Did Keynesians see the housing bubble ? No. Did the Austrians? Yes. Do the Keynesians have a Plan to save the economy that will actually work and continue to work in the future? No. Do the Austrians? Yes. Are Austrians much better looking and overall twice as intelligent as Keynesians? Absolutely.
Uhm, this just isn't true. Everyone knew about the housing bubble.. Greenspan, Volcker, Krugman, Paul, Pelosi, Bernanke, ALL of them...
What is this plan the Austrians have? Austerity? As I've posted about on these boards and have been following pretty closely, Austerity is failing the Eurozone... Why should it work for us? We're all in a similar situation ATM... it's not like we're somehow special that inneffective policies magically become useful just because you say so or because our flag is red, white and blue... What else is there? De-regulating the market and instituting more tax cuts? Well, that didn't work before, why should it work now? I'd love to hear about these amazing solutions you claim the Austrians to have... Empirical evidence of policy effectiveness would be nice too(specifics)...
Do you guys really believe a hero like Ron Paul is some kind of terrorist, that he will legalize drugs, that he will be a threat to our national security, that he will be a threat to our way of life and let the corporations run wild(as they do now I might add) - Its a ridiculous argument, its a psy-op against the American people, this man has served in government for a very long time and in the Military.
This is why I made this thread, apparently I am not being specific enough, All I can do is ask is that you guys please consider Ron Paul and actually research his philosophy with an open mind because your understanding of Ron Paul is skewed.
No, I believe Ron Paul is a good man who clearly has good intentions but he just happens to be wrong. Pretty simple. His views on how a "free" America would function are just so unrealistic it's dumbfounding TBH... I never thought a man so old could be so niave...
The markets aren't perfect, sorry.
Saying that you're for legalizing one substance but not another is the epitome of hypocrisy
Not really. Using a cost/benefit analysis it's pretty easy to see, for example, that legalizing Marijuana would be worth doing because the benefits outweigh the costs to society... With Heroin it's easy to see that the costs likely outwiegh the benefits by far and so it makes sense to ban the substance and others like it.
How about this: (Reference:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...s-graphic.html) Referring to the link I just provided our government gave 9.0 trillion to failing businesses. What if our government decided to distribute the $9.0 trillion to the 307,006,550 citizens of this country? This equates to giving each citizen $29,315.34. Imagine how drastically this would have changed our economy allowing the free market consumers to decide which product, investment, or debt they chose to spend this money on? Most citizens of the United States only make this much in a year. I know I personally could have been out of debt, probably driving a better car which I chose because I liked it (free market choice always selects the right product for you) or if I owned a house I could have easily been caught up on all of my mortgage payments as well as very likely ahead at the same time (which in turn should revive the failing banks, however not likely considering they failed for variously more reasons than just that). Tell me, what would you do with this money and why do you think it was smart to give it to a failing corporation again?
There is a difference between
giving money, and
lending money. If you were loaned 30 grand what are the chances you'd pay it off? Slim? None? Chrysler, for example, took 10.5 Billion in loans and has
payed most of it off already - leaving only a $2 billion balance after only a few years... That loan saved a shit ton of jobs...
