TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- FAO: Ron Paul Supporters
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

Fiscal politics makes my brain hurt.

Can't you just have a president that can properly acknowledge and praise science, technology, arts, enviromental protection, ethnical diversity, sexual diversity, prostitution (not trafficking) and moderate usage of drugs? Can that guy also condemn religion, circumcision and {pure libertarianism + pure socialism}? Could (s)he also radicaly gamify education and ease on the self-employment regualations?

If there was someone running for president who meets all these criterias, I'd gladly become an American citizen just to vote for him/her. No matter if (s)he's a republican or a democrat.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT Without quoting someone else, can you explain in your own words exactly why?

why capitalism is anarchic? because it relies on the free choices of billions of people, most of whom are not necessarily rational agents. how could it NOT be anarchic?

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT Can you also give specific examples of a market that was deregulated by the government and go through why that deregulation caused or created a negative impact on the economy or sector that it was a part of?

i just gave you an example. the lack of effective oversight in derivative markets was a crucial reason that some businesses became "too big to fail" (because they had spread their risk throughout the financial sector). yes i realise this isn't "deregulation" per se but it amounts to the same thing.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong And what currently vital national regulations would be impacted by a Paul presidency, despite potentially being of questionable constitutionality?

well, there is that small issue of central banking?paul also believes that abortion should be left up to the states (not that this would be a major issue since state cunts are doing just that anyway).

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong And why having 50 states set their own industry, education, energy, housing, etc policy is ignorant and radical?

you can't understand why there should be, say, education standards across a country? what about

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong I'm a leftist on more issues than I'm a rightist;

really? so far you've been playing notes straight from the radical right song sheet.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong I'm open and willing to hear why federal government interventionism (in any sector) will have precisely its desired effect.

interventionism prevented the US economy from imploding. so i would argue it had the effect desired, if not the "precise" effect (what does?).

id also like to point out that im not some lefty hippie fag. i think regulations should be as minimal as possible. the flip side is that i think they should also be as strong as necessary.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN paul also believes that abortion should be left up to the states (not that this would be a major issue since state cunts are doing just that anyway).

abortion, drugs, gay marriage, many other things, these are issues that affect some Americans vitally and other Americans not at all. I would much rather they be left to the states than face federal prohibition.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN you can't understand why there should be, say, education standards across a country?

Even in a vacuum, no. A national standard for 300 million people from various backgrounds, languages, socio-economic situations? I can't very well support open boarders like I do and then expect a unified, national school system to service everyone. And aren't we in agreement that US schools basically suck anyways? What are we really losing out on? I also have a sneaking suspicion that federal higher education subsidies play a role in the out of control rising costs in college tuition...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN interventionism prevented the US economy from imploding. so i would argue it had the effect desired, if not the "precise" effect (what does?).

We basically butted heads over TARP and the Fed (which a lot of others not including RP are taking issue with) enough in that other thread. Totally ignoring my possibly unsubstantiated theory that the Fed's implicit/explicit guarantee of bailing out the risky behavior of banks in the years leading up to the housing crisis might have enabled that risky behavior, the TARP funds weren't even spent on what they were supposed to be spent on, no?

What I mean was, wasn't TARP passed to do one thing (buy up bad mortgages) and didn't it end up doing some other stuff in addition? Like bailing out the auto industry and buying up the stocks of some banks? And wasn't one of the 2B2Fail firms left without a bailout? And we somehow survived?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN why capitalism is anarchic? because it relies on the free choices of billions of people, most of whom are not necessarily rational agents. how could it NOT be anarchic?

No, not why capitalism is anarchic; I was asking why and how, in detail, capitalism produces negative results and why government regulation (force and violence) is necessary to control particular parts of an economy or an economy as a whole and why these means produce better outcomes as a whole, in your opinion.

quote:

i just gave you an example. the lack of effective oversight in derivative markets was a crucial reason that some businesses became "too big to fail" (because they had spread their risk throughout the financial sector). yes i realise this isn't "deregulation" per se but it amounts to the same thing.

Can you prove any of this? I know that you believe this but can you please explain in detail why you believe this? If a college professor, for example, said "Government deregulation is bad and if you want to know why, look at the derivatives market; here ends the lesson", I'm pretty sure most people would feel cheated and want their money back. You're going to have to do a lot better then that in order to make a good argument for your position.

quote:

Originally posted by jester Someone should try and put together a computer simulation to see how good or bad his ideas would turn out, if he was ever elected. He does want change, but for some people it is to much change in the wrong direction. I know some people who will vote for him, seeing he wants to audit / end the FED, kill off the TSA and plus stop the US being the police of the planet.

There are far too many variables to construct a working model, but happily it's unnecessary, since Paul's plan is so radical and impractical as to be a thoroughly predictable, and entirely hypothetical, catastrophe.

Paul's appeal is that he stands for highly general ideas that are appealing (and not without good reason) to many people and that are generally underrepresented in the existing political establishment. For instance, there's nothing inherently wrong with suggesting that we shouldn't invest in military misadventures around the world, and something like the TSA -- a highly salient example of government waste -- is easy to attack (though eliminating it's miniscule $8b cost is hardly a substantial step towards balancing the federal budget).

Unfortunately for Paul and his supporters, there's a rather large chasm between general ideas and specific substantive policies, and Paul does not seem to be able to bridge that gap in any coherent way.

For example, just on the first page of his "Plan to Restore America" Ron Paul promises to reduce government spending by, inter alia, eliminating the Department of Commerce and "abolishing corporate subsidies" under the heading "spending." On the very same page, under the heading "taxes," however, Paul suggests drastically reducing the corporate tax rate in order to make America "competitive in the global market," and allow American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxes to "[spur] trillions in new investment."

So, instead of subsidizing corporations (to make the competitive in the global market) we're going to lower their taxes... to make them competitive in the global market? And we're going to axe the Department of Commerce, thereby eliminating the United States Patent and Trademark Office, but give corporations tax breaks on repatriated cash so that they can invest in... what exactly?

Similarly, Paul promises to "[cut] government waste," yet he calls for spending freezes in nearly every federal department. Spending freezes result in programs being abandoned part-way through, and corners being cut in continuing programs that may ultimately cause them to fail. I don't know about you, but to me, that sounds like policy that would increase waste, not "cut" it.

Under the heading "regulation," Paul also suggests requiring "thorough congressional review and authorization before implementing any new regulations issued by bureaucrats." So, under his plan, Congress is going to enact statutes delegating quasi-legislative authority to federal agencies on the theory that they're institutionally better-suited to conducting the kind of detailed and thorough investigation necessary to enact specific regulations within their field of expertise. Then, once the regulations are issued, they'll be sent back to Congress to re-thoroughly-investigate them. Well, that sounds perfectly logical, highly efficient, and not likely to generate any government waste.

It's not merely bad policy; it isn't even coherent! It's non-sense designed to confuse, bamboozle, and give false hope to people desperate for radical change and all-too-eager to accept the first promise of a quick fix floated their way.

Not all of Ron Paul's ideas are bad, and the people who support him are probably mostly good people. Maybe, some day, someone will come along who can take the good ideas that Paul and his supporters have and turn them into proposed policies that actually make sense. If they do, they might even earn my support (especially if the competition remains as inept as they are right now). But, unfortunately, that time isn't now, and Ron Paul isn't that person.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter

this thread took off

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT No, not why capitalism is anarchic; I was asking why and how, in detail, capitalism produces negative results and why government regulation (force and violence) is necessary to control particular parts of an economy or an economy as a whole and why these means produce better outcomes as a whole, in your opinion.

but i don't think capitalism produces negative results per se, i am very happy with capitalism. but individual businesses certainly do create such results on occasion. ENRON for instance. the recent baby formula scandal in china. Madoff. edit: and then there's examples of illegal fishing (like abalone) that i am personally involved in enforcing penalties for. private companies are no less capable of breaking laws than indiviudal citizens; and as such there needs to be controls to prevent, guide and/or punish.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT Can you prove any of this? I know that you believe this but can you please explain in detail why you believe this? If a college professor, for example, said "Government deregulation is bad and if you want to know why, look at the derivatives market; here ends the lesson", I'm pretty sure most people would feel cheated and want their money back. You're going to have to do a lot better then that in order to make a good argument for your position.

how would i go about proving this do you think? the general consensus that derivatives were "financial weapons of mass destruction" is reasonably well established and i simply accept the opinions of people far more able to understand complex financial instruments than i am. but i would argue that the risk management in the GFC was quite obviously responsible for increased levels of systemic risk

quote:

As people became successful quickly, they used derivatives not to reduce their risk, but to take on more risk to make more money. Greed started to kick in. Businesses started to go into areas that was not necessarily part of their underlying business... The trade in these swaps created a whole web of interlinked dependencies; a chain only as strong as the weakest link. Any problem, such as risk or actual significant loss could spread quickly... Derivatives didn�t cause this financial meltdown but they did accelerate it once the subprime mortgage collapsed, because of the interlinked investments. Derivatives revolutionized the financial markets and will likely be here to stay because there is such a demand for insurance and mitigating risk. The challenge now, Davis summarized, is to reign in the wilder excesses of derivatives to avoid those incredibly expensive disasters and prevent more AIGs happening.

http://www.globalissues.org/article...inancial-crisis


i also never stated "government de-regulation is bad".

additional info on greenspan et al preventing the regulation of financial instruments:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/

all the shit flinging aside, does anyone really still believe in the whole democracy thing? I mean, aside from the fact that you actually get to vote for the clowns that call themselves "leaders"?

I don't believe any of them, it really doesn't fucking matter who is in the white house - this bullshit we call our government is nothing but partisan cockblocking every step of the way. Like a really fucked up couple that should have divorced a long time ago but they stay together just to piss each other off. the way the system is set up, I don't think even Jesus himself could unfuck this country from itself.

So, Paul can dream all he wants but I would wage a good chunk of my paycheck (and it's not a small one either) that we'd sooner see aliens land on the white house lawn then real change in washington. as long as corporate interests have a hand up your elected officials' ass, you better stfu and suck it up - because it doesn't matter what they say.

Be it Ron Paul, Obama, Mutt, or Ricky - whoever, nothing will change. You know who I vote for? Santa. He constantly delivers. and I'm not even Christian.

So, next election... VOTE SANTA!

and foreigners: why are you so curious in american politics?

quote:

Originally posted by aNYthing and foreigners: why are you so curious in american politics?

Some people actually care about other countries than the one they live in themselves. Mind blown?

quote:

Originally posted by Redd Some people actually care about other countries than the one they live in themselves. Mind blown?

you mean "care" as in "care to piss on"?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.