HarryCarey
Well-Known Member
Haha "proven" keyenesian economics, thats hilarious
Vote for Ron Paul-----Great idea
- Thread starter chillwills
- Start date
mame
Well-Known Member
Still waiting for the proof that I'm wrong... https://www.rollitup.org/politics/423882-where-proof-conservative-agenda-works.html
There is also another thread, https://www.rollitup.org/politics/422497-wheres-proof-librulism-works.html
TheDemocrat
Active Member
the last 2 years of Ronald Reagan administration he had no idea what was going on. even my 80 year old mother says thats too old to be president.
besides...Reagan was a horrible president and actor.
HarryCarey
Well-Known Member
The proof is in the pudding as they say......We've been operating on keyenesian and now New keyenesian economics since the depression....you might say well that has worked great, but not without help from the government.....classical economics(prior to depression) is also flawed but at least it allowed deflation which is what we have really needed for a long time.....Austrian economics per Ron Paul is how this country was designed to operate, on a market system, with prices, and products being regulated by the consumer....The main issue with keyens theory is it NEVER allows for deflation or corrections by the market and requires big government intervention.....These are simply my opinions and could very well be flawed but thats how I see it
deprave
New Member
@mame
It should be of no surprise to you that your wikipedia quote doesn't seem very accurate, the rest I didn't read but I will read it later, but I just want to say after skimming over it that it seems like you really don't understand Ron Pauls position on a lot of things and it seems pretty clear to me that you haven't really done much research on Ron Paul because most of what you say in your postings on this thread seems to be based on half-truths, as if your spitting off MSNBC rhetoric or something, I can't put my finger on it.
You really seem to be just grabbing for anything here with your arguments, for one thing as a quick example, Ron Paul does believe in the market but I am pretty sure he also supports some form of regulation for healthcare companies on the state level, lets be realistic here, not one sane person who is truly knowledgeable of our healthcare system sincerely believes that what we are doing is working.
It should be of no surprise to you that your wikipedia quote doesn't seem very accurate, the rest I didn't read but I will read it later, but I just want to say after skimming over it that it seems like you really don't understand Ron Pauls position on a lot of things and it seems pretty clear to me that you haven't really done much research on Ron Paul because most of what you say in your postings on this thread seems to be based on half-truths, as if your spitting off MSNBC rhetoric or something, I can't put my finger on it.
You really seem to be just grabbing for anything here with your arguments, for one thing as a quick example, Ron Paul does believe in the market but I am pretty sure he also supports some form of regulation for healthcare companies on the state level, lets be realistic here, not one sane person who is truly knowledgeable of our healthcare system sincerely believes that what we are doing is working.
deprave
New Member
Also about the racsim stuff, If you think racism doesn't exist anymore your sorely mistaken, the main problem is not so much about the people being racist anymore but in fact I would argue it is governments and police who are at the core of race problems today. In the south in particular racism is still a raging beast, sure it is rare out west and and the north but in much of the south its still 1964.
I am sure Ron Paul knows this well, in his own state of texas, projects are raided and Innocent poor black people are forced to take plea bargains or serve time marking them with a criminal record and scaring them for life. Racism is still a very real and important issue in the south especially.
So again here you are taking things out of context as if your Bill O Riley or something - Please just flip off your CNN or whatever and do your own research.
[video=youtube;kFBDn5PiL00]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFBDn5PiL00&feature=related[/video]
I am sure Ron Paul knows this well, in his own state of texas, projects are raided and Innocent poor black people are forced to take plea bargains or serve time marking them with a criminal record and scaring them for life. Racism is still a very real and important issue in the south especially.
So again here you are taking things out of context as if your Bill O Riley or something - Please just flip off your CNN or whatever and do your own research.
[video=youtube;kFBDn5PiL00]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFBDn5PiL00&feature=related[/video]
mame
Well-Known Member
I never said racism doesn't exist anymore(you should meet my dad) but it's clear that, at least where I live, race has become much less of an issue than it was in the past (Vanport comes to mind). The South is likely to continue to move at a snails pace in terms of progress in race relations but as you said the north and west areas of the U.S. have shown plenty of improvement to support my assertion that race relations are better than they were in 1964.
My girlfriend is a community development major in her last year, I'll ask her what she's learned about race relations in our area. She has gone to all kinds of community meetings and the like where old people talk about how racist the white folk used to be blah blah blah. She'd actually be more useful in this debate than me, admittedly.
I dont watch MSNBC and I've stopped watching CNN as of late btw (I still tune into watch Elliot Spitzer every once and a while). The more I learn about economics and history the more I scoff at how utterly clueless 98% of the media seems to be. The praise given to Paul Ryan over his pile of shit medicare plan just shows how clueless they all are.
SmokeyMcSmokester
Well-Known Member
wow...stephen baldwin is a complete douchebag..i had no idea.
mame
Well-Known Member
the 50's and 60's were the greatest period of time in American history. This is the first and last time our government ran on what could be described as pretty much ALL Keynesian. Again, it's not a coincidence that things got much worse after Heyek, Freidman and co got involved. The nation moved to the right during this time - reflecting the emergence of Austrian economics. Surely they've improved understanding of how the economy works but a noninterventionalist, "let the market fix itself" approach to governing is not governing, it's indifference.
And how would Austrian economics solve the problem of a Liquidity Trap? Keynesianism seeks to boost demand via spending and then seeks to grow the economy out of debt. Why resort to Austerity and similar measures that harm the general public - already the worst off in depression and really the key to recovery (demand leads to investment which leads to employment) - when this is a more productive option?
also another point I'd like to make, Keynesianism pursues redistribution by it's very nature - and it seems clear that conservatives have done a very good job of demonizing redistribution measures... but ponder this. The first gilded age, the time before the Great Depression, saw levels of wealth distribution not unlike the levels of today. We are now in the wake of a massive global (U.S. caused) recession. This is not a coincidence. My assertion here is that downward redistribution is not bad as long as we remain on the right side of the laffer curve.
PeachOibleBoiblePeach#1
Well-Known Member
He's to old and from Texas Nuff said'.
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
LOL, I knew there had to be some common ground there. Think of it this way, if we are truly free, as the Constitution states, then what business is it of their's what we put into our bodies. If someone wants to drink acid, it's not very smart but I believe he/she has every right to do so after all, if you think a woman has a right to abortion, then how is this different, in respect to choice?
OK, I don't know how to separate the lines of a quote, I'll just do it manually.
"the gold standard"
I have not seen or heard that but I think it's just a degree of semantics. He IS in favor of competing currencies backed by SOMETHING of value, gold, silver, oil or otherwise.
"Retarded idea. The fact that many industries would benefit with higher profit margins without needed environmental protections is proof enough government intervention is needed."
Come on, now. You seem to be an intelligent person, if not misguided. There's no reason to start throwing around epithets like "retarded". Your line of thinking takes me back to the days when Texas was considering issuing "concealed carry" permits. The opposition screamed "it'll be like the "wild west", like a war zone, there will be blood running in the streets". Just your opinion.
"Sometimes I wonder how dense you are. Yes, proven. History shows as much and so far on these boards you and everyone else who has tried has failed to prove my assertion incorrect. You've failed to present evidence that Keynesianism is "wrong" just as every other conservative mind before you has failed... If Heyek, Freidman and the like were so sure Keynesianism had failed they would have offered proof of such(they tried). That's not to say they didn't contribute or that elements of Austrian economics have no place - it's just that Keynesianism has shown itself to be the most capable model for dealing with recessions (a lot of this is due to the principle of the liquidity trap - a situation in which investment is low, demand is low, because employment is low, that can only be solved via spending to stimulate demand which then sparks investment and then the free market takes over...)"
There you go again, insulting, name calling, trying to intimidate... tsk, tsk, tsk!!! Again, you're opinion. I don't need any more proof that what I am seeing going on right now is wrong. Wrong is wrong is wrong, no matter how you spin it, it is wrong. What is going on at this time in our nation's history is proof enough for anybody who loves liberty and believes in free market capitalism. It still doesn't change the fact that we are in a financial crisis and we got here because of flawed thinking of elitists.
"Which is all cool and everything - except that he would likely sign off on defunding PP without batting an eye. I care about that kind of thing... you know, helping poor women get contraceptives, education, medical care and all..."
As well he should. Planned Parenthood is not something the federal government should be involved in. It's not authorized by the Constitution. If you are so concerned about poor women getting contraceptives, then why don't you buy the contraceptives and hand them out. Education and medical care? You don't seriously think I'm going to buy that load of crap, do you? Check out a different perspective on Margaret Sanger.
"That he wont raise taxes? Ron Paul has never voted "yes" for a tax increase. Ever. That's not an opinion."
Of course not, now I think you are just dancing around and trying to frustrate me. It's what comes after that, "we pretty much HAVE to raise taxes". THAT is your opinion.
"He was incorrect when he said the civil rights act of 1964 failed to improve race relations. Now on this one, I failed to find any statistics representing an improvement in race relations but... To look at our desegregated schools and marketplaces and say that changed nothing is idiocy. At least where I live, in Oregon, interracial romantic relationships are pretty fucking common as compared to a few decades ago (hell, I even have a half black cousin, first 'negro' blood in my family... ever)... What about public racism? Can I walk into a supermarket and say nigger without turning heads at the very least? lose some teeth at the worst?"
You're trying to prove a negative. There are no statistics that show what would have happened if the Civil Rights Act had not been implemented. It's like the fellow who barks "Get your tiger repellant here! Keep the tigers away from you family with this elixer." Another guy says "there's no tigers around here" to which the barker replies, "see, it works".
Look, I grew up in the country. I went to school in a town of about 2000. There were no blacks living there, no asians, no hispanics, not even a jew. Thanks to my father, however, I was taught to look at the person as an individual and judge each individual on his own merit, not by the color of his skin. I remember one time, as we were driving through town, my dad saw a bus stopped at one of our 4 gas stations. (I told you it was a small town) It was the bus of the Harlem Globetrotters. My dad said, hey, look it's the Globetrotters, want to go meet them? My mother, on the other hand was against the idea, (I think she was a little prejudiced) but we went anyway while she waited in the car. It was one of the greatest moments in my life. I'll never forget that. I wasn't scared, just excited to see these athletes that have brought so much laughter into my life. They were great, too. They clowned around with me and treated me with respect and kindness. They even gave me a basketball with all their signatures on it. Remember, I didn't grow up around black people. I wasn't forced to go to school with them. The only time I ever saw anyone of a different race was on TV or when we went to the "city" and I was never afraid of them. I could recall many other instances where my father's influence proved the theory of desegregation wrong. I grew up in the whitest of white America. I occasionally heard a racial slur now and then but it was rare. It wasn't just me, either. All my friends were pretty much the same. We loved to listen to R & B. I idolized Jim Brown and Bob Gibson. I do not ever remember any mean or derogatory words spoken among us about race.
The thing that the Civil Rights Act did that was so wrong was to legislate private businesses to do business with certain people, whether they wanted to or not. On the surface that may seem like the right thing to do but as so often happens when good intentions lead to moral injustice, we are left with more problems than we had before. If I own a business and want to cater to a certain segment of the population, that is my right to do so. If you do not like the way I conduct my business, you have the right to do your business with someone else. That is how the free market regulates itself.
When I went to college, I needed some financial help. I went to the financial aid office where I was told the only thing available to me were loans. I asked for a hardship grant and I was told, (quite discreetly, I might add) if you were a minority, it would be no problem but you're not, so the only help we can offer is a loan. Did that make me bitter? No. I took the loan and I paid it off, unlike so many others. It didn't make me hate minorities, either. I guess my father's influence was so great that even that event would not shake it.
Sorry I kinda get long winded on this issue because of my background but there is tons of evidence in the personal lives of people succeeding without the help of the "nanny" state. I am proof that desegregation is not the way to teach people to not just tolerate each other but to respect each other.
"The problem with "a free market approach" with healthcare is that there really isn't any competition; That's not good for the consumers, I'd be open to your suggestions to increase competition(here in Oregon there are only a few providers - the two biggest represent over 60% of the market). If you're talking privatization (of medicare), adding the profit motive and another layer of middlemen into the mix simply ends up costing more money."
What has happened to the cost of laser eye surgery? Or dental implants? Or cosmetic surgery? They all have decreased in cost. Why? For most people, these procedures are not covered by insurance so they must pay for it out of pocket. When you pay for something, don't you want to get the best price? That's where competition blossoms. That is the free market, my friend. On the other hand, what has happened to the price of eyeglasses and routine office visits? (when I was young, doctors made housecalls when the patient was too sick to come in) My parents didn't have health insurance because my dad was self employed and health care was affordable. They paid cash for all medical costs, including my mother's cancer treatment and my father's back surgery. Insurance and government regulation is why healthcare is so expensive today.
"Okay, you might have gotten me here except that when conservatives say "We've never had debt this high before! We need to get the debt down NOW!" These statements are in fact, misleading and overstating the problem.
Our debt as a percentage of GDP as of right now is ~90%... After WW2, the national debt peaked at over 120%. So we HAVE had more debt (in relation to the size of our economy, which is really the only serious measure here considering forces like inflation fuck up numbers over long periods of time). Conservatives arguing the debt problem needs to be solved now are ignoring the fact that too many cuts too soon can and will damage the recovery - which should have always been priority #1."
I used to know a mechanic who was famous for telling his customers, after informing them of what was wrong with their vehicle, "you can pay me now or you can pay me later". Which meant, i know it's painful to part with all that money but if you wait until it gets worse, it'll be that much more painful.
Let me put it another way. What if you are seeing a doctor who is treating you for a skin lesion. After a certain period of time, instead of getting better, it is now becoming infected and spreading. You confront him about it and he tells you that you just need to give it more time to work and to discontinue the treatment would have dire consequences. Do you continue with the treatment or do you see get a second opinion?
"Now you're getting into the bigger debate. I agree with the core principles of both ideals - it's just a matter of where you draw the line that has really been debated the last 100 years... Considering the fact that wealth has been steadily moving it's way up to the wealthy elite and the middle class has been steadily disapearing over the last 30 years... I'd argue that the government is not involved enough in ensuring that a prosperous middle class can exist like it did in the 50's and 60's (hint: go back and look at the governments actions leading up to this time... Look for the "Great Compression".. Many policies during this time could be considered socialist in a lot of ways but they did contribute towards creating the American dream)."
You agree with the core principles of both ideals? Well, I don't know what to say now. I didn't know that was possible but I'll take your word for it. To me it's like someone saying "I believe in God and I believe that he does not exist."
"Meanwhile, it seems it cannot be written off as a coincidence that the massive redistribution of wealth upwards began just as Austrian economic principles came into play."
Do you just pull these out of thin air or do you actually believe what you are saying. I think you know better and are trying to bait me into a pointless argument. The redistribution of wealth is not of Austrian economics any more than it is "Individualism" and when did Austrian economics ever come into play in the last 150 yrs? That's like telling a Protestant that he is wrong to believe in the pope. It doesn't make any sense.
You like bringing up details that support your case. Others can bring up details that destroy your case. Then you produce even more details that refutes their details. It's like a dog chasing his own tail. Have you ever heard the phrase "the devil is in the details"? This fight is not about details. It is about the BIG picture. It is about following the Constitution. The very document that these clowns in Washington have sworn to uphold. Show me where in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights or the Federalist Papers that it says the government can control education, healthcare, housing, energy, abortions, insurance (which is what Obamacare is all about, it has NOTHING to do with healthcare) and all the other areas of our lives where they have intruded. I have asked this before and I will ask it again, SHOW ME THE LAW THAT SAYS AMERICANS MUST PAY A TAX ON WAGES EARNED IN LIEU OF LABOR. Aside from the Federal Reserve, this has been the most evil deception perpetrated against us all.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
Great job by Ron Paul. Too bad he firmly believes in an insane economic system or I'd vote for him.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i was just looking at mitt romney for the first time (first time seriously) and realized he is not so bad. he is the most moderate of the bunch. and imo, the most likely to seal the nomination.
hell, i might even consider voting for him if obama keeps with the road he is on.
any thoughts on the guy?
You do realize that the one we have now is based on perpetuating an ever greater debt right? Since they never create the interest all the loans can never be paid.
beardo
Well-Known Member
It's like our whole country gets all of it's money from a payday loan place and keeps borrowing to pay what it owes, not to mention that we have a service based economy which is unsustainable and the one of the only things keeping this whole thing afloat is that the dollar is the world reserve currency which is no longer garenteed to continue
londonfog
Well-Known Member
I'm going to put it like this for the respect I have for my elders...for oneday I hope to be one...Ron Paul should be nothing more then a Presidential advisor..somethings hell yes...and somethings..awww Grandpa go to sleep ...after 65-75 you should rest and give advice..
chillwills
Well-Known Member
Like I said. If he is examined by a plethora of physicians and found to be in good health, then why does his age matter so much? I'm not dense, I understand that when people get up in years they can start to lose some, even alot of their mental capabilities.
If he couldn't pass his physicals and demonstrates that he cant do the job to 100% of what is required, then I agree, it wouldn't be wise to have him as our president.
But from what I can see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears, I think he is more than capable of doing the job.
I am so willing to 'take a chance' with someone his age because I honestly think he is head and shoulders above anyone else who is considering running. He blows anyone else completely out of the water.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
He has made a career on firing people. That troubles me. He's a free trade guy, similar to Clinton when it comes to international trade. I hate that. Free trade = outsourcing jobs to third world countries so CEO's can profit. It's the problem IMO.
On the other hand he was a pretty decent governor. It's difficult to say. I would definitely hear him out. It kind of depends on which Romney we'd get. I'll take the guy who was governor over Obama easily, but this new ultra-conservative guy I'm not a big fan of. Of course the conservative talk could be him just playing to his base and he could do a 180 in a general election and become very moderate.
So yeah, hard to figure him out. I'd have to see him run in the general election before I made my mind up about him. The rest of the republican field is a cast of fairly transparent far right mouthbreathers. Romney, who knows. I'd give him a fair chance to make his case though. But if he starts talking about more tax cuts to the rich I'll throw stuff at the tv.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
Yes, I know that. And the idea that we can fix that while reducing tax revenue doesn't make much sense. Paul advocates getting rid of pretty much all financial regulations and free trade everywhere. That would be a disaster of epic proportions.
I'm not advocating status quo, but Paul is NOT the answer. His version of what America should be like is on the verge of capitalistic anarchy. Very very bad idea IMO.
mame
Well-Known Member
your post was pretty long and I'm actually busy today (for once) but I want to touch on this. You say one can't believe in the core principles of individualism and collectivism? I believe one could refer to a mixed doctrine on these principles as a form of centrism. I believe in American exceptionalism and indivdiualism. I was raised just like you and everyone else that if I work hard and get a little lucky I will succeed. Want something? work, get payed and buy it.
However, reality is harsh. The difficulties associated with getting out of the "trap"(lol Messy Marv) are very real. In the 50's and 60's everyone had a chance. If you wanted a job you went out and got one - and if you were any good at it your job was likely secure and payed a decent wage. Families were able to rely on a single breadwinner while another stayed home to care for children or whatever.
Now, it takes two earners to earn a decent living for a family. I work full time at probably the best wage I can get outside of hard physical labor or what would require a college degree (I make ~$13 per hour, minimum wage in Oregon is 8.50 or so) and I couldn't even support my current lifestyle without my roommates and without my plants. I'm working towards a degree, but it's going to take a total of 4-6 years because I cant cut out any work hours. I'm actually in a good situation compared to most of my friends. I lucked out with my job and roommates (job is a small business, met through family... Roommates actually pay their bills) but many of my friends are struggling. I watch them struggle everyday despite the effort they are putting in and the skills they possess...
Having split parents... My dad has always done quite well for himself as a union driller - my mom however, has struggled and could have been called a "welfare queen" while I was growing up(she was never able to get a job that payed enough to support me and my brothers, despite working tirelessly my entire childhood). Without help from Uncle Sam my mom could have ended up on the streets and had her children taken away. How is that fair? How is one supposed to build a prosperous life off of this kind of situation? Government funded safety nets like Planned Parenthood, welfare, section 8 housing etc were the only things keeping things from getting worse for my family and countless others. Why would you want to take those things away in the name of individualism?
Basically, where I'm going with this is that I believe in the same values that every American believes in. The difference is that I'm not full of myself. I'm lucky. I could just as easily be one of my struggling friends living off of $120 in food stamps for the month and scraping up any work I can possibly get. To quote another,
To expand on that, I believe that building our nation from the bottom up is the best way to ensure prosperity for our nation.
So you see, one can be an individualist while still realizing the importance of collectivism. I try to have a balanced approach, as I feel it is necessary to making the best decision. Individualism and collectivism are very much able to co-exist. They must... For society's sake.