Slashdot Mirror
Ron Paul Spam Traced to Reactor Botnet
Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? writes "Ars is reporting that the Ron Paul spam has been traced back to the Reactor botnet. According to the SecureWorks report, which originally identified the spammer, someone calling themselves nenastnyj was behind it and their botnet control server has been shut down. The Ron Paul campaign has previously denied any connection with this spam campaign."
His voting record suggests otherwise.
It don't matter if your campaign is a favourite of spammers and white supremacists, as long as you make some vague promises of libertarianism that you can't possible enact without congressional support, then Slashdotters will adore you.
I told you all Ron Paul was a saint. Ron Paul would never stoop to spamming. He is right on par with a god, in fact he may be a god (the tests are still being run). Any of you jerks who thought that this stuff was official hate the constitution and what to see the the declaration of independence used as toilet paper. I hate anyone who thinks any ill of Ron "OUR MESSIAH" PAUL!! GET IT!
I got a catholic block.
but even if you trace it to a spammer does it really prove the campaign had anything to do with it? Do you think viagra is behind the v1 4ga spam you see in your inbox? Heaven forbid someone in American politics play dirty and hire a company to "promote" another candidate... just saying..
Fascinating stuff. I'm on the edge of my seat! Politics at work, and all that. I've canceled all my entertainment appointments for the week just to follow this important issue.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Ahhhh!! Sweet Vindication!
I got a catholic block.
Cause basing your currency on the pricing of a commodity is somehow more secure than the faith and trust of the government.
Cause never, ever, ever, in history has commodity pricing shifted very suddenly.
Great understanding of economics there, pal.
There are still tons of kiddies unable to vote and barely able to read and write flooding the web2.0 sites with ron paul crap.
On another note, I am Canadian. To me, it does not make sense that an election should last 4 years and require the kind of funding only mega-corporations can provide. I am not only sick of Ron Paul, but of the whole 2008 election. I was sick of it back in 2006.
Canada has a minority government. It could go into an election at any time really. Most people are concerned about the bills and policies of the government currently in power. It makes no sense to spend more time agonizing over some potential policies of guys who will never be elected while ignoring the government and representatives currently making the decisions.
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
They've tracked down the spammer and the software and configuration used. It's all about email and nothing about Web polls, let alone text message polls. So can the lies about "spamming the polls" please stop now? Thanks FOX.
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Paul gives more than vague promises. He has a long, principled voting record.
Will he be an imperial president? No.
Will he be able to change the USA into some libertopia. No.
He can exercise veto power.
He can issue pardens.
He can bring the troops home.
That will be more than enough for me.
I know many people think that Ron Paul doesn't have many real supporters and that it is mostly internet bots, but when Barack Obama visited Arizona State University to give a speech there were literally almost as many people with Ron Paul signs and t-shirts than Barack Obama even though Ron Paul wasn't even visiting that day. Make no mistake these supporters definitely are real. Unless of course all those people on campus are actually bots...
Creative Demolition
I mean, if I were operating a botnet and sending out spam, and I wanted to protect my business interests I'd vote Ron Paul.
Not that Ron Paul is 'pro botnets' or anything absurd like that, but his policies and philosophy would be more hospitible to their business model than nanny-states and government-monitoring of all communications.
If I had a botnet, why wouldn't I use it to promote my candidate of choice during its free time?
What was the content of the spam? Was it spamming Diggs for Ron Paul articles, comment spam, or did everyone get emails promising if you vote Ron Paul your dick gets bigger?
I've said it before, but to me, as a former Republican, Ron Paul represents the party which most people believe they are voting for when they vote Republican. Trouble is that if he actually won, he would try to implement their public platform rather than continue Bush's private one. Also and more importantly, I believe that the leaders of that party need to have a candidate who will allow the many crimes of the last 7 years to go unpunished, so they need a person they already own. (that's also why McCain and Huckabee don't have many 'big' endorsements or money, btw).
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
Check this out: the San Francisco Republicans cancelled their straw poll because there were too many people ready to vote for Ron Paul: http://www.kcrg.com/explorepolitics/?feed=bim&id=12183556 Of note is the fact that Mitt Romney had some supporters waiting in line to vote multiple times.
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Amen.
I like their focus on the Gold Standard.
Hilarious.
There is not enough gold on the whole planet to cover the money now in circulation, much less the Nine Trillion dollar debt!
Dog is my co-pilot.
Legally, unsolicited political messages are not considered spam. Unless they try to sell a product.
IN the US as I understand the pertinent federal laws.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Ron Paul has raised tens of millions from over 30,000 individual donors averaging just over $100 per donation.
I'm with you on our 2-party duopoly sucking hard, but lots of us who are not web 2.0 crap flooders or spammers think Ron is a great hope for change (although a long-long shot) in American politics.
You HAVE read his voting record, right?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
good man fall, or just showing his true colors?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Not much more to say...
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Erm, not at $1 and ounce, no. But at some multiple. If it has to be $2,800 per ounce then people will not both exchanging dollars for gold with the government, because they can get gold cheaper elsewhere. But the effect of tying the dollar to *something* will be just as strong. At least if we stick with it, it won't be $3,100 next year and $3,300 the year after that. Just because a return to the gold standard can't undo the last 90+ years of inflation is no reason not to do it.
-1 stupid post
Mod parent up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNH5Xy8_0NM
believing the big bang requires a certain amount of supernatural faith
That's interesting because Nenastnyj means something like "cloudy weather man" in Russian.
agreed the man is a little on the wacky side.
We need a real independent candidate.
Clearly, this incident with the spammer supporting Ron Paul will be spun, by his competitors, into a gotcha.
Please do your yourself -- and your nation -- a favor. Avoid the above method of selecting political candidates. Ignore gotcha's, glamor, and glitz. Do not vote along party lines.
Instead, research the voting history, the policy proposals, and the honesty of the candidates in the 2008 race for president. You can easily find this information at the quality news sites like "The Washington Post". Hopefully, Rupert Murdoch will open the web site of the "Wall Street Journal" (WSJ) to the public before the election in 2008. The WSJ has some of the best in-depth reporting in the industry, but the WSJ web site is currently open only to subscribers.
So what about all of the donations coming into Ron Pauls website? Spam as well? If so, I want some of that spam in my inbox!!
you wouldn't know what racism is, if it bit you on the foot.
most people under 25 don't know what racism is....they know what they've been told racism is...
they mistake the common behavior of all homo sapiens to "prejudge".
I prejudge all the time, so do you.
I might even say something to you about my prejudgements...and it might hurt your feelings, or offend you.
You'll label it racism. And like millions upon millions of generation Y'ers and forward, you'll be wrong.
Hello folks and welcome to today's second round of The Slashdot Moderation game where we take the long way of saying Mod Parent Down.
We've seen a lot of trolls, flamebaiters and thread hijackers today, but we work hard to only bring you the top-tier. Tonight's guest is explosivejared,
Explosive Jared writes:
I told you all Ron Paul was a saint. Ron Paul would never stoop to spamming. A great start, will this turn into an Ironic statement, a joke, an insightful look into Ron Paul... mystery is afoot and my attention is gathered! He is right on par with a god, in fact he may be a god (the tests are still being run). oh, we may have a problem. Bringing religion into a Slashdot debate is a hot topic. Maybe if you give us a link to these "god tests" you won't scare your audience away! Any of you jerks who thought that this stuff was official hate the constitution and what to see the the declaration of independence used as toilet paper. Well, I don't quite understand you but it sounds like you just brought politics and religion together. Warning sir, you are headed for a mega-disaster. You may not be able to bail out of this one. For karma's sake say something witty, something intelligent, SOMETHING! I hate anyone who thinks any ill of Ron "OUR MESSIAH" PAUL!! GET IT! Wow... I was panicked too, but man, I think you cracked wide open on that one. I tried to help, but unfortunately your Karma was just swallowed by a nuclear reaction between religion and politics. While Slashdot is currently banning your fuzzy-ass to the underside of a bridge, I will invite you and everyone else to join us for another installment of...
The Slashdot Moderation Game!
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
It's sad to see the state of affairs that make people hate/fear Ron Paul so much. Is he a perfect candidate? No, of course not! Is he more perfect than the others? This internet bot thinks so.
...his policies and philosophy would be more hospitible to their business model... Ummm...not meaning to be impolite, but are you on crack? The whole problem with spam is that it intrudes on someone else's private property. Ron Paul is a very strong defender of private property. He would be their worst nightmare.Just hook the botnet up to Diebold machines and you can do away with pesky human voters.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Justify it however you want - it won't change that fact that you are a racist prick.
I guess that the only thing left for Russians is to try and influence elections in the US, since they had absolutely no chance to do that at home.
I can assure you, the best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
Correct. Racism != prejudice. Racism is a belief that your race is superior to that of others. Usually this also means that you think your race should get preferential treatment over others, but that's not necessarily so. Prejudice is just that -- prejudging someone based on external factors that can -- but do not necessarily include -- race.
Supporting the abolition of affirmative action -- i.e., hiring, promoting or admitting into school, etc., on the basis of racial quotas -- as Ron Paul does is also not racism. If anything, the entire concept of affirmative action could arguably be viewed as racism since there is some underlying notion that minorities would otherwise be unable to gain schooling or employment were it not for racial quotas. I think that underestimates the abilities of minorities to the extreme.
My blog
Someone has actually studied economics before he posts!
> And at one point there was. And now there isn't (if you used the original prices), why is that? Who benefits?
To a large extent, the US and Americans do, because to many countries, Dollars ARE de-facto gold. Their currencies might OFFICIALLY be backed by neither gold nor Dollars, but when they need to buy currency for another country, nine times out of ten they buy Dollars, then sell the Dollars to buy whatever currency they actually need. Or they just trade directly in Dollars. It's one of the benefits of having a de-facto empire. Pax Americana, and all that stuff.
His making word nosies with his sound hole confirms it.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
He can also create a much broader awareness of important issues that are normally overlooked. For example, the US has a very fragile economy because of national debt and a currency that is no longer backed by a gold standard. This often gets overlooked, but a guy like Ron Paul could make the nation aware of it.
Seek and ye shall find.
He's against homosexual rights and reproductive rights, and he's more religious than his opponents. That right there is enough to make me never give him another thought.
Racial quotas has already been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I don't know why are harping on that.
Why can't the Ron Paul supporters ... all 3,000 of them apparently ... just accept that the GOP isn't broken and doesn't need saving? The GOP is doing exactly what it was built to do.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
He is not advocating an immediate return to the gold standard, rather making gold and silver competing currencies to Federal Reserve notes.
Great. Another ignorant, fear-mongering post.
Ron Paul is Pro Liberty and Individual rights! How on earth can you get "against homosexual rights" from that?! He wants to get the federal government out of the marriage business entirely!
In regards to religion, please show me one article written by Dr. Paul http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_tst.htm
where he puts religion above the law and the Constitution.
I'm curious about what you mean by "principled" voting record. Is talking about leaving things up for the "states to decide" while trying to ban abortion on the federal level principled? Is talking about the need to remove power from corporations while at the same time sponsoring bills to repeal worker safety laws, the minimum wage, and federal antitrust law, plus dozens of other laws, even including child labor and overtime laws, principled? What about his earmarks for the local shrimp industry while decrying those evil politicians wasting out money? What about proclaiming himself as a purveyor of libertarianism while trying to outlaw flag-burning?
I'd be all for the kind of candidate people think Ron Paul is, but this guy ain't him. Aside from that, you also have to take into account his lunatic economic theories, his stance regarding the Internet, and complete withdrawal from all international organizations. I mean, Jesus. I see all these people talking about how great he is, and then very fre of them seem to actually be aware of, you know, his actual record.
Please back up this statement of "wacky."
I find him to be the only candidate who focuses on important issues for the prosperity of America.
The problem with Ron Paul is that sometimes his opinions are just off.
/dev/null.
He wants to go back to the gold standard, and essentially dismantle the federal reserve. Wow. Way to ignore everything we've learned about economics in the last 100 years. A few reasons: the price of gold fluctuates. Mild inflation is healthy for an economy (encourages investment, and is manageable unless you keep your cash in a mattress). Consider how volatile the US economy was before the federal reserve compared to after.
He wants to leave the WTO and the UN, leaving trade to be free, not managed-trade. It's pretty clear that managed trade is better than free trade, that's why we have the SEC in the US to regulate the stock market. A truly free market is just too easy to abuse. On the other hand, it does tend to favor the biggest player, so it's easy to see why a person so obsessed with sovereignty would want to escape from agreements that make things more fair for the little guy.
He wants to eliminate federal involvement in healthcare. You have to take care of people who are sick. You could argue that the states should take care of it, but that will cause massive inequities between regions.
His answer to everything on foreign policy is 'leave us out of it.' Isolationism just isn't possible anymore in this shrinking world.
He wants to make social security an 'opt out' program. The problem here, is that some of us are going to run into some bad luck, end up old and poor, and someone is going to have to pay for them (we aren't going to let them die in the streets). The way it currently works, everyone pays in, and everyone gets back out. If we get rid of social security, we're going to pay for those old people with an increase in taxes. (And yeah, I'm pretty sure that I can get a better ROI for my money than social security, but it's nice having something to fall back on if I get unlucky in the next S&L debacle). And if you are planning on answering saying "Social security is going bankrupt" you better have a good argument to keep your comment from being directed to
Qxe4
The Ron Paul campaign has previously denied any connection with this spam campaign.
Has the Ron Paul campaign denied any connection to the Republican Party ?
Yeah, that's kind of a big thing in some circles. You see, the Republican party had complete control of my national government, and fucked up everything from our ability to respond to domestic crisis, to our ability to resolve international issues at the bargaining table. My country's constitution has been broken. International treaties have been broken. Some of my freedoms have been taken, while others have been reduced. I like the way that free speech can now be limited to designated freedom zones when it suits the ruling class.
In the post 9-11 world, voting for the republican party empowers the terrorist organization that most threatens the citizens of the United States of America.
> but even if you trace it to a spammer does it really prove the campaign had anything to do with
;) But that is probably just me.
> it? Do you think viagra is behind the v1 4ga spam you see in your inbox? Heaven forbid someone
> in American politics play dirty and hire a company to "promote" another candidate... just saying..
This is probably the golden post to hits the nail right on. You do have to consider all possible questions.
Has it occurred to anyone that this could also be used to make a politician look bad instead of good by promoting them? Who doesn't frown on SPAM and botnet-based attacks?
It could be someone who is obsessed with Ron Paul and stupidly decided to produce promotions 'unofficially' out of his own will.
> If I had a botnet, why wouldn't I use it to promote my candidate of choice during its free time?
And if you had a botnet, why wouldn't you also use it to produce exactly the opposite effect?
Most people hate SPAM -- infact who doesn't? If an individual gets bombed with Ron Paul promotions, he will either get sick and tired and or think it's an evil work of politicians (first blame would go to Ron Paul, since the SPAM is promoting him). Is it not natural for us, or atleast many of us to blame the first person that we think is responsible (that is when we are deceived at the first few impressions)?
Now in regards to some of the various replies to this article about the Gold and Silver standard, perhaps you should consider the validity of the history and information presented on the main pages of fdrs.org. At first you will think that it is just some semi-random debt relief business, and it kind of is...but that is not the point. Fdrs.org actually has some pretty interesting information that one could research on themselves / consider and think about.
As a personal opinion, I think this botnet was made to make Ron Paul look bad.
So as long as he didn't write any articles there on the subject, we can ignore all the pro-life, anti-homosexual bills he's sponsored? This year alone:
H.R.2597 : To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
H.R.1095 : To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.
H.R.1094 : To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
H.R.300 To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.
We the People Act - Prohibits the Supreme Court and each federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) state or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.
He has a long history of sponsoring such bills -- and let's not even talk about what he's voted for -- as this, some much worse. Ron Paul is vehemently against homosexual rights, and he's especially eager to allow states to ban it and forbid the courts from judging that as discrimination. He has, however, supported laws to discriminate against homosexuality federally. Look it up. This is great resource.
Surprisingly enough, good economies require good economic policy. Unfortunately, that's not as simple as a gold standard. Historically, inflation occurs regardless of whether there is a precious metal or other substance backing the currency. Incidentally, you are aware that there isn't enough gold for the government to buy enough for 100% backing of the currency, right? Also, if you set the exchange value for gold at higher than the current market price, all you've done is ignored the problem and made an empty promise until such time as inflation makes the price of gold rise past your set value -- at which point the problem isn't any easier.
Really? Last I checked, plenty of economies have had trouble both with and without backed currencies. As far as I can tell, the recipe for a strong economy is sound political and economic policy. There is no magic, and no easy answers.
(I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but it's in spite of, not because of, his ridiculous gold standard ideas.)
Ron Paul said that "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions," and went on to say "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
Look it up. Sound racist to me.
He can bring the troops home.
Heck, Congress could theoretically do that in a week if they really REALLY wanted to. It would be like using a sledgehammer on the executive branch and military, but it could be done.
Just set the military budget to $0 and legislate no troops permitted in Iraq.
(I did say sledgehammer, the results wouldn't be pretty)
"Ron Paul is vehemently against homosexual rights, and he's especially eager to allow states to ban it"
I've looked everywhere and can not find where your statement is correct.
Since when did Keynesianism stop being a collection of lunatic economic theories, and neoclassical economics start?
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the eventual deciding vote, saying that affirmative action is still needed in America -- but hoped that its days are numbered. "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."
... glad that's been cleared up.
So, if a racial preference is called "affirmative action", then it's ok - but if it's called a "quota", it's not
I am a World of Warcraft subscriber, and saw this junk spam posted on our forums today. http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=3270769489&sid=1
History has already show that idea to be retarded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimetallism
Unless he's proposing that the backing quantities for fiat, gold, and silver dollars be on floating rather than fixed ratios, but that would effectively make all of them fiat dollars.
It would be a difficult transition, but if correctly handled (which I have no confidence it would be, by interests vested in seeing it fail), it would be well worth it. Fiat money http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_currency is a completely nuts system.
see: "What Has Government Done to Our Money?" http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=92
you know, i cringed when i read "ron paul" in the subject title, because i knew people would start giving their very exaggerated, very uninformed, superficial analysis of his beliefs. i don't see why it should matter to anyone that he doesn't have as many supporters as other candidates. that's a mob mentality, and seeing that, especially from slashdotters, is pretty disheartening. it should also be irrelevant who his supporters are, or how annoying you personally find them. what about his policies??? it's very easy to say things like "markets need regulation" or to call him whacky, unrealistic, or that he won't implement be able to get things passed. can anyone provide a more in-depth analysis of his beliefs? if you don't agree with him, i don't give a shit, but at least provide some reasons for it. right now the level of discourse is about as high as what i would get on the o'reilly factor.
FYI: I don't know what you guys are talking about half the time.
Well, here's a fine column on that website you linked that should give you a hint. He also voted to ban adoptions by gay couples, and more. Look harder. Look closer at the laws he's sponsored in that post as well.
McCain is a lamer. Sure, I appreciate and sympathize with his being a POW and being tortured, but that doesn't make his welfare/warfare state views correct. Thankfully his campaign has faltered and he has no chance. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/duffy-p3.html
-3 comments only go to -1
First of all, the marriage issue is not about individual rights. Ron Paul in no way supports discrimination against gay individuals.
Secondly, this is definitely a difficult issue. I personally don't care if gay people get married. It's none of my business. I personally don't see why we have *any* laws recognizing or prohibiting marriage.
We are a republic, and I'm not sure if it's right to force some state (say Utah) to recognize a gay marriage performed in California or Massachusetts.
I'll leave the adoption issue for others to deal with. I've not read much about it.
My support for Ron Paul stems mostly from his views on international relations, taxation, limiting federal government and supporting individual rights.
> Anti-women supporters? What are you talking about?
:]
They're supporters that look exactly like normal women, but explode in a burst of gamma radiation when they come into contact with a woman. Probably a lot like your typical Digg user
IANRP ( I Am Not Ron Paul), but I'm going to put words in his mouth based on my understanding of his positions.
2597 and 1094: It's what the man believes, and it's consistent with basic biology (A fetus is alive, and it is unarguably human. You can legitimately argue whether or not it should have full legal protections identical to an adult, and that's a discussion we should have, but creating a mythical transformation point from non human to human somewhere between conception and birth is a laughable failure to grasp high school biology). He could argue the Constitutionality based on the Congressional power to conduct the census (The power to count a thing by necessity includes the power to determine what does and doesn't count as that thing). Regardless of your beliefs on the issue, a straight up or down vote on a bill like this in Congress (or my preference, state legislatures) is almost infinitely preferable to the current situation where 9 old lawyers answerable to no one decide whatever the hell they feel like and impose it on all the rest of us. Paul's bill, crackpot as it seems, would force a settlement of the issue so we could get on with other things in this country instead of this same tired fight coming up every election and dividing us yet again.
1095: Put an end to a blatant violation of the 10th amendment. Government should follow the law. Christ, you'd think the last 7 years would have made that PAINFULLY obvious to everyone.
300: See above, just change Article 3 for Amendment 10. State courts were supposed to be primary (read the Federalist papers and see for yourselves, even the big government Federalists promised that order of court supremacy in order to get the Constitution ratified)
We the People Act: See Amendments 1 and 10, especially 10. Not a power given to the federal government, courts or no courts. IIRC, 3 of the ratifying states had established state religions when the Bill of Rights was adopted, so it clearly was not intended to prevent states from making up their own minds on the subject. I'm not saying this is the way things should be, but unless there is an amendment to fix it, it's the law of the land and government should obey it.
"Against homosexual rights" and "supported laws to discriminate against homosexuality federally": More like against allowing the Federal government to have any say on or knowledge of the matter of who people sleep with one way or the other. Although I admit I haven't dug as deeply into this aspect of his record, so if you can contradict me on that interpretation I'd be interested to see your evidence.
Paul is a long way from perfect, but even the positions I violently disagree with him on are rationally argued and internally consistent with respect to his understanding of the Constitution, which overrides all other considerations for him. After 8 years of the Constitution being "just a goddammned piece of paper", I think restoring that principle to government is the absolute priority. We can sort out differences in opinion later, once our freedom to have differences in opinions is safe again. (Military Commissions Act, Homegrown Violent Radicalization act etc.)
It's kind of sad, really. How can we win?
Adapt, adopt, or get out of the way!
The only thing backing a non backed currency is what the other guy thinks your worth. After a while the only way for someone to pay you is with war.
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
I agree with you on your points. From Ron Paul's ramblings, when he mentions Microsoft as an example of monopolies being okay, I have concluded that he either is completely blind to Microsoft's bullying practices or just ignoring them because they are outside of the scope of his argument. Both are mediocre thoughts.
While many may feel Ron Paul's proposed cuts on government are drastic, a little bit of backspace usage may be just what we need to get the country going in a more appropriate direction. One that has better thought out programs that don't waste as much time and trillions of $$$. The second time you tread something, with the increased knowledge you are supposed to do better a better job, right? Even though we are talking about government, I like to think it still holds true.
just accept that the GOP isn't broken and doesn't need saving? The GOP is doing exactly what it was built to do.
If that's true, then I will need to change my party affiliation. The only thing keeping an R next to my name is my assumption that recent (as in, since 2001) GOP wandering is a temporary, rather than permanent, bout of lunacy.
I did. It was obviously the editor of his newsletter at the time (when he was out of politics.) Heck, even the paper that broke that story didn't think it was his position. Look at his actual record before you start parroting someone else's talking points. And I say this as someone who started out being seriously annoyed by the "paultards." (Still am, half the time.) Just do some critical thinking.
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
FYI: http://www.mises.org/story/2781
The e-mail excerpts are below:
Ron Paul isn't hijacking the party because he is closer to the 1996 Republican Party platform (and previous years) than any other Republican candidate. It was Bush and friends who hijacked the Republican Party in 2000. Here are some excerpts from the 1996 platform that are either missing in the 2000 platform, watered down, contradicted by other portions of the platform, or just ignored by Bush and ultimately removed in the 2004 platform:
This is the Republican Party that I grew up with and knew and loved. I stopped calling myself a Republican in 1999 because, among other reasons, Bush refused to commit to a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees.
Ron Paul worked to nominate Reagan over Ford in 1976. Ron Paul is the torchbearer of what Reagan stood for (although Reagan did not live up to his words).
After the Democratic Party became the Communist Party at the turn of the century and went on to dominate the first half of the century, the Republican Party responded by becoming the anti-Federalist Party after WWII. Ron Paul is trying to steer the Republican Party back toward those days of 1952-1996. That's getting back on track, not hijacking.
The main difference between Ron Paul and Reagan is foreign policy -- the Reagan Administration, in its fight against communism, armed the most radical elements of Afghanistan and created the Taliban, which of course ended up harboring Osama bin Laden. Ron Paul wishes for the U.S. to not repeat that mistake.
Ron Paul is the
Microsoft says FireFox has security holes: "OMG It's FUD!!!1!"
Someone fakes a Ron Paul spam: "It must be for real."
This must be how they get away with paying geeks less.
MBA: "So... your salary will be half what you expected. But you can use Linux!"
Geek: "I'll sign!!!1!"
Anti-Globalism
There is, shall we say, a gap in your reasoning. There is no reason that fiat currencies can't continue to be valuable for the same reason they are valuable now -- ie, that the other guy will continue to believe that his dollars can be exchanged for your stuff. I'd much rather have a fiat currency with sound political and economic policies behind it than a gold-backed currency without.
Gold based currencies can inflate and have throughout history.
You want to tie the dollar to something real? Then tie a dollar to five minutes of labor.
Dog is my co-pilot.
He could have been pointing out the flaw in said opinion polls as well, but I guess that's the way I read it as opposed to it being a racist comment.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
More likely it was a product of Hillary Clinton's dirty tricks campaign machine or one of Giuliani's back alley thugs. Talk about insane, Hillary and Giuliani are completely nuts.
You have to take care of people who are sick.
No, you don't. That would be socialism. People who are sick are often capable of planning ahead, regardless of whether they choose to do so. Other people who are sick have family to rely on for support and finances. Others have their church. Others have other people's churches. Others have secular charity. Others have no one and remain sick or die, like the rest of us eventually will do. This isn't supposed to be a commune, it's supposed to be a place where you are secure in your person and property while doing your best to provide for yourself and your loved ones. There's no guarantee of success in that endeavor. See The Bill of No Rights if you remain confused.
http://www.friesian.com/ross/ca40/noright.htm
My wife says the mere notion creeps her out.
I'm going to add a citation here for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
...on the other hand, who governs Canada simply doesn't matter much to corporations or anybody outside Canada. If you think this is true, you should consider where a significant amount of your country's fresh water comes from, and who controls said land upstream. The economic and environmental decisions made in this country can affect your water supply.Ride recklessly only when safe to do so.
What exactly is the intrinsic value of gold? If nobody wants to buy it, how much do you think it will be worth?
What?
Or the words of his campaign staff ...
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action"
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal"
"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."
"Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society."
"The people of Texas do not need federal regulators determining our air standards."
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion."
When asked about presenting 'alternatives to evolution' in the classroom, Paul responded 'yes'.
To sum it up: Racist, anti-choice, Christian right, pro intelligent design in schools, against environmental regulation (at a federal level, granted)
Sounds like a good Republican to me.
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
The US dollar used to be good. Have you checked out what happened to international exchange rates lately? Our currency is a laughingstock, as our empire is fast becoming. Time to cut our losses, pull our troops back, and get ourselves into shape domestically. Ron Paul sees that it's better to get some humility, back down, and regain some respect, than to overshoot and fail completely, to be ignored and kicked around by the rest of the world forever after.
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
according to his voting record, he's in favor of HUGE government entitlements and massive pork for his district
Prove it!
Not to mention that the neonazi groups such as Stormfront love him, campaign for him, and Paul takes their money (unlike all other major candidates who refuse money from monsters)
Ron Paul is against racism. Wouldn't it be the biggest insult to them to take their money while campaigning against racism?
Paul wrote or paid someone to write in his name (repeatedly) racist drivel about blacks
Not true.
The LaRouche organization, who are well known antisemites and conpiracy crazies who believe the CIA programs people to kill them, are totally with and have become the Ron Paul organization
Its amazing how you pin things that Ron Paul has never supported or said on to Ron Paul himself.
He's a nut. I think his popularity proves just how ready America is for change and a good bit of libertarianism if they are willing to stomach a loser like Ron Paul to support such great policies.
Ron Paul has never supported those policies.
I like some of what Ron Paul has to say, but he is crazy. His voting record is that of a crook. The Houston Chronicle did a huge expose on his pork ways. He's among the worst republicans.
Your lack of proof shows how rather weak your argument really is.
Not because there is any evidence I'm wrong, but because slimeballs defend their own.
How wonderful you chide the opposition for not having evidence while providing none of your own!
Quoth Benjamin Franklin
What exactly does it matter that people who are pro-White support Ron Paul? Where is your outrage against racist blacks supporting any of the major Democrat candidates?
White people wanting political and ethnic autonomy are somehow evil.
Lord High Crapflooder The Right Honourable Vlad Craig Esther McDavenpherson III
Destroyer of Mercatur.Net
Dude, seriously, haven't you ever considered why any group of sane, intelligent people would do the things the GOP has done lately?
Look at Hurricane Katrina. Only a batshit crazy zealot would cripple FEMA with small government ideology. Yet, that's what the Bushies did.
Look at the current mortgage crisis, which requires something along the lines of a broad buy-out of loans by the government, accompanied with relentless and thorough prosecutions of the people who defrauded investors by repackaging all this bad debt as investment-grade vehicles.
And keep in mind all of this was made many times worse when the Fed finally gave in to the big babies on Wall Street and cut interest rates. That sent the dollar into a nose dive, and will make life a lot harder for all of us (consider than gas would be $1.20 a gallon cheaper if the dollar were as strong as it was under Clinton).
The Republican Party is systematically gutting the usefulness of the government.
The only useful reason for the GOP to even keep the government alive is giving military cover to corporate actions in foreign countries. It's a joke.
Have some dignity and at least register independent.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
1) Ron Paul believes those issues should be left to the states, not the federal government. Why turn it into a national issue?
2) Ron Paul is religious but I do not see how you get that he is more religious than the other candidates! He most certainly is not.
Lord High Crapflooder The Right Honourable Vlad Craig Esther McDavenpherson III
Destroyer of Mercatur.Net
haha well it has more intrinsic value then green cotton paper
If you think it's ok to let people die because they don't have enough money, then you are a rather selfish chap and not the kind of person I would want representing me in the government.
As for your confused idea of the purpose of government, I refer you to the constitution, specifically the preamble where it's stated that one of its purposes is to "promote the general welfare."
Something needs to be done about health care. The current system of poor people going to the emergency room, being treated for free, and then hospitals receiving subsidies from the government is clearly not the way things should be done.
Qxe4
yep but when you've got a metal backed standard you have actual levels that you have to watch and compare to how much money your printing, in this country we print money like its the cool thing to do
He wants to leave the WTO and the UN, leaving trade to be free, not managed-trade.
Boo hoo. International bodies do not need to be regulating our trade. We can form agreements with our trading partners instead of leaving it up to these silly bodies.
A truly free market is just too easy to abuse
What is it about the lack of WTO and UN membership that automatically turn this into a "free market"?
On the other hand, it does tend to favor the biggest player, so it's easy to see why a person so obsessed with sovereignty would want to escape from agreements that make things more fair for the little guy
What does not wanting other nations having power over your nation's affairs have to do with fairness in how you treat others?
Lord High Crapflooder The Right Honourable Vlad Craig Esther McDavenpherson III
Destroyer of Mercatur.Net
That would only be a valid argument if gold were only used for jewelry. Gold is reasonably rare and quite useful; it's a good conductor and corrosion resistant. It's also used (with declining frequency) in dentistry, due to its malleability and corrosion resistance. On the other hand, I can't see any real uses for strips of paper that have been plastered with green ink.
I just read Slashdot for the articles.
Precious metals retain value. Precious metals coins minted before the USA was a nation are still valuable. The bulk of the planet earth's people all still value precious metals.
I'll give a for instance in terms any regular guy in the US can probably relate to. In the 60s, a silver dollar at mickey d's could get you 5 hamburgers, a shake and fries, same as the paper dollar. The same silver dollar today is worth, at fair exchange rate, 15 bucks or so. How many mickey d's products can you get for 15 bucks, compared to a paper single dollar today?
Since the federal reserve congame started, the dollar has dropped in parity buying worth to TWO CENTS (comparing like to like, take some still used commodity like a loaf of bread for instance). Heck, even pure copper, only semi precious metal coinage, is now worth more than what the government says it is worth on the open market. A copper (alloy even) penny is worth more than a penny, precisely because it has intrinsic recognized tangible value at several levels. Gold and silver are similar, they have industrial uses, then this intrinsic basic humanly recognized value, that is long lasting. Thousands of years worth of history trump uncited and ill advised and erroneous observations.
Put it this way, if you could printing press your way to wealth and prosperity universally, there wouldn't be a mortgage crisis now, they could just print more "money" and pay it all off.
Obviously this just doesn't work, fiat currencies are an example of an economic fraud, a ponzi scheme variant. It's a pyrammidal shaped congame, poof-created backed by nothing at all money is "injected" at the highest levels, then "loaned" out down the pyramid, and these loans accrue "interest" by force of law, ie, at gun point basically. It's an armed extortion *racket*.
On a small scale, people are arrested all the time for perpetuating similar frauds, the old box full of junk wood that is sold as "speakers" out of the white vans in parking lots. Pumped up shilled over valued stocks. Time shares for pictures of hotels that the share seller doesn't even own. Buncoism. Nigerian 419 scams. It fits right in.
And in case some people haven't noticed it, the US fiat dollar is dropping like a rock in "worth" all over the planet because people overseas are seeing it is just a fancy way for the US to trade IOUs (with little to no expectation of any sort of realistic payback) for real goods, and they are getting tired of such a "deal". I mean, c'mon, even the dullest must have at least noticed a few economic headlines lately. They are getting especially annoyed with the fact that if you don't keep valuing the dollar, there is this subtle threat of military intervention. Saddam was tolerated UNTIL he switched payments for oil to the euro. Iran really started feeling the heat when they did it. Venezuela is threatening to go all euro (or tangbles swaps), and you can see how they are being treated in the US press. The dollars worth is being forced on the world from f-15 jets and carrier battle groups.
Tangible goods are wealth. Currencies are only valuable as long as they are fully backed by tangible goods or services of some sort. Fiat currencies backed by just more paper that is weasel worded to sound like anything but an IOU but is still just an IOU are utter rubbish. The only reason the dollar hasn't tanked faster is the major holders of these dollars want to do it slowly so they can squeeze as much tangibles transfers as possible out of their dubious holdings. A multitude of nations are stopping accumulating dollars and going into other avenues for investment, take china for instance, taking their fast worth-losing accumulated dollars and buying up mineral and energy rights all over the planet.
Tangibles backed currencies aren't perfect, but they are a lot closer to being perpetually longer lasting than any other monetary device ever invented.
There's a fairy tale designed to clue children into basic ec
Pray tell, what have we "learned" about economics over the last 100 years that invalidates the gold standard? I would argue, and I think Ron Paul would too, that it doesn't even have to be gold but currency has to be tied to SOMETHING tangible. The stock market crash of '29 and great depression happened with the gold standard, the crash in '87 and the recession in the late 70's happened without it. Today the dollar is at record lows against other currencies. Ron Paul's argument for tying the dollar to the gold standard is that the federal reserve can (and has) effectively printed more money to fund our foreign entanglements, something they could not do if the valuation of the dollar was not under their control. With the current situation in Iraq and the potential of Iran, can you say he's wrong to be concerned about that?
You're comparing apples to oranges. First off, no it's NOT clear that managed trade is better than free trade, but the SEC has nothing to do with the UN or WTO. The SEC regulates the purchase of American stock, the other organizations you mention involved non-securitized trade between nations. The UN and WTO have not been shown to benefit the world, so why be members is the end result is less freedom, sunk costs, and no benefits?
That's too simplistic, because he was for attacking Afghanistan post-9/11. No, Ron Paul is simply for only using the military when there is a real danger to America. Iraq was not a danger to America. Iran still isn't. If you want to help topple a foreign regime or help the oppressed, do us all a favor and go over there yourself and leave the rest of us out of it.
If you don't want them to die in the streets, support them out of your own pocket, don't do it by making illegal for me not to do it. That's the problem with socialism...the intent is always altruistic, but the answer is always "use government coercion to take money to that guy and give it to that other guy". Socialism is the economic version of GWB's foreign policy. That's some good company there, let me tell you.
Social Security IS going bankrupt and is a flawed s
It is obvious you disagree with the libertarian viewpoint, and that is fine. But don't paint him to be a liar when it is the completely consistent.
Why? The value is purely speculative. It is faith based on both counts.
What?
Ok it has value for specific human purposes. Gold for those things you mention, and paper for its convenience as a common medium of exchange for goods and services. In both cases the value is decided by people. Nature does not care about conductivity or corrosion resistance. It simply exists. So gold has no value in and of itself any more than paper.
What?
That is true, but if not for its use in jewelry and as a store of value, what would gold be worth? Half its current price? A tenth? Is it meaningfully different to back your currency with something whose inherent value is less than half the value of the currency than to simply not back it?
I'd like to say I completely agree with you; the constitution gives the federal government no power to regulate marriage, adoption, or even discrimination. The ninth and tenth amendments explicitly restrict the federal government from making laws that "deny or disparage the rights of the people" (ninth) and from using or regulating "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" (tenth); read the actual amendments to see what I mean. Certain clauses in the constitution have been taken so far out of the context that the founding fathers envisioned (for example, 'promote the general Welfare' has been construed to mean providing social services to the public, but was seen as the founding fathers as providing for the needs of the country as a whole) that many of todays laws are strictly unconstitutional by any merit, yet are considered by many to be core principles upon which our nation was founded. Your statements here are strictly in keeping with what the Constitution says and means, and that is why I, myself, feel that Ron Paul is the best of the current breed of candidates.
This is going to sound weird, but... Are you sure that's entirely a bad thing? Clearly, you can print too much money. But it also seems that our current economic troubles are more closely related to recent bad policies than to either the creation of money or the fact that we use a fiat currency. So, just as it is unclear to me that low levels of inflation are inherently bad, it is similarly unclear to me that printing modest amounts of money is a bad thing.
From the article: Congressman Paul attributed both the NASDAQ bubble and the more recent housing bubble to interest rate manipulation. Here is an example of what I mean, that he completely misunderstand the issues. The housing bubble was due to greed and bad loans, not interest rate manipulation. This has been documented all over the place: basically real estate agents (being pushed by builders and their supervisors) were convincing people to buy houses that were beyond their ability to pay. The people buying the houses sometimes didn't know what was going on, or sometimes they did, but were swept away in their greed to catch the rising house prices. A lot of people bought houses expecting to sell them later at a higher price: in some places 30% of the house sales were investment houses. When the prices stopped rising, they weren't able to keep up with the payments. That's the short story, look to google for deeper knowledge.
As for the Nasdq bubble, it's pretty clear that there was bad investing all over the place. I don't know if you remember, but basically anything with a
Qxe4
For example, I wouldn't sign a contract to sell you my house for its current dollar value in 50 years, but Inflation will probably mean that its dollar worth in 50 years will be several times its current worth all else being equal. But there is so much variability over that length of time that I probably wouldn't sign any contract at all because of excessive risk. Of course if a currency can't hold its value in the short term, then that means short term contracts can't be made with any certainty either and that can cause real economic problems.
But even the problem with long term contracts can be addressed with "either or" types of contracts which can specify the exchange of something other than dollars. There was a real world example of this type of thing in the news some number of years ago. I do not remember the specifics, but a company made a very long term lease arrangement for a large office building (perhaps on the order of 80 to 90 years.) The terms of the lease called for a payment at the end of the lease, to be paid in either dollars or gold at the discretion of the landlord. It turned out that the gold was worth a lot more than the dollars were worth and it had to be settled in court.
And fixing the value of the dollar to an arbitrary amount of some precious metal, doesn't mean that the value measured against other things will always be fixed. In other words, a Gold Standard doesn't fix inflation altogether. Because gold itself has a value based upon its desirability or usefulness. Gold has specific uses in electronics and other applications which become more or less important to people as technology and tastes change.
Say for instance you fixed the dollar to a certain amount of aluminum instead of gold, then someone goes and creates a cheaper method for mining the metal and suddenly there is a glut of aluminum on the market. That would equally cause inflation to rise precipitously. Gold is actually much more scarce in nature than aluminum, but there would be a similar effect on the demand side if gold jewelry was no longer in fashion and something better started being used for electronics.
I agree that using a medium of value that has no intrinsic value itself does have a certain risk, but the financial system should be flexible enough to mitigate that risk without having to return to what is essentially a glorified form of barter exchange which causes central banks to horde a useful metal.
>Wow. Way to ignore everything we've learned about economics in the last 100 years.
I'm sure you know about the us economy is crashing right as we talk? Even without a gold standard i am not that sure federal reserve can handle it.
But i give you credit in this, with federal reserve we can all have that cosy socialist feeling when we help those poor bastards that screwed up. You know, the sub prime bailout. Personally i go for gold.
You're absolutely correct. Interest rate manipulation is a red herring. What really caused both the stock and then the real estate melt down was the wholesale abandonment of regulations. Technically, they were still there, but most ignored them because the money was rolling in. 100% financed mortgages? Teaser rate mortgages? Interest only mortgages? Advanced financial instruments that less then 1% of the country should consider, but were advertised as the saving grace of the common man who normally couldn't afford a mortgage. Combined with lenders such as Countrywide and Citibank rushing to hand out money, you get the current collapse.
on the matter is this: While I may not agree with all of Dr. Paul's ideals, I sure as heck agree with a damn sight more of his than I do with anyone else's and that alone is worth my vote next November.
Am I being too cynical in the belief that possibly, maybe, this was a way to try to hijack or discredit his campaign? We all know how internet savvy the campaign has been so far. Is this an attempt to try to alienate Dr. Paul's core or those who don't know of him and maybe fear things like the internet? I hope that if that turns out to be the case then all of this investigating will have caused the attempt to backfire.
There is simply too much glass..
Should we tie the dollar to something such as oil?
You might as well say homes and clothing are worthless on the same grounds. After all, what does nature care about any of that?
I just read Slashdot for the articles.
Just look at either of the Bush campaigns.
In particular, look at "independent" groups like Swiftboat Veterans Against Kerry.
I also think that it seems extremely unlikely that any Ron Paul supporter is stupid enough to do this. Therefore, I can only assume it was done to smear him, whether or not there was any real connection to another candidate.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Even if he hasn't got a chance, do you care enough about any of the other candidates to bother?
At least you can get behind Ron Paul. (I think. I still have to write all these candidates and ask them about things like Net Neutrality, DMCA, etc.)
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I have to agree with you on the sub-prime bailout, but the national debt is not an issue of the federal reserve. That is the department of the treasury.
Qxe4
I'd like for people to step back a little from this thread and look at the parent and the grandparent posts put together.
/. hive-mind regarding Ron Paul.
The parent has taken my post out of context, removed the support for my statement, accused me of being a liar, and then he gets moderated "informative". His "informative" part may be that he does admit that Ron Paul has flip-flopped on the death penalty, but it doesn't seem right that he gets moderated informative thrice, and by that time, my post didn't get moderated informative. I actually linked to and pointed out the characteristics of Ron Paul's actual voting record that didn't mesh with the
If jcr had left my context in, you would note clearly that his post is unjustly maligning my comment. He calls me a liar and NEVER addressed the fact that I pointed out that Ron Paul had voted FOR federal intervention in abortion policy. That CANNOT be denied by any sane person. A ban IS intervention. That was my point that he called me a liar about. Paul SAYS he will leave it up to the states, but he VOTED to not leave it up to the states, repeatedly and in all instances on this particular issue. jcr's comment then is merely a baseless assertion, removed from the damning context, constructed to make it look like the parent post is merely a quick jab. On the contrary, it was a well-considered jab, not to jcr, but to Paul, and one that was backed up, though if you just read his post, you'd think he had a point against me.
I know it's a small portion of the moderators that quickly mod up without understanding context (heck, it was only three of them, though it may be more by now), but in this case, I think the metamoderators will have to take note and mark jcr's comment as clearly an overrated, dishonest attack on my honesty: hypocrisy at its finest.
jcr, next time you try an ad hominem remark, take a step back and consider how it looks. This one doesn't look well-placed. Instead it looks not just false, but reactionary.
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."
The application of this to same-sex marriage between states is pretty controversial at the moment.
If you think this is true, you should consider where a significant amount of your country's fresh water comes from, and who controls said land upstream. The economic and environmental decisions made in this country can affect your water supply.
Meaning what? Canada is going to build a big dam along the border if Canadians don't get their way? That would not only be rather unwise, it would also be in violation of international law. Somehow, I don't see anybody in the US losing sleep over that.
Americans are increasingly stuck at home instead of being able to take their savings and travel aimlessly for years like young people in Europe. Who cares if the economy is getting better if you can't go anywhere?
Food and shelter did come mind. But even those only have value to certain species that need them to survive. So I do place higher value on those things than gold. A tree doesn't need shelter. And it only can grow where nutrients and and other conditions are right. But we're talking about a means of exchange. You have something that someone else wants and you make a mutually beneficial exchange. The value is decided by the parties involved. I have no gold, so to me it has no value. If I was a trader or speculator, the story would be different. But for now, it's neither convenient or necessary for my survival. It only becomes valuable if somebody wants to pay more than I did for it. That makes it a matter of speculation. I only care about how many kilos of tortillas or beans or avocados my paper can buy me. Unfortunately those things are decided by the commodity trading wolves on Wall Street and not the farmer that produces them. They are the ones who bring gold into the picture. If I have a ton of gold that I can't sell, then what good is it? I'll take the food.
What?
Paul and gay/black/jewish/other minorities:
My understanding is that Ron Paul is against ANY laws that divide people into certain sub-classes and then grant those specific groups additional rights based on their minority class. He believes that all people are individuals with equal rights and that there should be no laws that give extra protection or financial benefit to specific groups.
Think about the following hypothetical statements:
Crimes against white people by non-whites should be punished more severely in order to reduce crime against them.
White people should be given preference in hiring and admissions over other people of greater qualification in order to raise their socioeconomic status.
We should assist in the defense of and ally ourselves with white nations who are threatened by non-white nations.
White people should be allowed to form organizations that exclude non-white people from joining.
Tax dollars should be used to help fund organizations specific to white people.
Of course, to vote for the above ideals would be considered the height of racism in America. But if you change 'white' to some minority, you run the risk of being labelled as a racist for being against them.
There are a lot of well-intentioned laws passed every year that aim to prevent minority abuse. But in protecting one class of people at the expense of another, you just expand the problem. Ron Paul consistently votes against laws that grant additional rights to a particular class of people at the expense of the rights of the rest.
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - Justice Clarence Thomas
You are correct about the good economic policy, and that having a gold standard doesn't get you there alone by any means. But it's not true that the promise would be empty if the exchange rate was set above market price. It's still exactly what it is - a promise to redeem $2,800 for one ounce of gold. Just because that isn't a good deal doesn't mean it's a worthless promise. It's not a good deal today, and probably won't be tomorrow. But what concrete fact is going to stop the Euro from eventually being worth only 1/1,000,000th of an ounce of gold 50 years from now? None. If the dollar were tied to gold today, even at 3.5 times market value, there would certainly be something stopping the Dollar from being worth only 1/1,000,000th of an ounce of gold 50 years from now; specifically, the gold in our vaults and the proportionate amount of Dollars in circulation. It would never have have exceeded 2,800:1. And that means that it does change the value of the Dollar today, because the future of the Dollar instantly requires less faith.
As for the discussion elsewhere on the boards about "why gold", and "you can't eat gold", etc., that is all very true. But oddly gold has proved a more stable basis for financial transactions than anything of intrinsic value over the long haul. Partly because it is far more durable and its scarcity has been more readily assured in practice. Partly because it is compact and portable. But the reasons aren't greatly relevant. You have to tie currency to something (or have a LOT of faith) and historically gold is a great thing to pick. I would be just as happy tying currency to something else, if its prospects for long-term value and stability were as good as gold. Ahah hah.
Ultimately a gold standard has a lot of problems, and I'm not blind to them. But it has one less problem than NOT being on a gold standard: inflation can't be effected just by owning a press and wanting it to happen, and if either inflation or deflation occur, they benefit and/or harm all currency-holders equally.
his post is unjustly maligning my comment
I'm taking you to task for calling an honest man a liar. If you can't handle that, try to work it out in therapy.
next time you try an ad hominem remark, take a step back and consider how it looks.
that's advice that you would do well to follow.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
-4, tagged nutroots.
It is understandable for the US to not want managed international trade, however, since we are the biggest, we are able to push our trading partners around to get deals we want. It's not a good precedent because we will not always be the biggest, and when we aren't the WTO will be nice to have. If you don't want them to die in the streets, support them out of your own pocket, don't do it by making illegal for me not to do it. If you want people to die in the streets, then I want you committed. Part of the purpose of government is to 'promote the general welfare' according to the constitution. How can one follow the 'pursuit of happiness' when they are dying of a disease? If we can help them out, we should. The payback is that if you're ever in that situation, you'll get the same treatment.
Qxe4
Try responding to the meat of my line of argument. I'll look forward to this "taking to task" you speak of.
Or perhaps the Paulian Mechanical Turks aren't quite programmed with a proper response to it yet and I've been played by an automaton. *shrug*
Your link goes to a bill that tries to clarify when a sperm and egg shall constitute a human being. At the moment, it's a zygote or a baby depending on the whim of the mother or prosecuting attorney. There's no consistency. It's NOT a ban on abortion, though it could lead to Roe v Wade being overturned, putting abortion law back to the way it was before then.
/. poster dislike about that?
As a congressman, he often brings bills to the floor to force a vote and close a debate that is eating up time. Dr. No votes against many of his own bills.
As a congressman, part of his job is to secure money from the $27billion earmark fund for his own district. It's a dedicated part of the budget, every congressman is obligated to get their share. He still votes against the bills that contain the earmarks. He even voted against the bill that contained his own earmark for shrimp marketing.
Internet... He wants it untaxed and unregulated. What does a
Withdrawing from international organizations... We have many of our laws dictated to us by multinational organizations. It's an attack on our sovreignty. Ron Paul is a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Economics... He got into politics because of his interest in economic theory. He's been on the House Banking Committee, the Joint Economic Committee, and the Committee on Financial Services. He delights in dragging the federal reserve chairman to the House to berate him for the secretive manipulation of the US$. And the Wall Street traders cheer him on.
If an individual were able to take out trillions of dollars in loans and claim that's what he's worth and then hand that debt down to his children to pay, would you have much respect for that individual?
Every Federal Reserve Note is a Dollar that the US Government borrowed from the Federal Reserve Bank against your ability to pay taxes. Think of what it means for someone other than yourself to create debt that YOU have to pay? That makes you a slave in a way doesn't it? And that "deficit" thing? They talk about it all day long on the news... what does it mean exactly?
Ultimately what getting off the Gold Standard has done is replaced a check book with an unlimited credit card. We know what happens when individuals do it. Why would we expect less disasterous problems when a Government does it!? (Yes, it's possible to NOT go crazy into debt using credit cards... but they aren't doing it.)
The Federal Reserve Bank is *NOT* a branch of the U.S. Federal Government... they may OWN the U.S. Federal Government (and through that government, they own you) but they are NOT the U.S. Federal Government.
The Gold Standard is a checkbook. Being on the Federal Reserve is a credit card. Think about it.
Paulian Mechanical Turks
Oh, that's so clever! They must be so proud of you at your junior pinko meetings.
You started this by telling a baldfaced lie, trying and failing to impugn Ron Paul's integrity. He is an honest man, and you are not. Sucks to be you, I'm sure.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
How is affirmative action NOT racism? The whole idea is to give opportunities or funding only to people with specific colour skins.
No examination of background occurs... If they really wanted to 'help previously disadvantaged people' then a white kid with two generations of family who worked the mines should be _just_ as eligible as a black kid from the same background.
Again, affirmative action exists to benefit people of specif races only and explicitly excludes other equally disadvantaged people purely on the basis of their race. It's plain and simple racism, just with a fancier name.
The issue is that when run by the FTC, as the vote authorized, the government is judging speech by its content. The FTC - the Federal Trade Commission - would be judging whether or not the speech is commercial, ie: trade oriented. And judging speech by its content is a first amendment violation.
The FCC, by contrast, would only be judging what type of communication it is. The FCC has a long history of banning certain types of communication: broadcasting on certain frequencies, or using too much power, etc. These don't violate the first amendment.
A formal legal opinion was expressed by Judge Edward Nottingham ( after the vote ): "There is no doubt that unwanted calls seeking charitable contributions are as invasive to the privacy of someone sitting down to dinner at home as unwanted calls from commercial telemarketers...The FTC has imposed a content-based limitation on what the consumer may ban from his home, thereby entangling the government in deciding what speech the consumer should hear." In summary, Ron Paul made his decision based on first amendment issues. It is not clear that the issues of privacy or property rights even made it onto his screen.
BTW, all of the above is from memory. I can't find anything on the net explaining why he voted against it.
PS: sorry about the 'crack' comment.
The world of politics is full of foul play. Sometimes it's on the part of the obvious culprit, sometimes its framing. I don't care in this case.
When I looked up Ron Paul's actual stances and policies I thought, for the first time in a long time, "he actually wants to change something". Say what you will about whatever candidates, but Ron Paul seems to be the only fairly-popular candidate I know of that actually plans on making changes, and we need changes badly. Even bad changes at this point would be better than no change.
Gold standard: US currency is now backed in NOTHING but the credit of the US government. Prior to 1913, the dollar was backed in gold and silver. Adjusted for inflation, the prices of gold and silver (and most other commodities) have hardly changed. Personally, I think that the dollar should be backed in gold, silver, steel, copper, oil, cotton and a bunch of other commodities. But the current system where the reserve prints up money out of thin air is ridiculous. Why? Because if the US government defaults on it's $9Trillion debt, then the $US will collapse completely.
SEC: The SEC is to prevent fraud. Without the SEC, employees would not be accountable to the investors who own their company.
WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA: Managed trade favors big companies who can work out the deals and regulations required. Small companies can't get through the beauracracy. It's full of corrupt beauracrats who have the power to decide if you get to sell internationally or not.
Healthcare: Medicare/aid has destroyed affordable healthcare. The government forces hospitals to accept state patients and then only pays them about 30% of the retail price. To compensate, the hospital has to raise the retail price by over 200%. If you're insured, your plan gets to pay a discounted rate. If you're paying cash, you get to pay 2x-3x what the hospital charges the other guy's insurance company. Thank the government.
Foreign Policy: He's not an isolationist, he's a non-interventionist. North Korea is isolationism. Sweden is non-interventionism.
Social Security:
In the 1930s, Social Security was started solely to keep the unemployable elderly from ending up homeless and starving to death. The tax rate was 1%, and the retirement age was identical to the life expectancy of 65 years old. The program collected contributions for five years to build up a buffer before paying out a cent.
Now, SS is considered a retirement plan for the able-bodied. The tax rate is 13% (your employer matches the 6.5% FICA you see on your paycheck). The retiremend age is 67, or you can retire early at 62(!!!). The life expectancy is 78 (SEVENTY- EIGHT!!) years old. The program is projected to be bankrupt in 40 years, so if you're under 38 years old, it will run out before you die; if you're under 27, you'll never see a penny.
My belief is that for SS to survive, the tax needs to be cut back down to 1-3%, and the retirement age set to float at 2 years under the average life expectancy. Encourage people to save cash on their own if they really want to retire to Florida. Only children (and maybe the truly disabled) should be entitled to live off someone else's labor for 16 years (age 62-78).
whatever happened to innocent before proven guilty? oh wait never mind
Who said that I would? I may be the one donating to charities to help them. I just don't want anyone enslaving me to pay for their health care. And taxation is on par with forced labor.
WRONG!
The fed artificially lowered interest rates by way too much. This allowed people to either drastically lower their monthly payments or be able to buy a much more expensive home for the same monthly payment. This became a national trend.
In areas with a limited housing supply, home prices rose drastically so that the higher price with the lower interest rate yielded the same monthly payment. Some people cashed out massive profits, but at the expense of the buyer who would see their home value plummet to it's previous value in five years.
In areas with plenty of builders and land to put homes on, people began building huge quantities of larger, more lavish homes. Individual home prices didn't go up, but median home prices did. Fueled by low monthly payments, people bought homes that they could never afford at the rates from just a few years earlier.
This, in turn, LED to the incredibly lax bank lending standards in some areas. Previously, banks required hefty down payments, good credit and proof of income to give a loan. But with homes appreciating at double digit rates (again, caused by artificially low interest rates), it looked like a sure thing that the outstanding loan would be under 80% in two years. Fifty year, interest only, reverse amortization, it didn't matter, the house would out-appreciate ANY loan.
Then the fed comes back in, raises the rates back up and BAM, people default like crazy because they can't refinance their ARMs at anything close to the old rate.
Yes, there was bad business practices and greed all around, but the root cause of the whole thing was bad interest rate manipulation by the federal reserve.
No i am not the least happy about the coming recession. And no i do not live in the eurozone.
The point of my argument is that even after 100 years of the new economic theory[1] the people in charge still manages to screw things up. Now you got a desperate federal reserve trying to evade the coming crisis. As we speak they are activle devaluing the dollar, or said in plain English, taking value from your wallet.
Now, suppose they only cold print a dollar note for every ounce of gold they have in the reserves? Do hold in mind that the looming sub prime crisis all is to blame upon the institution's said to protect your money. One of these institutions is federal reserve.
-But hey, housing can only go up! Perhaps there would not be a recession as you would argue...
[1]According to what economic school one might ponder?
Gold is currently at 800 dollars an ounce. That price comes from the amount of trouble it takes to find it. To support the gold standard, and incorporate all us dollars available into all gold available to the us, you'd probably have to multiply that number by, say, about a million. So 800,000,000 US dollars per ounce. Suddenly, secretly mining the stuff would become very attractive. Suddenly, your grandmother's necklace can buy you a whole village of your own ! Suddenly, all sorts of industries (jewelry, tech, dentistry) collapse because gold becomes unavailable to them at any reasonable price. Suddenly, gold smuggling into the us becomes a big, big problem (causing, o irony of ironies, big time inflation).
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
Speaking of deficient reasoning, I do believe that's a false dilemma. That is, you've given no reason we can't have both a gold-backed currency as well as sound political and economic decisions. You have to speak to the likelihood of one preventing the other before you can say you're giving a reason against the adoption of a gold-backed currency. Alternatively, if you want to claim that you didn't intend it as a dilemma - that you just wanted to say you'd prefer the one case over the other - then you're just engaging in empty rhetoric: why should we care what you prefer.
So, please, give us some facts about whether having a gold-back currency leads to bad political and economic decisions (I don't have any; not to say they don't exist - I'm just criticising your argument). Or, shut up.
=w=
As I understand it, gold based currencies can be devalued if the market supply of gold increases a lot (happened to the Roman empire, once). Otherwise, they are stuck in a deflation cycle which tends to make long-term loans very very expensive. As a state, to borrow against a nation's future earnings, you need an inflating currency and that's how fiat currencies came to be.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
The Federal Reserve Bank is a Branch of the Federal Government. It was created by an act of Congress. Its rules are interpretations of laws passed by Congress. It is governed by a Board appointed by the President and Confirmed by the Senate. The Federal Reserve is no less a part of the Federal Government than the IRS. I read at least one of the websites that claims to lay out how the Federal Reserve is not part of the Government, it was no more credible than the people who claim that Income Tax is purely voluntary and you don't really have to pay if you don't want to.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I think it was probably one of two things:
It was either a rival trying to make Ron Paul look bad, or it was one of Ron's diehard missionaries trying to 'spread the word of Ron Paul' in a way that irritates the largest number of people possible. Some of his disciples are very, very prone to doing that.
I know the Church Of Ron Paul has infested Youtube like a VD sort of plague. Don't get me wrong - I don't think Ron Paul is a bad guy, but some of his followers are absolutely obnoxious if you dare criticize their messiah in any way. I questioned if he may be too old for the Presidency, and got some pretty mean responses. (Some at least tried to give a rational reply, but there also was a lot of ad hominem and strawman fallacy getting tossed around.)
Greed wouldn't have mattered if they couldn't get the loans, and the loans wouldn't have even existed without the interest rate manipulations. When the federal funds rate is low it encourages people to take out loans and do more risky investing. All that money tries to find a home somewhere, and it causes a bubble. It's one of the most predictable aspects of the modern economy.
Blaming the financial problems of the past few years on greed is stupid; it's not as if greed just started showing up in people recently.
Ultimately there is just one magical attribute which gold possesses that a fiat currency does not...
Scarcity.
It's this scarcity which prevents inflation. Without the scarcity of something like gold, the politicians will always be able to simply print another... well, we're now into the trillions. How soon will we have to use zillions? How many zeros is that?
Essentially the real problem is Fractional Reserve Banking. It's basically legalised counterfeiting... A Ponzi scheme of massive proportions. The switch to full reserve banking is needed to prevent inflation along with the gold standard or some other way of preventing the arbitrary creation of money and therefore the theft of a person's time and effort.
Those of you with a Libertarian bent can switch to a gold or other commodity based standard today. There are several Digital Gold Currencies which would insulate you against inflation.
Deleted
The only good economic "policy" is a decentralized economy, where (1) people choose for themselves where, when, and how to spend their money, and (2) the eggs are distributed among different baskets, eliminating the possibility of mass failure (i.e. the great depression). In a word, good economic "policy" means liberty (NO economic policy), and liberty means voluntary association, not coercive association (central planning).
Next, if myself and another individual or group voluntarily decide to trade with gold (or something else of actual, measuable value) rather than printed paper backed by debt (or nothing at all, in the case of inflation), exactly what moral principle allows you to intervene and stop us?
History shows why the US economy developed into a world leader during the early stages of the nation: liberty. History now shows why the US economy is going downhill: big government and the central planning that comes with it.
Everything you talked about is 2001 on. Did you not read my post, or did you just not pay any attention to my point?
No, fall. The 2000 primaries were terrible to him, and he changed in agonizing increments since then from principled maverick to administration lapdog. I mean, this is a man who was literally beaten by a rumor that the kids he had adopted were really illegitimates. After having bled and fought for this country (and served it in many capacities) that has got to be devastating. After that, he started to listen to all the wrong advice, and lost his instinct for being different (since it punished him so much in the election and even afterward).
Every person has a breaking point beyond which disillusionment and cynicism are inevitable. Public service (no matter how much, or how deservedly we pile on to politicians) is a fairly dehumanizing and unforgiving profession. That the guy finally lost his way is no reflection of his "true colors" in any legitimate sense I can think of.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
This is one of my problems with the minimum wage. We essentially DO tie a dollar to ten minutes of labor right now with the minimum wage. When we up the minimum wage, we basically revalue a dollar as worth 6 minutes of labor.
Inflation by any other name...
-knewter
You don't seem to understand the difference between racism and racial discrimination. They are also not the same thing. Discrimination is where there is preferential treatment for one race over another, while racism is the belief that your race is superior to that of others.
Affirmative action is racial discrimination, for sure. Whether or not it is racism depends on whether you believe that the underlying reason for it is that minorities can't obtain employment, advancement or schooling is due the minorities' inabilities or due to external forces beyond the minorities' control. It's a fine line, and there is at least some degree of underlying assumption by many who support affirmative action that minorities cannot succeed in the current environment due to problems within their own ranks. That belief, IMHO, is racism.
My blog
But at an exchange rate of $2800 for one ounce of gold, that's the fastest way to devalue the dollar.
Don't believe me?
1. Buy gold at $800 an oz.
2. Sell gold at $2800 an oz to the US Gov.
3. Profit!
Let me say that "just because they say so, doesn't make it so."
...both public purposes and PRIVATE ASPECTS?! Can any other government entity be purported in this way?! "Secret aspects" I would hate, but would be forced to accept. But PRIVATE?! Come on! And the history of the Federal reserve bank system goes way back. This is the third or fourth incarnation depending on how you look at it.
Next, let's have a look at this:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm Who owns the Federal Reserve?
The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.
And you say nothing about the clear practice of "I'm taking out a loan, and YOU are going to pay for it"? If you think that's okay, please forward your personal information to me and I'll provide you with a list of loans and debts I have for you to pay back.
Also, "promoting the general welfare" does not equate to "ensuring the general welfare". You "promote" it, in America, by giving everyone the opportunity to make something of themself. If Social Security is such a great idea and necessary function of our government, then why did it take 150 years to put it into place? Well, here's some choice quotes by our founding fathers:
The American people, through their representatives (Congress), take out a loan which the American people are going to have to pay through their taxes. How is that me taking out a loan that you are going to have to pay? And BTW the loan is not from the Federal Reserve, but from the people who buy government bonds.
The Federal debt is conceptually no different than the debt of a corporation. In corporate debt, the stockholders, through their representatives (the Board of Directors), take out a loan that the stockholders are going to have to pay through the assets/profits of the company.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Next time you get caught lying seth, don't issue a diatribe. Consider how it looks, that the best excuse you give for your lies is that they were "taken out of context".
No one likes a crybaby, crybaby.
My wife says the mere thought creeps her out!
Dog is my co-pilot.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/racism
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
It appears YOU are the one who doesn't know what racism is, and are trying to create a definition that supports your points while ignoring the real definition.
I think you need to examine what he has REALLY said, and what his voting record REALLY is.
Hint; He pretends to have an anti-war voting record, and this is a fscking lie.
Dog is my co-pilot.
Ron Paul has about 104,000 donors. His donor-feed is at:
;), and in this case it makes it pretty clear that Ron Paul has not had more individual donors than any other candidate in the race.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/webservices/REST/fundraiser?name=liberty
It's not clear to me [and I've searched a bit] if that number is total number of unique donors or total number of donations. Other articles touching on the subject are
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/us/politics/06paul.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/10/12/politics/horserace/entry3362383.shtml?CMP=OTC-RSSFeed&source=RSS&attr=Horserace_3362383
Now... has Ron Paul found the most donors? I don't think so. Barack Obama had 92,000 new contributors in the 3rd Quarter, and has had 350,000+ thus far
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-10-01-fundraising_N.htm
So in short, cut the crap. Regardless if you appreciate Ron Paul's unique perspectives or think he's a crazy foolish man, don't make things up. Use facts. The truth is out there
Support a few technologists in Washington.
In a corporation, the management has to report fully to the stockholders. The US government's stockholders (the citizens of the US of A) don't get within a country mile of a glimpse at the largest budget items (defense/security items)
In a corporation, the stockholders can vote the management out. Democrats and Republicans don't seem to have any meaninhfully different spending policies, so an unpopular spending policy can't be voted out.
Most importantly, in a corporation, there are SEC limits on how deeply a company can go into debt before it is considered insolvent. The US govt however is far more deeply in debt than any company would ever be allowed to go, yet it continues to operate at the pleasure of it's creditors who know that it is not the dollars that are really valuable, its the perpetual servitude of the shareholders (citizens) of its debtor who are now effectively working for their banking system overlords. There's a Slashdot pun in there somewhere...
I hate printers.
"there isn't enough gold for the government to buy enough for 100% backing of the currency"
I'm not an expert but how do you figure this? Seems like whatever quantity of gold and USD there are in the world, you'll be able to set up a ratio where one backs the other. Unless, of course, there's actually zero gold in the world.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Ron Paul 5,320,000 results
Rudy Guiliani 522,000
Mike Huckabee 411,000
John McCain 378,000
Fred Thompson 894,000
Hillary Clinton 2,480,000
Barack Obama 1,140,00
I'm sorry. Would you like the discussion of everything the GOP has fucked up from Lincoln to Reagan? I was trying to not seem overbearing.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Deflation can be just as much of a problem as inflation. We can control the amount of dollars in circulation so that they reflect the size of the economy. When it gets bigger, more dollars. When it shrinks, less. This strikes a balance between inflation and deflation. With gold, there is only so much of it in circulation, and most new gold produced goes to important industrial applications. So the amount of gold in circulation can not keep up with a fast paced economy, and deflation occurs. People's savings disappears. Bad things happen, just like with inflation, but we have no control.
You overestimate the danger of inflation. Why is it bad, exactly? Why is it worse than deflation?
To top it all off, those industrial applications I mentioned? What do you think will happen to the cost of things that use gold, like computers, when gold is used as currency? In short, the gold standard is a stupid and outmoded idea promulgated by two types of people: those without a basic understanding of economics, and those hoping to profit off of the first group.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Selective enforcement of laws and institutionalized racism ensure that blacks will be incarcerated for doing the same damn things a white man will get away with. You mention that statistic as if it indicts blacks. It does not. It just points out how incredibly racist the US still is. The fact that you mention it just points out the incredible bias in the minds of most Ron Paul supporters.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Anyone notice the URI? ?threat=ronpaul
http://www.secureworks.com/research/threats/ronpaul/?threat=ronpaul
Ron Paul has his own "threat" folder, and he is equal to a threat. Awesome!
Fractional reserve banking allows the country to keep operating when people are hoarding money, because banks can still give loans to people to help kickstart the economy by expanding or starting new businesses. It's not a Ponzi scheme by any definition, and I wouldn't call it legalized counterfeiting, just "monetary policy." It's not like it's unconstrained, banks can only loan out a specific multiple more than they have in actual funds in reserve, hence the name "fractional reserve."
It would also be a good idea to note about digital gold currencies that they are unregulated, and the federal government has been harassing some of these companies and freezing funds, so it's probably not a very safe place to put your money if you ever want to get it back. I don't agree with the federal government's actions, but it's still not safe.
I'm not a McCain fan, but the one thing he has been consistent on is torture. He's always been opposed to it. Most likely because he was tortured while he was a POW in Vietnam. In fact he was railing on some of the other GOP candidates at the CNN/Youtube "debate" who were insisting that water boarding was not torture. He essentially made the point that having been through it himself he can without a doubt say it is torture.
Oh no! I'm English, with public healthcare!
Wait, if I'm enslaved, where are my chains? Or my forced labour?
No tyrant thrives when every subject says no.
Exactly. Ron Paul, while on many issues looks wonderful, he wants to dismantle the entire federal government which would cause serious problems.
If you think the free market is going to solve all of our problems, I think you need to look at the current trends in the corporate world and how they sell out the people and cut corners on quality wherever possible. The entire China manufacturing situation is a great example of the dangers associated with allowing the business world to run things
VERY true, but the unfortunate reality is - you're preaching to the choir here. There's a reason Ron Paul has been most successful in the "Internet community". The more intelligent, intellectual types can follow the reasons behind some of his "more radical" beliefs, like abolishing the federal reserve, and phasing out the IRS. But those concepts require a fair bit of reading and long-term thinking to see how they're plausible.
By the same token, avid net users who read blog sites and news sites (like Slashdot!) are FAR more likely than average to select a candidate based on their individual stances, vs. voting for them "just because they told a funny joke" or "were the most stylishly dressed" during a TV appearance.
All I said was that I only have a problem with the party since 2001, and you disagree and state a bunch of stuff that the party has done since 2001. So, yes, it would be more effective if you stated your issues with the party PREVIOUS to 2001.
That is all for Argument 101, for today.
You can support Personal Liberty, and I do, without wanting a Corporatocracy, which RP does. (Even if he thinks he doesn't, he is advocating changes that would put Monsanto in charge of Agriculture, and Time/Warner in charge of Education.)
Dog is my co-pilot.
Why is the stuff from 2001-2007 off the board? It is reasonable to include it if I think it was deliberate and reflects the ongoing purpose of the GOP.
Most of the current GOP fun traces back to Reagan. Especially the absolutely criminal idea of systematic deficit spending. The current alignment of the GOP with southern racists goes back to Nixon. And the fealty of the GOP to big business goes back to the robber barons.
In the entire history of the US there have only been two Republican presidents who weren't a net loss for America: Teddy Roosevelt and Ike. And even there, TR got us way too deep into the international system and Ike wanted to kill the civil rights movement.
And the GOP will get worse, because it is now more reactionary than conservative. The idea that a guy like Ron Paul can save the GOP from itself ignores what the GOP has become since Nixon. The GOP has incorporated too many nativists, too many expansionists and too many activist Christians. And the old TR expansionist wing of the GOP never went away.
In the past the GOP wanted to limit government. But, Nixon brought in the southern wing of the Dems in the late 60s and now the GOP is reactionary, not conservative because that group of people never was true conservative -- they're just assholes. They pick on brain dead people (Terry Schaivo?), they hate on all non-whites, they've run the government itself into the dirt and they want to bomb the world with no real plan.
And once Reagan taught the GOP to be financially irresponsible, the GOP ceased to serve any useful purpose.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
First of all, the marriage issue is not about individual rights.
That depends. Is marriage a religious institution, or not? If yes, then there certainly is an individual right involved here. If no, then why are we letting the matter of who can marry who be dictated by religious interests? In one case, the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment is at stake. In the other case, the establishment clause is at stake. Which clause do you want to sacrifice?
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
The other problem is that relative wages will decrease. This is bound to happen eventually, and it is ok. Do you expect the Chinese to always labor at a fraction of the cost? No. As their productivity increases, as their relative value as a worker increases, their wages will increases relative to ours. This will be felt as a valuation of their currency relative to ours, or as a devaluation of their currency relative to ours.
A couple points to ponder:
Qxe4
I will grant you that the current social security system is probably not the best system, but there will have to be something, and I will tell you why:
The purpose of government is, of course, to do the collective will of the people. For example, it is against the law for me to punch someone in the face, even if they deserve it, and I will be punished accordingly. It could be argued that the government preventing me from doing this is just a nanny state, and that if the guy doesn't want to be punched in the face he should learn to defend himself or learn not to be annoying. (In fact, in some parts of the country it is like this, and I would not be prosecuted for punching people in the face).
Social security, or poverty insurance for old people, is something most people want, in fact, Roosevelt himself didn't particularly push it, it was created by popular demand. Currently, if you pay attention to the rhetoric, most of it centers around how to save social security, not how to dismantle it. If you don't want it, then sorry, I feel for you, but welcome to democracy.
As for healthcare, it is clear that something has to be done. The current system is just lousy: people without insurance wait until they are too sick, then end up going to the emergency room, where they are treated for free (or default on the costs of treatment by going bankrupt), then the government gives subsidy payments to the hospitals. Or sometimes, if it is a more serious disease, they aren't able to get the long term treatment they need and just die. Something needs to be done, whether it is universal health care like in Canada or not, I don't know (nobody deserves a healthcare system like Britain's, that's for sure). Massachusetts has an interesting private-public hybrid system and it will be interesting to see how it works. Eventually something will be established, though, because that's what people want.
Qxe4
So, what? Do you want to create a nanny state, where the government is taking care of people and making sure they don't get bad loans? Greed is not new, but it is still the culprit. People got loans where the KNEW the payments would be low for a few years, then would double or triple after a while. They knew they wouldn't be able to afford it, but they got the loans anyway, hoping the housing prices would continue to rise. Do you want me to feel sorry for these people? Not at all. They got what they paid for.
Qxe4
Well, he surely rambles and speaks nonsense like a saint would...
Of course, they hate Rue Paul too, but that's anther story altogether.
If you have a problem with something, please tell us specifically how you are harmed by it. Don't just duck under the cover of "that would be socialism". It may be socialism, or it may not be, but the label doesn't make the point, because socialism (if it is that) is intrinsically neither a good thing nor bad thing. It's bad if it harms more than it helps, but you haven't told us of any harm from "socialized medicine" (which is a misnomer anyway, unless you're talking about a UK-style system).
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
You act as though it was completely shocking and unpredictable that interest rates would rise above the historic lows from a few years ago. Do you really think bankers and financial gurus are that stupid? That they never considered that rates might rise on an ARM they were offering someone with no documentation, no income verification? The housing bubble has been talked about for at least 3 years now. A correction in housing prices was widely considered a strong possibility.
Give me a fucking break. The Fed did not cause the housing crisis. Interest rates are only up 1-2 percent from their lows. If you think that a small increase like that was so inconceivable that the banks couldn't help but make inappropriately risky laons you're mental. Mortgage brokers and real estate agents were telling anyone they could get to listen that they could afford anything, didn't need a down payment, didn't need any income, etc. The lender's job in that situation is to put rational underwriting criteria into place to ensure that they only lend to people who can afford their loans.
yep but when you've got a metal backed standard you have actual levels that you have to watch and compare to how much money your printing
Sure, and what happens when your economy wants to expand beyond the limits of your gold supply?
in this country we print money like its the cool thing to do
Jesus Christ almighty. The Fed doesn't print money because it's the cool thing to do. They print it because people want to be able to go to the ATM and get some. In other words, they do it because there's a demand for it. Inflation is NOT caused by the Fed printing too many dollar bills.
For example, the US has a very fragile economy because of national debt and a currency that is no longer backed by a gold standard.
Except that history has so far demonstrated that the economy is not that fragile. And what's so magical about gold? Gold, like anything else, is only worth what other people are willing to give you for it. It's value fluctuates on the international market on a daily basis. If you understand that everything, including gold, only has value in relation to other things, then you might be able to take the tiny step and realize that fiat money is as good as anything else.
This often gets overlooked
It's overlooked because no one cares and it's irrelevant.
Yet he still gladly published racist material.
He had about as much to do with publishing 'racist material' as commander taco did with personally publishing your post.
-metric
Did Ron Paul vote for Social Security increases? Federal Highway funds? Emergency Relief funds for Katrina? Show me the constitutional mandate. Preamble doesn't count; it just states intent, not implementation.
Personally, I think that the dollar should be backed in gold, silver, steel, copper, oil, cotton and a bunch of other commodities.
Why?
But the current system where the reserve prints up money out of thin air is ridiculous.
The amount of currency in circulation is insignificant compared to the amount of money out there. Money includes things like checking and savings accounts. The Fed only prints currency because there's a demand for it, ie, people make a withdrawal from their accounts to get cash to go to the bar. The Fed doesn't create money. Banks create money.
Why? Because if the US government defaults on it's $9Trillion debt, then the $US will collapse completely.
Let's do some math. In 2001 it was estimated that there have been 145,000 metric tons of gold ever mined throughout history. At 32,150.72 troy ounces to the ton, that's 4.66 billion troy ounces. On Oct 1, the price of gold hit a record high of $850 per ounce, which means if the United States owned all the gold ever mined, we would have had just shy of $4 trillion worth of gold.
So that still leaves us $5 trillion short.
Oops, slight error. The $850 per ounce price was reached in 1980. It's less now, which just makes the shortfall worse.
1) Because the 14th Amendment makes it a national issue, if you want a Constitutional justification.
2) I'm guessing that Clinton and Edwards only attend church and give lip service to religious beliefs because it would be political suicide not to, and while Obama appears to be sincere about his religion it's a less harmful brand (UCC).
Part of the e-mail exchange that I did not include was about the history of the two-party system.
The Federalist/Whig/Republican Party is the Party of Hamilton and represents central government and central banking. It is the antithesis of freedom. I call it the fascist party.
The Democratic Party was the Party of Jefferson and represented anti-Federalism and libertarianism. It got seduced by Communism at the turn of the century.
Thus, starting around 1900, the choice was between fascism and communism.
After WWII, the Republicans adopted a marketing strategy. To counter communism, they put on the cloak of the old Democratic Party, libertarianism/anti-Federalism, while secretly still being fascist/Federalist. It worked -- I was seduced, at least until 1998 when a lot of information started pouring onto the Internet. Even Ron Paul was seduced, as he campaigned for Reagan in 1976.
In 2000, the Republican Party started throwing off the cloak, and returned to naked power/fascism/Federalism.
A side note I forgot to mention -- the Democratic Party, which became the Communism Party around 1900, became the Party of Death around 1970.
In addition to being seduced by the Republican cloak of libertarianism, Ron Paul was also pro-life, so those two facts together made the Republican Party a better fit for him. After his failed bid for the presidency in 1988 as a Libertarian Party candidate, he realized he needed to run under one of the two major parties, and stuck with the Republican Party into which he was seduced in the 1970's.
In the presidential debates this year, Ron Paul keeps repeating how Eisenhower, Nixon, and even Bush claimed they were anti-war. Ron Paul is trying to tap into what Republican voters thought they were voting for in the past.
He put it under his name, no? CmdrTaco does not do that.
Made sure this story surfaced to the fullest extent, with trying to tie Dr. Pauls name to a botnet and possibly bringing up the possibility that he may have financiered it.
Simple bullshit from the top coming down as usual, trying to sway the publics opinion by media mind control. They are running scared brother. Lets hope Cheyney, Bush, Rove, all of em go down in a blaze of federal treason so their own laws of torture can be used on them before Ron Paul Changes them back to normal.
It certainly is a false dichotomy on the face of it, however it appears to be the closest approximation to the options we are presented. Specifically, those who advocate backed currencies seem to consistently advocate poor economic policies in many areas. There are few politicians advocating economic policies I like in all respects, but the ones I like better advocate maintaining our current fiat currency (though only by default, as they don't address the issue directly). As such, I will choose between the options presented.
I would dearly love to be able to vote for individual policies (assuming there was an effective way to do that...), but I can't. Therefore I'll weigh the options I'm presented, and I prefer the ones that don't include gold-backed currencies. I actually intend to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, but his economic policies are not one of the reasons for that.
Perhaps you meant risky changes are better than no changes when the system isn't working? I don't see any bad changes in Ron Paul's platform. There are some that could be risky, but I am confident that we can make them work well.
Sure you could set up a ratio. The problem is that the amount of wealth represented by the currency currently in circulation (note wealth != money) vastly exceeds the current market value of the available gold. So you artifically drive up the price of gold so it can back the currency. The problem is that now the value of the gold backing the currency is exactly as artificial, no more or less, as the fiat currency you just left. What, then, is the point? You've gone from one fiat currency to another, because the value of the thing I can exchange my currency for is far less than the value of the currency -- so that exchange is meaningless.
Throughout history there have been gold backed currencies. Of course that means there was no inflation ever, right?
If you think that you are stupider than Ron Paul, because even he does not believe this. But he does believe that you Marks will continue to give him millions.
Suckers.
Dog is my co-pilot.
Hey, genius, that would be fractionsl reserve currency, and that is what we have now.
Learn some economics before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
WITHER in the face of slash-dotters.
Do you see any dinosaurs about?
RR
This is changing fairly quickly though. As technology advances and people begin to self-modify for improvements (speed, strength, mental capacity), the "value" of five minutes of labor will go up dramatically, especially because of the latter.
One thing from the Foresight Institute's books is that with nanotechnology, a machine the size of a sugar cube could have 1,000,000 times the power of the human brain. You can fit around 2,000 sugar cubes in your skull, so if you were able to convert your brain, in place, to the more powerful thinking medium, you'd be thinking about 2 billion times "faster" than before. This person would be worth 2 billion dollars a day. I'm not being facetious; a person who had undergone that transformation would be able to create world-changing technologies every day.
And at that point we'll be able to create thinking matter to do our jobs for us, so money won't really matter. We'll have 3D printers that can make more printers, so everyone will be able to create their own thinking matter to "work" for them; the future will consist mostly of relationships and entertainment.
And, even before getting all cosmic and nano, we can just look at today's jobs: there is generally a 100-fold difference between the janitor and the CEO, so whose "five minutes of labor" are we talking about?
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,920875,00.html
... the Hunts' silver-buying activities, which triggered the worst financial panic in nearly 20 years; silver that had cost more than $50 per oz. in January slumped to $10.20 per oz. in late March.INDEED. br> Affirmative action, so-called' ANTI-RACISM, accepts that they are 'inferior'.
Thus - 'affirmative action' imposes it, which demeans everyone with inate ability AND self-determination.
RR
I'd say that's an accurate correction. That's what happens when I drink and talk politics. I meant to point out that fear of making a mistake (and doing nothing) is a bigger evil at this point than just making a few mistakes, not insinuate weakness in anybody's platform.
>I honestly don't know how you can blame this on the federal reserve. The whole issue is caused by people defaulting on their loans. How is the fed responsible for that? Wouldn't the libertarian way of looking at it be to blame the people who acquired loans they couldn't afford?
My apologies, i did not try to blame this mess on the federal reserve thou i do mean they are implicated. As you know, when one find oneself in a conversation about federal reserve and the gold standard things do tend to get a little heated.
There is one angle where in the low interest rates helped to build up the looming credit crisis (sub prime crisis)From this angle i blame the federal reserve. From another angle, one would assume when you are about to buy a house you would read up on the terms of the loan. Sad to say, there are some people who failed to do so. In the third angle one could go after the lenders of these loans, i have some horrific examples lined up here to back up my argument.
But since this is a discussion about the gold standard or lack thereof, i will continue to argue from that standpoint. There will be a recession, the fed are going to print a huge amount of money to try to curb things up. Since im a follower of the Milton Friedman school of economics i do believe this i going to start a inflationary process. I do not like the sound of these printing presses, call me a biggot if you like.
So from my standpoint, i am about to get hit from the madness other people brought on themselves. Not directly, since i don't live in the united states. But indirectly, since the country i live in do export a large sum of goods to the united states. Now remembering the tulip crisis of holland. http://www.stock-market-crash.net/tulip-mania.htm
Even with or without a gold standard a lot of innocent people where hit by the craze of the times. I want to minimize that target area, yes my business may be bad for some times due to the failing markets. But no, there are no means for the federal reserve to further bring havoc upon me, this by starting the printing presses (if one would have pegged it to gold standard)
I thank you for your link about the gold standard but i have already read it and some other material concerning this subject. Please keep in mind that I'm struggling throe bot language and culture barriers to get my message throe
The bill you linked to has nothing to do with banning abortion on the federal level. It states that the Supreme Court shall have no jurisdiction over cases arising out of legislation that protects the rights of unborn persons. In other words, it asserts that the federal government shall leave the abortion question for the states to decide. Did you read the bill? Or did you just read the part that states that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception" and got scared at seeing someone state an obvious scientific fact whose evasion is required by your worldview?
Yes. Paul is concerned with the abuse of political power, which is the power to use physical force (via legislation & law enforcement). He does not subscribe to the idea that the Federal government needs to protect people from making the wrong choice regarding their own employment. I have the right to take on work that pays less than the minimum wage. My son has the right to pursue his dream career by taking a learning job with an organization that is willing to train him. Paul is the only candidate who believes that individuals should be protected from others rather than from themselves.
You can't work without working for someone else. I.e., you cannot provide for your family without being forced to provide for other's families. It's no good saying "If you don't work at all, then there's no slavery happening." I have a right to work AND not be enslaved. But I'm probably wasting my time. The English have never been able to see the chains. And in this case they are guns, anyway.
"Socialism is intrinsically neither a good thing nor bad thing. It's bad if it harms more than it helps..."
No, socialism is wrong, always and everywhere. Your justification for socialism marks you as a utilitarian, so I wouldn't expect you to agree. I expect you don't even know what kind of Utilitarian you are. How do you define "harm"? By the subjective definition of the one experiencing it? By your own definition as an observer? By some other standard? In what timeslice do you evaluate whether an action will produce "harm" or its opposite? What is harm's opposite? You can't simply run to the "greater good" argument without wrestling with the fundamental difficulties of utilitarianism, and there are a lot of them.
As someone who believes that all sentient creatures have equal rights which stem from their sentience, I cannot bring coercive force to bear on another simply because it would accomplish more "good" across a large number of people. People's "good" is their own to pursue, within a generous realm of action limited only by the equal freedoms of others. The only time coercive force is justified is in defense; when someone attempts to violate the equal freedoms of another. Such as when socialists arrive to commandeer goods produced by free men.
Our country is supposed to be founded on my principles, not yours. As James Madison said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." But your kind appear to have won the battle, the war, and the spoils of war. So I suppose that you will be writing history soon and that men like James Madison will be either gruesomely reconstructed, or condemned, or at best merely forgotten.
I assume you are the same AC I was responding to the first time. You aren't making an argument at all, you are avoiding the issue you were purporting to address. Simply rejecting something by saying "that is socialism" or "that is relativism" or "that is utilitarianism" is nothing more than a cover for not knowing what you are talking about. If you can't identify how you are harmed by something, you have no case against it. I for one am sick of people claiming to be harmed by this or that, but when confronted about those claims, have no answer but "because it's (insert favorite bugaboo term here)".
Our country is supposed to be founded on my principles, not yours.
Got much of an ego?
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
> Why is the stuff from 2001-2007 off the board?
??? I tried to explain this already. I am saying that there is a difference between the pre-2001 Republican party and the post-2001 Republican party. I already agree that the latter is shit. So listing things that happened after 2001 is just going to have me agreeing and wondering why you are suggesting you feel differently from me.
The reason I think we have differing views is because you think all this is a fluke.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
I have no sympathy for these people and don't believe that the mortgage market should be regulated. That's not really what I was saying at all. I also certainly wouldn't want to bail out stupid financial decisions: it begets more stupid financial decisions and is stealing from people that showed restraint and common sense.
What I am saying is that I don't think we would have seen the poor investment over the past few years if interest rates weren't artificially low. When interest rates were lowered people raised the prices of their homes because buyers only look at their monthly payment, less interest but more principal. Typically, when rates are raised again this trend will reverse itself and real estate will get marginally cheaper.
That's obviously not what happened, though. People saw that the value went up XX% (because of the low interest rates) and bought into that continuing forever. It's completely stupid and greedy, but they always do. So they made it reality by using exotic mortgages that simulated ever ridiculously lower interest rates, even negative interest rates. And then when they reset and had to pay the real market rate for their risky decision, well, you get what we have here today.
What I am saying is that you should consider that interest rate manipulation is actually a really big deal and is at the root of a lot of these problems. Furthermore, these malinvestments end up costing everyone, even people not involved in them.
Inflation moves value from the average person to the wealthy, it centralises the wealth (and power) in the economy in fewer and fewer hands. The growth in government and the growth in corporate power go hand in hand with control of and the the growth of the supply of money. The average person ignorantly and naively try to use money as a store of value. The wealthy don't. They use property, shares, commodities etc. All things which inflate in value with the currency. Inflation causes wealth to be speculated on whatever is going to increase in value most (tech stocks, property), rather than invested usefully, and the speculators are rewarded for the behaviour at the expense of everyone else. Wages increase at whatever the CPI is currently. 2% per year? The true level of inflation makes this a perpetual pay cut, and with poverty comes disenfranchisement. What do you think will happen to the cost of things that use gold, like computers, when gold is used as currency? Frankly, I don't care whether gold specifically is used or not. It's just the most likely candidate. The other thing is I don't give a toss what happens to computers or things that use gold as part of the manufacture. If I'm losing 10% of my savings every year, whether computers use gold or copper is of little consequence to me. In short, the gold standard is a stupid and outmoded idea promulgated by two types of people: those without a basic understanding of economics Really? Economics professors without a basic understanding of economics?
There's no such thing as perfect money, and actually, no need for a gold standard at all. With the Digital Gold Currencies individuals can take advantage of gold as a currency right now, ignoring the inflation around them.
In the last two years, gold has increased in cost from around $530 per ounce to $800 per ounce. If you were being paid in gold or your value was stored in gold you would personally have profited to around 50%. In fact it's everyone else who is losing out as their currency is being devalued.
Deleted
You can't work without working for someone else. I.e., you cannot provide for your family without being forced to provide for other's families.
Isn't this true anyway? Say you're self employed. You build furniture. You build a table and a set of chairs for family X. You've provided for family X (a table and a set of chairs is hardly nothing, after all.). As you hopefully got paid, you will be able to provide for your family as well.
Unless your work is stealing. Then you will be able to provide for your family without providing for others. But that's the only occupation I can think of where in providing for yourself, you provide nothing for others.I have a right to work AND not be enslaved.
I have a right to work AND not be enslaved.
Have a nice life stealing then. I'm told it can be quite a lucrative lifestyle.
No tyrant thrives when every subject says no.
If people want to loan out their money they can still do so under a full reserve system, like the gold standard. They simply won't have access to that money while it is loaned out. It's not a Ponzi scheme by any definition, and I wouldn't call it legalized counterfeiting, just "monetary policy." It's not like it's unconstrained, banks can only loan out a specific multiple more than they have in actual funds in reserve, hence the name "fractional reserve." Credit has to continue expanding in order for the fractional reserve system to function, debt is an exponential function, to pay the debts new larger loans have to be constantly taken out to pay off the interest and the old loans. As the credit system continues to expand it requires additional people to take out loans. Eventually, you start loaning money to those who really can't afford it. Then the system collapses in a sort of hmmm... credit, crunch.
Ponzi schemes operate in exactly the same way. They require continual exponential expansion to function. It would also be a good idea to note about digital gold currencies that they are unregulated, and the federal government has been harassing some of these companies and freezing funds, so it's probably not a very safe place to put your money if you ever want to get it back. I don't agree with the federal government's actions, but it's still not safe. And by the same note, putting money in the bank isn't safe either. The federal government freezes bank accounts too... The reason banks must have state regulation is their fractional reserves. They are by definition, insolvent. They require government regulation to prevent them from folding. Without government regulation all banks would fold. DGCs on the other hand hold 100% reserves, they can satisfy any and all requests for redemption, they don't need government regulation. It's a fundamentally more secure structure.
Deleted
Are you even serious with your table example? If so, I'll break it down for you. When I build a table and sell it to a willing buyer at whatever price we both agree on, I have converted my labor to cash in a free market transaction. I am no one's slave. I produce, and I control the disposition of my product. But then the government comes along and takes a percentage of my profit to be spent on whatever the majority chooses. This is the moral equivalent of taking a percentage of my tables prior to my selling them, or of rounding me up one day out of the week to go and make tables for someone else without any compensation.
You are rising to the level of a troll if you purport to be unable to comprehend this.
The harm is when I expend energy producing scarce goods and a portion of them are taken by the state to be disposed of however the majority sees fit. This is called a "taking". Is that clear enough for you?
Got much of an ego?
Got much of a history book? Try reading the Federalist Papers for a start. And those were the big-government proponents of the day.
I don't think it's a "fluke". I think the party changed directions at 2001. The party used to be about non-intervention and avoiding nation building and small government and local control of public schools and individual liberties and lower income taxes etc. Then Bush comes (and campaigns on this platform, btw) and intervenes in Iraq for no reason, engages in nation building, creates the largest increase in government in a long time, gives control of public schools to the federal government, significantly curtails individual liberties (to the point where the Democrats are now the front-runners here!), and spends tax money like crazy.
Maybe you feel like the party always sucked. All I am saying is that I was on board with the platform until 2001, when it seemed to reverse itself on most of the important issues.
The Federalist Papers were not written with *you* in mind.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Curtailing civil liberties is the hallmark of reactionary conservativism -- a brand of conservative America never gave power to before Nixon decide the GOP should adopt the KKK once the Democrats fumbled the racist vote in the south. That was an overt choice by the Republican Party machine, and one that was reinforced by Reagan and Bush 2. The religious right hasn't helped the cause either (Schaivo, anyone?) "spends tax money like crazy" = Reagan, also. In fact, Bush's father tried to torpedo the deficit spending of Reaganomics when he called it "voodoo economics" during the GOP debates. Obviously Bush 2 learned a critical lesson that his father missed: Americans prefer childish spending and childish tax cutting. Dude, if you want a real conservative government, vote Democrat. Bill Clinton and Jack Kennedy did more for the conservative cause than any of the jokers the GOP has pimped since they got blown off the map in 1932.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Perhaps, or perhaps I'm just a red commie liberal - actually, I am a liberal - and from the UK standard of that political position, which is far more left than the US version. Our conservative = your liberal. And guess what? Nobody in the UK considers theirselves to be 'enslaved', having to pay national insurance payments, or to support the NHS, or any one of half a dozen public services. You don't want to pay for public services? Go live in a country without them. No military, no police, no government, no public healthcare, none of the many things provided by your government, by your money.
I support publice services, because the alternative could be real slavery.
No tyrant thrives when every subject says no.
If all that stuff is so wonderful, why can't supporting it be voluntary? Why do you throw people in prison for not contributing? Especially with things like health care and retirement benefits, which can so easily be doled out to only the individuals who participated. I am forced to save for retirement because people like you would feel an obligation to support me anyway in the event that I didn't save enough myself. I am forced to pay for health insurance because people like you would feel an obligation to pay for treatments if I could not. Wow, that's really nice of you to feel all that obligation, yet somehow it turns out to be me that gets the bill for your obligations, not you. I wish you felt an obligation to leave me the hell alone, which is the only obligation you actually have. I don't object to what's done with the money, I object to the theft of the funds. And as to why I don't move to another country, it's because I was born here and have as much of a right to live here, unmolested by my neighbors, as anyone.
We had a military, a police force, fire-fighting services and an education system before there was a penny of Federal income tax in this country. As Ron Paul likes to point out, abolishing the income tax today would leave the government with as much money as it received in the year 2000. Hardly crippling.
To some extent, you're right. The Federal Reserve banks are technically privately held corporations. The structure is more complicated than most public / private partnerships, but at the end of the day, the agenda is set by government appointees. So I guess my question to you is, so what?
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
I think that the fundamental question is, "Who was too loose with credit?" Certainly, the Fed lowered interest rates, and there was a lot of money sloshing around, but that, in and of itself, can't explain what happened. The fact that we're seeing fallout with only a minimal change in interest rates (look how close we are to the historically low rates that peopl blame this mess on) indicates to me that it was a banking industry that was extremely short sighted that caused the real problem. A more likely explanation for me is the sudden popularity of strange financial instruments like negative amortization mortgages and how they affected mortgage backed securities.
Seriously, the lending industry has been dealing with fluctuating interest rates forever (and don't think for a moment that doing away with the Fed would change that a bit). I find it a lot harder to believe that lenders couldn't see a 1-2% increase over historically low interest rates coming than that the mortgage backed securities market underestimated the impact of the sudden ridiculous relaxation of loan standards. By lowering loan standards and speculating that they'd be able to get a chunk of the yield on an obvious home bubble, the private industry loosened up the credit purse strings far more than the Fed did. The fact that a cottage lending industry that specialized in putting out and selling crappy loans existed at all tells me that the market for high risk debt was more than enough to sustain itself.
Your explanation only makes sense to me if all of those bad loans were marginal investments that were made after the good investments were made. By all appearances, there were plenty of people making these high risk loans instead of sensible investments. That screams "market preference" and "speculative bubble" to me.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
You've made a leap from "services were paid for by other types of taxes" to "paying for services should be voluntary." I'm not sure I see the connection.
A quick glance at sources of federal tax revenues puts individual income tax at roughly 50% of total receipts. I have a hard time believing that total federal tax receipts have doubled (in real terms) since 2000, so I have no idea where Congressman Paul gets that idea.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
1. Yeah, it can be harder to get free men to do your bidding than slaves. I hear you.
2. Ron Paul is only campaigning to run the Federal government, so those are the only taxes at issue right now. My argument is merely a response to those who suggest that without Federal taxation we would lack basic services. I do additionally maintain that paying for services should be voluntary (It amazes me how anyone could possibly think otherwise... you do realize you are arguing for involuntary servitude here, don't you? Arguing for it!) and that this is a matter of principle, not expediency. It may indeed be more difficult to support services on a voluntary basis. So be it - what is right and just is rarely the easiest thing.
3. It looks like several people have gleefully discovered that it would actually take us back to closer to 1995 levels. I hereby admit that Ron Paul is a liar like the rest of them, and that his plan will obviously never work. 1995. Good god man. That was like, the Stone Age. Look, the reality is that Ron would be in favor of cutting both Federal income and Federal spending by approximately 75%, beyond even what abolishing the income tax would accomplish. What order he would do this in and what success he would have accomplishing it is entirely up in the air at this point.
No, that's certainly true. You can move taxes all over the place and still be OK. Some people would just have to suck it, but that's life. Sure, the USSR probably would have settled in Alaska due to its lack of a decent military, but it would have worked out reasonably well in general.
Don't you dare steal any of the positive externalities from my services, though. We'll have to come up with a good way for those of us who have the services to keep the people who don't have them from reaping any of the benefits. I can think of a few third world nations in Africa that have such systems, but there's usually a pretty high overhead in the number of AK-47s that they use. A police force that's beholden to only a small group of people always results in a healthy outcome, in my experience.
Feel free to argue based on "what's right" in your moral framework. That's the problem I generally see with Libertarians--they start with a great theory (the right to property is an important right and should be respected more than it is now) and turn that into the only important theory. I happen to see a booming economy and the fact that I'm wealthy and safe compared to the people who came before me as a worthwhile consideration as well. In reality, your ideologically pure world works out most closely in reality to map to warlord driven, impoverished nations of the third world, just as in reality, the brilliant purity of communism maps to failed states like North Korea. Enjoy your ideological purity, but don't lose track of your AK-47 while you pump your butter churn.
I'm having a hard time finding good data that isn't broken somehow. Is that in real dollars? How does it relate to population growth? My guess is that the curves flatten out significantly. I'm not saying that the federal budget can't be cut tremendously. I am pointing out that anybody who thinks that it will be easy or that the Great Leap Forward won't have huge fallout in the real world that most of us inhabit is a crackpot or an ideologue no less dangerous than any number of people whose novel economic systems crashed other societies.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
because it's shiny (and yes that obviously matters to people it always has) and it can't be grown
Enjoying positive externalities isn't theft, so while you can go to whatever lengths you want to avoid that happening, you could also just ignore it. Rather like how when I improve my property, I raise the value of my neighbor's property at the same time. I don't get to send him a bill for a portion of the costs.
I am very optimistic about the smooth operation of a society that valued the non-aggression principle enough to arrange their government around its significant restrictions. Sure there would be a portion of the society that didn't want to follow the (just) rules anyway and would need policing, and another that wanted to freeload as much as possible. One of the many options is to simply maintain a register of the people who are pulling their weight. In a free society valuing freedom of association and the free market, people would be allowed to discriminate based on anything the wished. So they could deny service to people who hadn't contributed to the national defense, if they wished. Such social tools could go a long way toward keeping the level of contribution high. There are a lot of other methods that libertarians (and some rule utilitarians) have come up with as well, including simple endowments that are managed over the long periods of time that governments exist. Why townships that have been in existence for over 200 years would have to run on taxes today is beyond me... presumably saving and investing was never deemed a worthy use of public monies. Or perhaps since it was an involuntary taxation, uses that didn't benefit the constituents directly could ironically never be justified.
What libertarians are frustrated about is that other people seem happy to consider non-aggression on the same level as possessions that one might desire to own. It's "nice" not to be aggressive toward our neighbors, but if it means that not enough people get in on the community retirement plan to make it fly then aggression is back on the table. For a libertarian, freedom is part of their quality of life. A lack of freedom need have no practical impact on their actions or their buying power to demoralize them. For example, the moment an income tax was instituted on the richest 1% of people in America, somewhere around the Civil War I believe, libertarians considered it the confiscation of all private property by the state. That the state had chosen to leave what used to be their property in their pockets for the time being was certainly preferable, but could not change the fact that a fundamental change in the disposition of property had occurred. One day their possessions were their own by mutually-recognized natural rights; rights that were not granted by a government, only recognized, protected, and adjudicated by them. The next day their possessions were only "theirs" by the current whim of the majority. The state had claimed the right to confiscate private property for its own purposes and had won. Whose property, and in what quantity, was hardly relevant except for the moment; the state had merely plucked the juiciest fruits and the least likely to raise widespread objection. Were the libertarians wrong? 150 years later nearly all of us pay upwards of 40% of our gross proceeds to the state. Any who refuse have their bills increased, their property liquidated or wages garnished to satisfy them, and may be incarcerated.
I agree with you that many libertarians take too black-and-white a view of property though. They do it in self-defense, since they perceive everyone else as attacking it and don't wish to make the damage any worse. Personally I think that libertarians need to better account for concepts like natural/public resources (which is how everything starts out), high-scarcity environments (does me gathering more food than I need make it "mine", even though you need some of it to survive?), surplus and/or neglected property that borders on returning to the category of natural resource (somewhat dealt with even today as squatters rights and the like), and the concept of inheritance (if the