|
The Congressional Record of Ron Paul (Or, Why He Is Batshit Crazy) (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
lol Lez, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. ;)
|
I suppose so.
| quote: |
I believe Paul is dead right about economics including issues of trade. He has studied the Austrian school which I believe to be far more accurate in the real-world than any other theories. |
As a student of international development I obviously despise neo-liberal economics. Reagan and Thatcher adhered to a lot of Hayek's original principles, and ruined wide swaths of the world doing it. Neo-liberalism is great for those that already have an accumulation of wealth. For those that don't, it's a death sentence.
And to what extent does Paul really understand Hayek and Friedman? He's never been trained as an economist, and yet his supporters accept his views as gospel. I don't think he even understands neo-liberal trade policy, since even Friedman never recommended abandoning the WTO. Quite the contrary, the global governance institutions were heavily influenced by Austrian and Chicago economics to deleterious effect. Neo-liberalism is a hegemonic agenda that was pushed upon much of the world through the World Bank and IMF. The results were disastrous, which is why you see a complete re-tooling of World Bank priorities that begun in the 90's.
If you want to see what the US would look like under a true neo-liberal economic policy, take a look at the way Austrian-school economists ran Chile's economy through the 70's and 80's under Augusto Pinochet. Hardly a bright spot in that nation's history. And it would hardly be a bright spot in our own.
| quote: |
Given your support for Kucinich, I'm guessing you lean left, so you probably won't agree with it. But at least take a look:
|
I don't support Kucinech, but I do believe that he stays truer to the Constitution than Paul does. |
|
|
| venomX |
:wtf: You are blind! I am always amaze how people want to participate in a debate forum, and then when they are obviously wrong and have no arguments left they want to agree to disagree. I'm sorry, but agreeing to disagree on an issue as important as the president you will vote for is preposterous. You want to know why the US is faring so poorly in the world stage right now? It's because of people making decisions based on their emotions and not on fact. Legislation that Paul voted on is fact. That is were he's true leanings are shown. What he said during a speech is not fact, is merely what he wants you to know. After all he is like all other politicians. You and krypton talk about how other politicians are sneaky, mischievous and deceiving, Paul is but the same. He is willfully neglecting to mention any of the bills he's voted on because he does not want people to ask him the tough questions on where he really stands. All he has said, and all you believe, are just teasers of his true ideals. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
Leb, just curious, who are you exactly voting for in the upcoming US elections, I wont scrutinize you ... |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Leb, just curious, who are you exactly voting for in the upcoming US elections, I wont scrutinize you ... |
I dare say it's far too early for most to say with 100% conviction given that the elections are a year away and we're just getting into the nominating process. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
Tariffs are essentially a way of subsidizing your own country's economic inefficiency. They're ultimately bad for everyone, but politicians don't care about "ultimate" results. They just want to do what will get them and their friends re-elected.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
If you want to see what the US would look like under a true neo-liberal economic policy, take a look at the way Austrian-school economists ran Chile's economy through the 70's and 80's under Augusto Pinochet. |
Those economists were Chicago-school, actually. They were trained under Milton Friedman and nicknamed "the Chicago Boys." |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Tariffs are essentially a way of subsidizing your own country's economic inefficiency. They're ultimately bad for everyone, but politicians don't care about "ultimate" results. They just want to do what will get them and their friends re-elected.
|
There are cases where they can be good, like when protecting infant industries. But I agree that the most mutually beneficial state is free trade, and that's what we should aspire to. But for that, we need the WTO.
| quote: | | Those economists were Chicago-school, actually. They were trained under Milton Friedman and nicknamed "the Chicago Boys." |
Yeah, I lump Chicago and Austria together sometimes since Friedman was a student of Hayek. Chicago was more or less just an extension of the Austrian economic school beyond the realm of theory and into policy. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Leb, just curious, who are you exactly voting for in the upcoming US elections, I wont scrutinize you ... |
If I could President Bartlet, but unfortunately real life is never as ideal as television.
My primary vote will likely go to Biden, but Obama is still a possibility as well. At this point I would rank my top three choices as Biden, Obama, and Dodd. Foreign Policy (restoring American integrity in the world) and Education are my top two priorities, and those are the candidates that best reflect that. |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
I didn't know governments were supposed to be for profit..:haha:
Lower taxes mean bigger business, so what's wrong with that? I do believe he wants state's to decide the abortion issue, not the federal government. Isolationism? Hardly... Ever heard of Reaganomics? That's basically what RP is proposing. It worked beautifully in the 1980's, and don't forget that!
He isn't proposing abolishing the federal government, he's proposing to reduce it. Exactly the platform the Republican Party is supposed to run on, but has for some reason abandoned, thus why we call them NEO-conservatives. I guess Libertarians have become the true conservatives here in my opinion. |
But the government needs money to run, just like a business. You don't have a functioning government if the government has limited resources. Those in government need to be payed too. I'm sure Ron Paul makes a lot more than the average American, and who is paying his salary? US. When you cut taxes so much, you don't have services, and without services, what's the use of government? Unless you want to be the one funding our mistakes (like the Iraq war), we can't just go into a country and continue cutting taxes.
There should be a temporary increase in taxes until we've got a balanced budget and then lower them, not lower them in hopes that it will starve the beast if you will...and when you do that..you're forced to borrow. What's the use of having government if it only has a few mundane functions.
In a sense, he wants to create a weak central government but give the central government's functions over to the state. However, do the State's have the resources as the federal government does? Now I'm not for a totalitarian or police-state type government, hell no, nor an absolute welfare state either, but at least a fairly strong, central government that provides for it's people...and this is not being done, especially with the Bush government. I don't think our founders necessarily wanted a government that didn't provide for it's people, one that did but also respected INDIVIDUAL liberty and you don't have individual liberty if the government doesn't provide services (ones that work, and it is true, the services we do have don't always work and our tax money isn't always used correctly, but that doesn't mean eliminate or decrease taxation significantly). Limit the government's functions in some areas, like make privacy a bigger issue, but not taxation. People pay higher taxes in other countries but it seems like we are one of the few countries that complains all of the time like we are paying as much as France does....we aren't... |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
You want to know why the US is faring so poorly in the world stage right now? It's because of people making decisions based on their emotions and not on fact. |
No I would say we are doing so poorly because they have been doing the OPPOSITE of what we should have been doing in many areas for the past 50 years or so. Almost everything our government does is ass backwards, from foreign policy to economic policy. Paul represents a 180 degree turn from the status quo which is why I support him. |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
No I would say we are doing so poorly because they have been doing the OPPOSITE of what we should have been doing in many areas for the past 50 years or so. Almost everything our government does is ass backwards, from foreign policy to economic policy. Paul represents a 180 degree turn from the status quo which is why I support him. |
But how do you know that his 180 degree turn won't be a turn for an even worse? Cutting taxes even further (when the government already doesn't get enough or borrows so they can..and then spend it unwisely which we know). Some of his ideas are more like "let's see how it works" almost experimental rather than necessarily practical. The great changes he talks about I highly doubt would get enacted in congress..he would be a lame duck to begin with, no matter what party is the majority. And that does present a problem..nothing gets done! Why not push for reform rather than "get rid of the IRS", "pull us out of this treaty or that treaty" or "get us out of the UN and NATO". Yeah a good way to make change is to snub your nose or eliminate this and eliminate that...big 180 degree turn. Like I said...congress would not budge, either party...for a huge drastic change. Not that change shouldn't happen, it's just not going to happen over night. |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
No I would say we are doing so poorly because they have been doing the OPPOSITE of what we should have been doing in many areas for the past 50 years or so. Almost everything our government does is ass backwards, from foreign policy to economic policy. Paul represents a 180 degree turn from the status quo which is why I support him. |
So you're saying that this administration for example, has been making decisions based on facts and that is why the US is in such bad state right now? Considering Bush's record of doing exactly the opposite, ie. making decisions on incorrect data, you seem to be confusing what making decisions on facts and making decisions on emotions is. |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| Ron Paul is no different than any other politician or doctor. Doctors try to come across like they really care about you, when all they really want is your money. Politicians just want your vote, and Ron Paul just so happens to be both a politician and a doctor. |
|
|
|
|
