trust concerns, but a run would simply consist of everyone taking their money out. The money would all be there with full reserves.

How would there be no inflation?

It would not guarantee static prices on everything, but there would be a lack of purely monetary inflation, at least relative to the underlying asset. Whether that is a significant enough advantage is a separate issue...

I don't think of inflation as an absolute evil myself. My biggest beef is the implicit wealth tax it entails when coupled with capital gains, and taxes on other investment income (interest, etc.) Take them away (or at least adjust them for inflation) and I don't necessarily have an issue with an inflationary currency as long as it's well managed.

 

[werepossum]

Um, 1 of those three were during the SBUS and the other was due to banks practicing FRB during the free-banking era.

If there was no banking regulations except a law that said all banks had to practice 100% reserve banking, then there wouldn't be any bank runs and no boom bust cycles. No inflation either.

No interest either, and probably no home or car loans from banks. If the bank must keep all its depositors' money in reserve, obviously it cannot loan out your money. You'd have to pay the bank interest to protect your money, as in medieval times, because if the bank can't loan your money it can only loan ITS money and can't be bothered with keeping yours unless you can make it worth the bank's while.

 

[Anarchist420]

No interest either, and probably no home or car loans from banks. If the bank must keep all its depositors' money in reserve, obviously it cannot loan out your money. You'd have to pay the bank interest to protect your money, as in medieval times, because if the bank can't loan your money it can only loan ITS money and can't be bothered with keeping yours unless you can make it worth the bank's while.

I know that. It's perfectly worthwhile to me.

 

[nonlnear]

No interest either, and probably no home or car loans from banks. If the bank must keep all its depositors' money in reserve, obviously it cannot loan out your money. You'd have to pay the bank interest to protect your money, as in medieval times, because if the bank can't loan your money it can only loan ITS money and can't be bothered with keeping yours unless you can make it worth the bank's while.

I know that. It's perfectly worthwhile to me.

Anarchist420, you disappoint (again). There would be loans available, but from a system of loaning institutions separate from banks (or at least issued using funds that are not listed as deposits). Inevitably loans would be more expensive, due to their constrained supply, but there would be loans. Also investors who put their money up for loans rather than on deposit would end up receiving rather healthy interest, rather than the pittance we all receive now. (A pittance which at times doesn't even keep pace with inflation.)

This thread is strange. I find myself making the points A420 should be making when I'm not even a proponent of his position. I must have too much time on my hands...