Ron Paul
i deleted the post.
if you delete the quote,
it will be gone from the thread.
Quote: 98ClubsDon't make me laugh, R. P. is a guy that ran a 3-man business negligently, and tries to silence that history.
I don't know what you are referring to.
Quote: bigfoot66OK you claimed that the Fed does not control interest rates, I agreed that you were technically correct but that the fed has a very strong influence on rates. You debated that point as well so I made this statement:
The federal reserve and member banks through open market Activities as well as fractional reserve banking causes the money Supply to expand and contract. These fluctuations affect the Interest rate in a way that changes in savings would in a 100% reserve banking system using a commodity based money.
You jumped immediately to the fact that fractional reserve banking is next to impossible to abolish. I agree. But set aside policy for a minute man, I am trying to understand your point about the Fed. In what way is my analysis incorrect, or what am I missing here?
Who's savings? The banks? or depositors? Because depositors saving would only have an effect on a interest rates in a 100% reserve system if their savings accounts were not "on demand" accounts(meaning funds are no instantly available for withdrawal)....If a bank cant fractional loan more money then it has on hand based on deposits(which would be the case in a 100% reserve bank) then the amount of "savings" of its depositors is irrelevant....unless of course like I said before they were unable to withdrawal it once it was deposited....Kinda like buying a CD or a money market account or and annuity where you don't have access to your funds for a time period certain...In that case then yes savings would effect interest rates because more savings would mean increase liquidity which in most cases lowers interest rates...
But like I said before....a 100% reserve banking system is not realistic. Who wants to deposit their pay check on Friday and not have access to it for 6 months? Because that would be the only way a banking system like that could work....
Quote: vert1276Quote: bigfoot66OK you claimed that the Fed does not control interest rates, I agreed that you were technically correct but that the fed has a very strong influence on rates. You debated that point as well so I made this statement:
The federal reserve and member banks through open market Activities as well as fractional reserve banking causes the money Supply to expand and contract. These fluctuations affect the Interest rate in a way that changes in savings would in a 100% reserve banking system using a commodity based money.
You jumped immediately to the fact that fractional reserve banking is next to impossible to abolish. I agree. But set aside policy for a minute man, I am trying to understand your point about the Fed. In what way is my analysis incorrect, or what am I missing here?
Who's savings? The banks? or depositors? Because depositors saving would only have an effect on a interest rates in a 100% reserve system if their savings accounts were not "on demand" accounts(meaning funds are no instantly available for withdrawal)....If a bank cant fractional loan more money then it has on hand based on deposits(which would be the case in a 100% reserve bank) then the amount of "savings" of its depositors is irrelevant....unless of course like I said before they were unable to withdrawal it once it was deposited....Kinda like buying a CD or a money market account or and annuity where you don't have access to your funds for a time period certain...In that case then yes savings would effect interest rates because more savings would mean increase liquidity which in most cases lowers interest rates...
But like I said before....a 100% reserve banking system is not realistic. Who wants to deposit their pay check on Friday and not have access to it for 6 months? Because that would be the only way a banking system like that could work....
Well it would be more likely in a world without government deposit insurance. Regardless, Savings is supposed to drive the interest rate rather than the whims of the bureauracrat who runs the federal reserve, BTW you still have not adequately explained why the conventional wisdom that the fed heavily influences the interest rate is wrong.
As consumers save, they consume less today and indicate that they wish to consume more in the future. Thus some resources that could be used to create consumer goods can instead be used to create producer goods like machinery that will allow more goods to be produced in the future. Higher savings means more money is available to be loaned out to finance the creation of these things. When the fed monkeys with the interest rate we get the signals that tell entreprenuers to borrow and finance production goods but the savings is not there to support it. Ultimately it becomes clear that the resources to finish the product are just not there and we see abandoned projects like the many in Vegas....This is the Bust portion of the cycle.
see sig
Quote: richbailey86ron paul is good
see sig
Ron Paul is a nut job : “The Kennedy assassination probe and commission, we don’t know the truth about that, and probably 80 percent of the American people don’t even believe that [Lee Harvey] Oswald was the only one involved,” Paul said. “Also we don’t know all we should know about Martin Luther King assassination, either.”
Quote: BuzzardRon Paul is a nut job : “The Kennedy assassination probe and commission, we don’t know the truth about that,
"It is possible that new evidence in the Kennedy assassination will never materialize......Thus far, public documents not originally released in or part of the Warren Commission's report from 1964 have not demonstrated that there was any kind of conspiracy, yet clearly most Americans disagree with the official findings. Speculating about who was really responsible for Kennedy's death will likely remain a topic of fascination for the American public for many years to come."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
Everything has not been released, so there will always be skepticism over the truth.
Quote: Buzzardand probably 80 percent of the American people don’t even believe that [Lee Harvey] Oswald was the only one involved,” Paul said.
He's a bit off on his percentages, but a clear majority still believe Oswald did not act alone; though more do believe
he did so now than before:
Americans were skeptical about the "lone gunman" theory almost immediately after Kennedy was killed. In a poll conducted Nov. 22-27, 1963, Gallup found that 29% of Americans believed one man was responsible for the shooting and 52% believed others were involved in a conspiracy.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
"A reported 61 percent of people still maintain the belief that others were involved, a release on the poll’s findings shows."
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/11/15/poll-61-percent-of-americans-believe-oswald-did-not-act-alone-in-jfks-death/
Quote: Buzzard“Also we don’t know all we should know about Martin Luther King assassination, either.”
There as always been some talk of this also.
It is hard to call Ron Paul a "nut job" on these particular issues...he isn't very far from the mainstream on them.
And on some issues he has great views, such as gold standard, and preventing inflation.
But I now disagree with him severly on foreign policy. I used to love his foriegn policy views until I learned more about the world. Sometimes direct interefence is nesecary to prevent Fascist Dictatoriships (Iraq) and to prevent the spread of religous extremeists. I don't think stopping all foreign miitary involvlments would be good, in fact it could be horrible. There are a lot of messed up people in the world and a lot of hatred and anti-semetism. A force of rightous global forces is needed to contain the evil.
Quote: GandlerA force of rightous global forces is needed to contain the evil.
Wait... since when did American foreign policy aim to PREVENT fascist dictatorships? Post WW2, of course. Our foreign policy is governed by self-interest, like anyone elses. But the "self" isn't you and me. We've supported, I don't know, a couple dozen fascist dictatorships, often overthrowing democratic governments. My wife used to live under one. Oddly, I've never met anyone in her country who is grateful for our righteousness.
The stuff with the Islamists is win/win. We blow up their people, the Islamists get more recruits and power. They blow us up, we surrender more rights and dump another few trillion of taxpayer money into the coffers of the military industrial complex. I don't buy the idea that, even if we weren't bothering them, some guy in Saudi Arabia would want to blow up Americans just because we have too much T&A on television.
I think Ron is a moderate kook, but he has some good ideas. I figure the mechanisms of power are too refined and powerful at this point for any real democratic influence to have much of an effect. If someone like Paul, or Nader or Perot ever made it, everything possible would be done to insure that they came across as a failure, sending us scurrying back to the status quo. The Reps and Dems are both quite willing to hurt the general population to sabotage each other. Imagine what they would do to a real outsider who wanted to disrupt the fundamental basis for their status as elites.
Still, a long shot is better than no shot.
Quote: Rigondeaux
The stuff with the Islamists is win/win. We blow up their people, the Islamists get more recruits and power. They blow us up, we surrender more rights and dump another few trillion of taxpayer money into the coffers of the military industrial complex. I don't buy the idea that, even if we weren't bothering them, some guy in Saudi Arabia would want to blow up Americans just because we have too much T&A on television.
I think you have some real insights there, but I disagree with the statement that ...'just because we have too much T&A on television.' That, for the masses (which is where the revered suicide bombers come from), most of them under age 25, is exACTly why they think they're doing it. They're taught from babyhood that our culture is evil and that there is no co-existence possible. It may be that they're being manipulated by their leadership into thinking that, and the leadership has ulterior motives, but the power that resides within their semi-illiterate masses is a single-minded hatred and intolerance for anything Western, Christian, Jewish, or non-Islam. It's a constant drumbeat of conventional wisdom in their schools, their mosques, and their social activities. It's only their privileged class that gets sent to school outside of their boundaries, and their class system is quite rigid in not allowing most people to become knowledgeable about parallel societies or any redeeming qualities of other cultures.
Iran is one of the few where there is some awareness; Jordan is another. Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, most of the rest, all very narrow. Dubai, I'm not quite sure what's going on there; there's a heavily-enforced segregation between the ruling class and everyone else, which sort-of includes all the foreigners they've brought in (like a lot of ATC friends of mine), who have zones they're allowed in, and others where they're not.
Quote: RigondeauxWait... since when did American foreign policy aim to PREVENT fascist dictatorships? Post WW2, of course. Our foreign policy is governed by self-interest, like anyone elses. But the "self" isn't you and me. We've supported, I don't know, a couple dozen fascist dictatorships, often overthrowing democratic governments. My wife used to live under one. Oddly, I've never met anyone in her country who is grateful for our righteousness.
The stuff with the Islamists is win/win. We blow up their people, the Islamists get more recruits and power. They blow us up, we surrender more rights and dump another few trillion of taxpayer money into the coffers of the military industrial complex. I don't buy the idea that, even if we weren't bothering them, some guy in Saudi Arabia would want to blow up Americans just because we have too much T&A on television.
I think Ron is a moderate kook, but he has some good ideas. I figure the mechanisms of power are too refined and powerful at this point for any real democratic influence to have much of an effect. If someone like Paul, or Nader or Perot ever made it, everything possible would be done to insure that they came across as a failure, sending us scurrying back to the status quo. The Reps and Dems are both quite willing to hurt the general population to sabotage each other. Imagine what they would do to a real outsider who wanted to disrupt the fundamental basis for their status as elites.
Still, a long shot is better than no shot.
That is true. In some places in the world (Middle East specifically) sometimes a secular Dictatoriship gets overthrown for democracy and that turns into religious extrmeists running the place. So it can be a lose/lose. Though Dictators can be cruel and abusive, they also tend to keep the religous people in line, which is something more progressive democracies often fail at (and hence get overrun like the ISIS situtation somewhat).
But even though I disagree with him, I don't think that he is a kook, he has his principles and he strictly keeps them, one thing I can say in his defense is he is very consistant. And he is very intelligent, I think he understands how the goverment works better than most politicians, he constantly corrects people on how to get bills properly passed etc... But the problem for me is I don't think standing by while their is injustice in the world is right, I think sometimes we need to help with nation building. But I respect his views. And if he somehow won the nomination in the future I would probably vote for him, because he would provide a balance and different perpective against the congress.
But back to your comments about them getting more recruits, they are getting more and more from Europe, very educated people are dropping out of school and leaving their jobs to go to the Middle East and join them. I don't think this is directly effected by our strikes. They have a very effective method of propaganda, and their quick succsess is convincing a lot of previously moderate Muslims that they must be Holy and sanctioned by God. Which is all the more reason that they must be stopped. They are some of the most twisted people on the planet, some of the killings they have been doing would probably make upper level Nazis cringe. And even worst they are convinced that they are doing God's work and so feel no remorse or questions of anything they are asked to do. ISIS is the perfect example of why I hate religion. It is the only force that can make good/sane people engage in self-destructive behavior for no personal beneftit.
I'm not big of religion either, though I'm of the "if it makes you happy and doesn't hurt anyone, I don't care" school. I'm not really an expert but it seems to me that Islam is the most dangerous major religion. The fanaticism in the ME is troubling. I'm aware of some of the methods for propagating fanaticism. As I understand it, a lot of this is funded by our allies in Saudi Arabia.
However, I still think we are playing right into the hands of fanatics by doing things like killing thousands of Muslims in the ME. It's pretty easy to sell people on the idea that some country thousands of miles away is evil when that country just blew up a wedding where little kids were splattered all over the place. It's pretty hard to sell people on the idea that some country thousands of miles away, that has almost nothing to do with anyone in your country, is evil because they watch dirty movies.
Think of it from our mirror perspective. You can tell an American, "hey, in the ME you can be hanged for being gay or stoned for adultery (if you are a woman)." The average American will say, "wow, those people are messed up." Though some of us are only a stone's throw from such beliefs. But we get really motivated to kill and die over there when we they come over here and hurt us. I'm sure it's the same for them. Violent intervention from a foreign country doesn't push people towards moderate views, it pushes them to extremism. Which is great news if you make money off violence and extremism.
Moreover, Al Qaeda and such groups are very open about their motives. According to them, they mainly want us to GTFO of their neck of the woods. If we did, it would be pretty hard for them to blame all their problems on us. They would, of course, still try. Just as our leaders and media try to keep us as afraid of terrorism as possible. But eventually it would fail to hold water.
Quote: Rigondeaux
I'm not big of religion either, though I'm of the "if it makes you happy and doesn't hurt anyone, I don't care" school. I'm not really an expert but it seems to me that Islam is the most dangerous major religion. The fanaticism in the ME is troubling. I'm aware of some of the methods for propagating fanaticism. As I understand it, a lot of this is funded by our allies in Saudi Arabia.
Moreover, Al Qaeda and such groups are very open about their motives. According to them, they mainly want us to GTFO of their neck of the woods. If we did, it would be pretty hard for them to blame all their problems on us. They would, of course, still try. Just as our leaders and media try to keep us as afraid of terrorism as possible. But eventually it would fail to hold water.
Yes America is not perfect, without a doubt we have made some horrendous mistakes with some policies. And still do for sure.
But the problem is religion hurts a lot of people. If people just sat in their rooms and prayed or whatever on their own time that is one thing. But when people discriminate against homosexual rights, which regardless of how "gross" or "icky" homosexual activity seems to you, there is no logical reason to be against it, religion is the only driving force of homosexual harassment and discrimination. And there are still countries in the world where homosexuals are still stoned just purely for being homosexuals (Hint: they are all Muslim countries where Islam is the state mandated religion).
ISIS does want us out. But they want to restore the caliphate. They fantasize of an Islamic Empire being reborn. They are trying to take over as much land as they can. If you think crucifying people (fellow Muslims by the way who just have a different interpretation than them) and playing soccer with human heads is acceptable behavior. Sometimes the world needs a "world police" as Dr. Paul likes to condescendingly refer to America and some European countries as. ISIS will not go away on their own. The Iraqi Army has already proven very inadequate of even putting a dent in them. What happens if (likely when if no action is taken). ISIS takes Iraq and Syria? Will they just sit there happily and let everyone under their regime live in peace?
Al Queda is another organization that wants more than that. They also want to build a caliphate. The only reason that they want us to get out is because we are trying to keep them from gaining power.
Quote: soxfanAt one point, say 20-30 years ago, a Ron Paul type might have been able to right the ship with libertarian solutions; but that time has passed. There are now no peaceful, political, non-violent solutions for America' problems, none! And beyond that, I'll say this; if you are an ordinary White American and not exceedingly rich the government, and all of its' arms, including the so-called "justice" system is you mortal F@#$%^& enemy! And that is all I have to say about that, hey hey!
I disagree to your second point.
But as for the first part. Yes. There is no way to reason with people who reject the use of reasons. If you are suicidal and willing to fight until the death negotiations will not be effective. But its not just America's problem it's more so the Middle East's problem. I don't think ISIS is loved by most in the Middle East, especially in the non Muslim populations, but even the large majority of Muslims are against them, heck even AL Queda says they are too violent...
Quote: GandlerBut I now disagree with him severly on foreign policy. I used to love his foriegn policy views until I learned more about the world. Sometimes direct interefence is nesecary to prevent Fascist Dictatoriships (Iraq) and to prevent the spread of religous extremeists. I don't think stopping all foreign miitary involvlments would be good, in fact it could be horrible. There are a lot of messed up people in the world and a lot of hatred and anti-semetism. A force of rightous global forces is needed to contain the evil.
I understand your concerns here and they are valid. It is difficult to argue that "we ought not stand up" to the bad guys of the world. In a perfect world we would certainly be shooting bad guys to protect the good guys. The real world is much more complicated. We supported Saddam Hussein when he was a young rebel in order to defeat bad guys. Same thing with Bin Laden. Is it possible that the government is as ham handed overseas as they are domestically, and that their policies often achieve the opposite of their intended results? Pakistani government officials believe that perhaps 80% of people killed in drone strikes are "completely innocent", is it possible that this kind of killing radicalizes people to the point that it creates people who hate America?
Quote: soxfanAt one point, say 20-30 years ago, a Ron Paul type might have been able to right the ship with libertarian solutions; but that time has passed.
I would say just the opposite and history seems to be on my side. 30 years ago it was difficult to access libertarian information, you would really have to hunt it down. Now it is all available on the internet. Ron Paul ran for president in 88 and got nowhere, but his support grew rapidly during the 2012 and especially 08 election cycles. I don't think that the government has fundamentally changed that much in the last 50 years.
