Ron Paul On The Record

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
381

[quote]orion wrote:
And yes the Austrian boom/bust theory is not undisputed, there are still Keynesians out there who preach government intervention even though Keynesianism was dead after it produced the phenomenon of stagflation.

Anyone challenging the Austrian theory should be able to explain to us why producing things the market does not want (because otherwise someone would build it) with money that was extracted from the economy at gunpoint is something other than a giant waste of resources.[/quote]

You are arguing against yourself now.

A moment ago (a few posts up) you said that governments were able to alter the boom and bust cycle through deficit spending (to make it worse).

What is it? Can government intervention work to affect the economy or can it not? You are admitting that it can, but at the same time suggesting that the concept of actually doing so is considered out of date!

Make up your mind.

Again, you are arguing against the particular government misuse of the monetary system, used unwisely, causing a massive “distortion”, which I am not really disagreeing with at all.

The government is doing a shitty job. It’s running massive deficits. It’s distorting the economy and pushing a lot of bogus money through it. There is going to be a price to be paid.

Once again, the fault is not the system. Just like guns don’t kill people, the system doesn’t cause problems. The system allows appropriate distortions and inappropriate distortions and puts a lot of power in the hands of government. Unfortunately, there are no serious controls on government to keep it from abusing this power.

To repeat myself - the system works like a charm, but the government is acting very unwisely.

Finally, I must say, that crisis situations, such as legitimate wars and other emergencies, would not be an inappropriate time to incur such burdens. It is the modern equivalent of a war levy.

382

Money is a commodity like any other. The government does not interfere in orange juice production and it should not interfere in money production.

The only legitimate role of the federal government is to protect and enforce contracts within the framework of the Constitution which itself is a contract between the Federal Government and the People.

Think about which federal departments actually do this and which do not.

383

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Money is a commodity like any other. The government does not interfere in orange juice production and it should not interfere in money production.
.[/quote]

Thank you very much.

384

[quote]vroom wrote:
orion wrote:
So, the rules are not the same for everone.

The rules are the same for everybody but the government, which surely you saw as the intent of my statement.

The rules have always been different for government as they issue the money to the populace.

However, in todays day and age, all the government has to do is act responsibly… the fact that it is not is not an issue with the current system (it’s an issue available within all systems).
[/quote]

In theory the rules may be the same for everybody, but in practice you either have money left to invest or you constantly lose through inflation.

You know, the rules can be the same for everybody and blatantly unfair at the same time.

This system makes it inredibly easy for governments to act irresponsibly, a gold standard makes it incredibly hard. you really think that it makes no difference if fiscal irresponsibilty is immediately rewarded or punished?

[quote]
What can any kind of government interference bring except market distortions?

If people really wanted or needed the stuff they´d buy it anyway, if they don`t the artificial state sponsored bubble will burst sooner or later.

This is a silly argument. The mere fact that people are making purchasing decisions would indicate that they need it. Or, on the other hand, perhaps we should all live in a cardboard box and eat only potatoes.

Who are you, or I, to determine what it is that people should do with their money. They make the choices they make based on their own reasons.

There is no bubble and there is no need for it to burst… however, there is a credit system, which is profitable to the companies that issue credit, and I see no reason for the market to stop making a profit.

Finally, all markets have rules, and it is the government that to some degree defines and enforces the rules. You are arguing against markets as much as for them with your statements, which is a bit contradictory.

Again, if you want to talk about a bubble, you are going to have to distinguish government from populace. Sure, the mad deficit spending today may represent a big blip that is going to cause pain when it is stopped.

Please, if you want to critique government spending and monetary mismanagement, point firmly in that direction and resist the desire to lump the actions of the populace into the same “problem” mindset.[/quote]

What you do not seem to get is that the government and the populace cannot be separated regarding this issue.

If the government distorts the market, in what way ever, the people will react.

If the government provides cheap money the people WILL INVEST IN THINGS AND PRODUCTION CAPACITY THEY WOULD NOT OTHERWISE.

So, either government keeps supplying cheap money (a process of constant theft may I remind you) or people will stop buying those stuff and all the production goods built to satisfy the artificial demand are practically worthless.

If government tampers with money supply it does not set ground rules or provides a stable framework a market needs, it constantly rocks the boat so it is hardly anti-market from me to demand that they please stop doping that, the boat rocks enough on its own.

385

[quote]vroom wrote:
orion wrote:
And yes the Austrian boom/bust theory is not undisputed, there are still Keynesians out there who preach government intervention even though Keynesianism was dead after it produced the phenomenon of stagflation.

Anyone challenging the Austrian theory should be able to explain to us why producing things the market does not want (because otherwise someone would build it) with money that was extracted from the economy at gunpoint is something other than a giant waste of resources.

You are arguing against yourself now.

A moment ago (a few posts up) you said that governments were able to alter the boom and bust cycle through deficit spending (to make it worse).

What is it? Can government intervention work to affect the economy or can it not? You are admitting that it can, but at the same time suggesting that the concept of actually doing so is considered out of date!

Make up your mind.

Again, you are arguing against the particular government misuse of the monetary system, used unwisely, causing a massive “distortion”, which I am not really disagreeing with at all.

The government is doing a shitty job. It’s running massive deficits. It’s distorting the economy and pushing a lot of bogus money through it. There is going to be a price to be paid.

Once again, the fault is not the system. Just like guns don’t kill people, the system doesn’t cause problems. The system allows appropriate distortions and inappropriate distortions and puts a lot of power in the hands of government. Unfortunately, there are no serious controls on government to keep it from abusing this power.

To repeat myself - the system works like a charm, but the government is acting very unwisely.

Finally, I must say, that crisis situations, such as legitimate wars and other emergencies, would not be an inappropriate time to incur such burdens. It is the modern equivalent of a war levy.[/quote]

First of all the gold standard worked like a charm.

100 years of practically no inflation and the British free trade doctrine.

Golden times.

Second, the central bank system does not distort markets becasuse it is handled poorly, it distorts the market because it can only be handled poorly.

A GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY combined with the CENTRAL PLANNING OF THE MONEY SUPPLY, how is that supposed to work in a market system?

When did a fiat currency ever work in history? This is hardly the first try you know? Also not the 3rd, 10th or 25th try.

Are you saying that this special part of socialism could actually work “it just has never been tried by the right people in the right way”?

No, it stinks, from head to toes.

To the boom/bust cycle:

Yes the government can influence the economy.

It can make it worse, never better, becasue the market allways knows better what people want or need than the government, otherwise a planned economy would work.

387

[quote]orion wrote:
Yes the government can influence the economy.

It can make it worse, never better… [/quote]

Orion, when you say crap like this you just expose yourself as a blatant ideologist without a worthy opinion.

Have you ever heard of measures such as the standard of living? Perhaps length of life? Do you actually value growth and expansion of human endeavors?

The problem that needs to be fixed is inappropriate lvels of spending. It’s not that hard to bind the hands government if people will but recognize the problem. Also, the population, in their wisdom, appear to want a fairly powerful central government. You talk a lot about the people knowing best – but only if they want what you think they should want.

Anyway, keep pining away for a return to ancient historical systems, you sound as ridiculous as neo-cons or fundamentalists.

388

[quote]vroom wrote:
orion wrote:
Yes the government can influence the economy.

It can make it worse, never better…

Orion, when you say crap like this you just expose yourself as a blatant ideologist without a worthy opinion.

Have you ever heard of measures such as the standard of living? Perhaps length of life? Do you actually value growth and expansion of human endeavors?

The problem that needs to be fixed is inappropriate lvels of spending. It’s not that hard to bind the hands government if people will but recognize the problem. Also, the population, in their wisdom, appear to want a fairly powerful central government. You talk a lot about the people knowing best – but only if they want what you think they should want.

Anyway, keep pining away for a return to ancient historical systems, you sound as ridiculous as neo-cons or fundamentalists.[/quote]

Think it through.

If government could “better” the economy, why do planned economies fail?

After all, such measures would require to have more knowledge than the market?

Why should we trust governments that cannot even run agriculture without causing mass starvations with anything more complex?

Anyway, there is little to argue with in your post.

So, you like a little bit (or rather a lot) of socialism becuause you are used to it. A lot of people you know seem to agree with you.

Sooner or later, you will find out that what you “want” or think should work means zilch in a world were the same old, boring economic concepts apply.

You can run a system on debts for so long and then it crashs.

I find it strange though to be accused of being a blind ideologue, having tried to give reasons for why the system is rotten and you were not able once to show me were I go wrong.

In fact you misunderstood half of it and ignored the rest.

I am not so sure who is acting like a true believer here.

389

Great video.

390

[quote]vroom wrote:

The problem that needs to be fixed is inappropriate lvels of spending. It’s not that hard to bind the hands government if people will but recognize the problem. Also, the population, in their wisdom, appear to want a fairly powerful central government. You talk a lot about the people knowing best – but only if they want what you think they should want.

Anyway, keep pining away for a return to ancient historical systems, you sound as ridiculous as neo-cons or fundamentalists.[/quote]

Please tell us what the appropriate levels of spending are.

The government is not responsible for the the people’s welfare. “The People” are. The government only protects unalienable rights. One does not have a right to health care, housing, food, or a job–one must earn those things. You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A central government cannot guarantee you anything but those three things.

People only want powerful central government because that is all we have had in the last 70 years and it is all we have ever known. There used to be a time in this country when there was such thing as personal responsibility.

You also do not understand what a neocon is if you are making such ridiculous claims.

391

[center]Globalism
by Ron Paul[/center]

The recent defeat of the amnesty bill in the Senate came after outraged Americans made it clear to the political elite that they would not tolerate this legislation, which would further erode our national sovereignty. Similarly, polls increasingly show the unpopularity of the Iraq war, as well as of the Congress that seems incapable of ending it.

Because some people who vocally oppose amnesty are supportive of the war, the ideological connection between support of the war and amnesty is often masked. If there is a single word explaining the reasons why we continue to fight unpopular wars and see legislation like the amnesty bill nearly become law, that word is “globalism.”

The international elite, including many in the political and economic leadership of this country, believe our constitutional republic is antiquated and the loyalty Americans have for our form of government is like a superstition, needing to be done away with. When it benefits elites, they pay lip service to the American way, even while undermining it.

We must remain focused on what ideology underlies the approach being taken by those who see themselves as our ruling-class, and not get distracted by the passions of the moment or the rhetorical devices used to convince us how their plans will be “good for us.” Whether it is managed trade being presented under the rhetoric of “free trade,” or the ideas of “regime change” abroad and “making the world safe for democracy” – the underlying principle is globalism.

Although different rhetoric is used in each instance, the basic underlying notion behind replacing regimes abroad and allowing foreign people to come to this country illegally is best understood by comprehending this ideal of the globalist elite. In one of his most lucid moments President Bush spoke of the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” Unfortunately, that bigotry is one of the core tenets at the heart of the globalist ideology.

The basic idea is that foreigners cannot manage their own affairs so we have to do it for them. This may require sending troops to far off lands that do not threaten us, and it may also require “welcoming with open arms” people who come here illegally. All along globalists claim a moral high ground, as if our government is responsible for ensuring the general welfare of all people. Yet the consequences are devastating to our own taxpayers, as well as many of those we claim to be helping.

Perhaps the most seriously damaged victim of this approach is our own constitutional republic, because globalism undermines both the republican and democratic traditions of this nation. Not only does it make a mockery of the self-rule upon which our republic is based, it also erodes the very institutions of our republic and replaces them with international institutions that are often incompatible with our way of life.

The defeat of the amnesty bill proves though that there is no infallible logic, or predetermined march of history, that forces globalism on us.

392

[center]Exposing the True Isolationists

by Ron Paul[/center]

Last week, I wrote about the ideology of globalism and how it underlies certain government policies. Managed trade agreements, international military adventurism, and amnesty for illegal immigrants all emanate from this ideology.

Yet globalism has a consequence that is, if we are to believe the rhetoric of its greatest proponents, entirely unintended. Globalists often label those of us who resist their schemes as “isolationist.” Yet it is, somewhat remarkably, the globalists themselves who promote policies that isolate our nation from the rest of the world.

In terms of modern politics, isolationism is not so much an approach to American foreign policy as it is the result of the policies enacted by proponents of globalism. From offensive statements about “Old Europe” (as differentiated from “New Europe”), necessitated by the desire to justify a military presence in Iraq, to conflicts at the WTO, the flowery rhetoric of the neo-conservatives often takes vicious turns when unrealistic policies meet with reality.

In their hopes to remake the world in their image, the globalist elite who run much of America’s policy-making apparatus simply further isolate our country from the rest of the world. By claiming a moral superiority that is so evidently absent when the effects of their policies are witnessed, neo-conservatives have made America seem hypocritical to many abroad.

America is now held in low esteem in many nations, not because we follow our own interests, but because the elites make claims that are not reflected in reality. They have, for example, undertaken economic sanctions in an entirely new way in recent years. When they wanted to take aim at Iraq and Iran, they imposed sanctions against those countries, but also against countries doing business with those countries. This meant we were in no position to negotiate with our adversaries, and we also could not rely on support from our allies.

Yet this globalism often bumps into itself, because of our second-party sanctions against Iran, our international commitments to the space station, for example, were put into jeopardy. Also consider the fiasco that happened as a result of sanctions on Iraq. Thousands of Iraqi children starved to death, causing (according to the 9/11 commission report) great resentment against America, yet some managed trade was allowed to continue, managed of course by the globalists in the UN oil for food program. This program resulted in yet another UN scandal.

Despite the protestations of the neo-conservatives, this UN program is not the only example of personal enrichment that comes to the mind of those who doubt America’s authenticity due to these policies. Does anybody remember Richard Perle’s resignation from the defense policy board?

To reset the debate in a way that reflects reality, it is important for us to reject the idea that the choice is between globalism and isolation. Instead we must stand firm for national sovereignty, constitutional republicanism and international cooperation. We should realize that America’s current isolation is simply a consequence of globalism gone awry.

393

[quote]orion wrote:
If government could “better” the economy, why do planned economies fail?

After all, such measures would require to have more knowledge than the market?
[/quote]

Why create false dichotomies, we aren’t talking about managing the markets. We are talking about exerting forces on the market… there is a HUGE difference.

Just like the conservatives here you seem comfortable inventing a stance for your opponents. It certainly makes it easier to argue against someone when you make up their stance for them, doesn’t it?

Right. And how many times do I have to state that a government running on deficits, like some are, is a problem that needs to be addressed? Oh, and I do differentiate between a debt based system and running a deficit while you may not.

It’s hard to understand your rantings. They sound like they are regurgitated financial activist web sites long on hyperbole and short on fact.

Maybe if you figure out what I’m saying, and argue those points, then you’d make a little more sense. Otherwise, feel free to make up any stance you like on my behalf and then knock it down. That’s pretty effective I’m sure.

394

Hillary, Obama, Rudy, John and there ilk will never get my vote. The more I read and hear from Ron Paul. The more I am convienced he is the right person for the job.

395

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Please tell us what the appropriate levels of spending are.
[/quote]

It’s simple. Certainly not more than they are able to raise as income.

This is NOT half an answer as it may appear.

Obviously, a populace will fight against taxes, and there will be some type of spending limit imposed by “The People” based on this.

This means, when the money runs out, that government will have to make decisions on how to spend limited resources based on the services and policies supported by the constitution – perhaps a lot less than we see right now.

Okay, it’s been a while, in that I’m not sure where you reference is coming from, but I’m not sure a neocon has much to do with what I’m talking about.

People make a lot of assumptions about what people are saying around these parts…

396

[quote]vroom wrote:
People make a lot of assumptions about what people are saying around these parts…[/quote]

Sorry, I thought you were calling orion a neocon which he is plainly not. Just so you know, I respect you as an individual with an informed opinion though I am disagreeing with you about government involvement in economics.

My question to you about the appropriate level of government spending was a ruse to draw you out into a debate about fairness.

Do you think it fair that tax money that is raised in a certain district of the US should go to some other part of the country where the income was not raised?

While I have no problem voting yes to legislation to help feed and clothe poor people in my own city/state I do not think it is fair to take money from other people outside of this city/state to help feed and clothe them. This is essentially what Federal spending is–a pyramid scheme.

If we were a country the size of France I might not argue with it but the fact of the matter is we are much larger in population than many of the countries we try to compare ourselves against.

397

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
My question to you about the appropriate level of government spending was a ruse to draw you out into a debate about fairness.[/quote]

Heh, sneaky bugger.

This gets to be a tricky issue, I have to admit. On the face of it, why should money from my pocket help anyone who is not in my own family. Even then, maybe I don’t feel like helping out some members of my extended family.

I’m not sure widening the geography allows something to be equated with a pyramid scheme.

There are also competing issues with respect to the strength of the nation based on the strength of the various regions within it. Of course, I can’t say anything tangible about this concept.

However, personally, I don’t like raw handouts regardless of how close to home they are. This doesn’t mean that I want to turn my back on the needy, but it does mean that they have to work, learn, strive, or whatever.

Frankly, if you want this issue to be self-correcting you have to ensure that recipients of any type of government support are strongly incented towards independence from any such help. Perhaps the wages suck. Perhaps a large social stigma is attached. Perhaps the make work applied is more demanding than real world jobs.

I don’t have the answers, but I know I don’t want entitlement. I do know that if we can bring all these recalcitrants back into the regular labor market that it will help the economy, as they will all be earning money, buying products, paying taxes, and so forth. So, there is financial incentive to help people improve their market value… as opposed to simple handouts.

Obviously, I’m just pontificating on the problem. I recognize what I’d consider right wing arguments against taxation, and I hate paying taxes, but I do feel there is an ignored facet of national wealth and strength that is ignored when talking about having the less contributing groups of society become more effective.

[quote]
If we were a country the size of France I might not argue with it but the fact of the matter is we are much larger in population than many of the countries we try to compare ourselves against.[/quote]

Hopefully, if things are done right, the larger population spreads the load… such that everyone has less tax burden to bear. Unfortunately, I think the lighter burden is more often used to justify growing government based on ill-conceived plans to “aid” various groups consisting of various types - including big business.

398

[quote]vroom wrote:
orion wrote:
If government could “better” the economy, why do planned economies fail?

After all, such measures would require to have more knowledge than the market?

Why create false dichotomies, we aren’t talking about managing the markets. We are talking about exerting forces on the market… there is a HUGE difference.
.[/quote]

Sure this is not the same thing.

Building a market that is transparent as possible and where the rules are enforced is a good thing.

Exerting forces on the market creates a market distortion with stolen money.

Get it?

[quote]
So, you like a little bit (or rather a lot) of socialism becuause you are used to it. A lot of people you know seem to agree with you.

Sooner or later, you will find out that what you “want” or think should work means zilch in a world were the same old, boring economic concepts apply.

Just like the conservatives here you seem comfortable inventing a stance for your opponents. It certainly makes it easier to argue against someone when you make up their stance for them, doesn’t it?
.[/quote]

I call a spade a spade.

Solcialised medicine, education and government subsidies whenever you think “force should be excerted”.

Depending on how you go about it I call that socialism or fascism, or a national socialist blending of the two.

[quote]
You can run a system on debts for so long and then it crashs.

Right. And how many times do I have to state that a government running on deficits, like some are, is a problem that needs to be addressed? Oh, and I do differentiate between a debt based system and running a deficit while you may not.

In fact you misunderstood half of it and ignored the rest.

I am not so sure who is acting like a true believer here.

It’s hard to understand your rantings. They sound like they are regurgitated financial activist web sites long on hyperbole and short on fact.

Maybe if you figure out what I’m saying, and argue those points, then you’d make a little more sense. Otherwise, feel free to make up any stance you like on my behalf and then knock it down. That’s pretty effective I’m sure.[/quote]

So what you are saying is, if you do not understand it it is regurgitated from somwhere sinister and could not possibly be right.

That is obviously idiotic and a strawman.

Plus I answered your points, you simply lack the knowledge to respond to that.

So, sorry.

Mises, Hajek, Friedman, read anything you can get a hand on.

You might at least aquire the ability to argue, why you believe, what you believe, with a grown up.

I leave you now, so that you can have the final word your ego so desparately needs, wheather it adds anything to a discussion or drags it into the mud.

399

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Do you think it fair that tax money that is raised in a certain district of the US should go to some other part of the country where the income was not raised?
.[/quote]

Wheater theft is ok is geographical matter?

It would be ok to steal from my neighbour but not from someone 500 miles away?

400

[quote]orion wrote:
It would be ok to steal from my neighbour but not from someone 500 miles away?

[/quote]
No. Your neighbor gets to vote on local issues presumably so…we’ll call it the “Tyranny of the Majority”–but not forced on everyone in the country. Next year maybe it will be changed by a different vote.