Jump to content

Ron Paul On Face The Nation


Recommended Posts

I'm guessing you still have me on ignore because I enjoy poking holes in your absurdity, BUT:What scenario would you suspect holds a higher probability of producing outcomes which "can so dramatically harm us"?A. A group of incredibly well-educated and experienced economic scholars and practitioners with no political aspirations or motivations drive the nation's monetary policyB. A group of scumbag, child-molesting politicians with the collective IQ of a large sock full of horse manure whose opinions sway in the breeze with each new poll and would drown their own mothers if it meant getting re-elected drive the nation's monetary policyRon Paul seems to have a problem with the Fed because they aren't elected and therefore don't represent the people. It takes the mind of a toddler to poke holes in this line of thinking.1. The Fed Chairman and Board of Governors are nominated by the President (elected by the people) and approved by the Senate (also elected by the people).2. Every SC justice, appeals and district court judge is nominated and approved in the exact same manner. Does Ron Paul have a problem with this as well? I'm guessing not because it's written into the Constitution and he interprets the document like the people who interpret every word in the Bible as literal and relevant today. Congress founded the central bank in 1913 and easily could've made a Constitutional amendment. That they didn't is irrelevant to everyone except the crackpot right. But yes, apparently everyone was in on the grand conspiracy, the greatest conspiracy the world has ever known, the one in which the U.S. Congress creates a central bank, allowing a 'private' entity to destroy the lives of all Americans for all eternity. To what end is anyone's guess.3. See 'B' above, i.e. the entire point of the Fed is to insulate monetary policy from the whims of politicians who often have no formal training in economics and possess the moral fortitude of psychopaths.
Did anyone already call mk out on this massive massive strawman? Hell, this might even be a wickerman or burningman.In any case, that's a huge ass man made of collapsible shit.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 247
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Did anyone already call mk out on this massive massive strawman? Hell, this might even be a wickerman or burningman.In any case, that's a huge ass man made of collapsible shit.
MK mostly just comes here to troll, there's no need to reply to any of that nonsense. Block it and this forum is 13.8% better.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Did anyone already call mk out on this massive massive strawman? Hell, this might even be a wickerman or burningman.In any case, that's a huge ass man made of collapsible shit.
Uhh...what are you talking about? Why don't you just go ahead and call me out, big guy? And p.s. just saying "I call you out" doesn't qualify; it's meaningless because I have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
MK mostly just comes here to troll, there's no need to reply to any of that nonsense. Block it and this forum is 13.8% better.
1. Fuck you2. Fuck you3. You are a fucking child who's taken his ball and gone home because you can't handle being told when you're wrong (which is nearly always) by someone who CLEARLY knows INFINITELY more about every topic discussed here (YES THAT'S ME). The forum is "13.8% better" because you have one less person to poke holes in your libertarian la la land unrealistic bullshit.4. Fuck you5. Unignore me and feel my fucking wrath, bitch. I shall rain my Ron Paul disparagement upon thee6. I still respond to you constantly because everything you post is so flatly incorrect, day and night, night and day. MY TROLLING WILL NOT CEASE UNTIL YOUR ABSURD, EXTREMIST VIEWPOINTS ARE RENDERED AS SUCH TO THE COMMUNITY7. Continuing to ignore me simply means: I win. It shows nothing other than deep insecurity in one's ideology when one is clearly incapable of even HEARING arguments which poke holes in one's opinions. Enjoy your echo chamber of isolated, idiotic thought. 8. Fuck you
Link to post
Share on other sites

hemadhonestly don't understand the people who so passionately hate bernanke. I'm not even making the claim that his policies have helped, because lol @ trying to prove that, but let's just start with how a rather huge number of people have so far missed the mark about the impact we were supposed to see from the tripling of the fed's balance sheet. that position is not just a ron paul one... watch a second or two of fox news, it's the right's go-to talking point, and I find that baffling.I mean, sorry if I sound like I'm just regurgitating krugman's talking points, but I was talking about the US borrowing at negative real interest rates over a year ago, using it as an example of how ron paul and the like differ so dramatically from what the market says.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Uhh...what are you talking about? Why don't you just go ahead and call me out, big guy? And p.s. just saying "I call you out" doesn't qualify; it's meaningless because I have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
You stated Ron Paul's motivations, based on nothing, and then attacked the shit out of them.Ron Paul's hatred of the fed is a lot broader than just the fact that they aren't elected. I mean, he wrote an entire book on the subject, and I'm pretty sure page one didn't say, "because they aren't elected", followed by a bunch of blank pages.
Link to post
Share on other sites
hemadhonestly don't understand the people who so passionately hate bernanke. I'm not even making the claim that his policies have helped, because lol @ trying to prove that, but let's just start with how a rather huge number of people have so far missed the mark about the impact we were supposed to see from the tripling of the fed's balance sheet. that position is not just a ron paul one... watch a second or two of fox news, it's the right's go-to talking point, and I find that baffling.
I agree that the results of the 2008 fiasco were not a plan, the people in charge making decision were not evil, or even fully responsible.The politicians started pretty much every ball rolling, either pushing bad loans, pressuring to keep interest rates low, spending like no tomorrow etc.The Goldman Sachs-type guys exploited things to personally gain, then dumped it off.The Fed guys reacted late, made decisions based on fear/conventional wisdom that didn't turn out so good.To place the blame on anyone one person or group is not possible.But I would still be cool watching a bunch of financial guys get thrown in jail. They kind of made it worse than it had to be by a factor of a million.My biggest worry is that nothing will be learned from this, because it's so easy for everyone to blame everyone else and think what they did was fine.That's why this story made me happy20 more stories like this would be a good start.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumb cunts who are silly enough to join FCP in 2011 shouldn't really be allowed to post in this section.
Right, cause you're doing such a great job, as evidenced by the above.
Link to post
Share on other sites
My biggest worry is that nothing will be learned from this, because it's so easy for everyone to blame everyone else and think what they did was fine.
I fear that nothing will be learned, too, even from the citizens with no direct involvement. People like myself will have their opinion confirmed that the problem is that the government meddled in the housing market and gambled with other people's money, and therefore the solution is less government involvement. Other people will have their opinion confirmed that the problem is unfettered capitalism will look for more government involvement to regulate the investments.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You stated Ron Paul's motivations, based on nothing, and then attacked the shit out of them.Ron Paul's hatred of the fed is a lot broader than just the fact that they aren't elected. I mean, he wrote an entire book on the subject, and I'm pretty sure page one didn't say, "because they aren't elected", followed by a bunch of blank pages.
Fine. It's certainly a major problem of his, though, yes, that he believes it's unconstitutional? We can agree on this?His other issues (none of which you've actually mentioned or thought to bring into any kind of discussion) include:1. Inflation and 'debasing' of the currency are disastrous for the economyIf the last 100 years of the U.S. economy, i.e. the broadest expansion of growth and employment in the history of the world resulting in the unquestionable global economic dominance of our country = disaster one really must wonder what results Ron Paul seeks to achieve. Do you agree with him that the U.S. economy since the creation of the Fed has been a disaster? Or do you think it's something that's still coming and we have to wait another hundred years or so? I'm never sure. Also, fiscal policy plays a major role in the nation's balance sheet and therefore the standing of the dollar vs. other global currencies. The Fed has nothing to do with that.2. War artificially inflates the economy like a sugar highFine, but since when does the Fed have control of the nation's war powers? Maybe I missed something; it happens occasionally.3. The 'Philosophical' Case for ending the FedI quote, at length:"The moral argument against the Fed should be simple, and it would be in a moral society. (p.149) "Congress though, is a reflection of the people. If the problem were seen as a moral problem and people were to demand morality in money from their representatives in government, the process would end. But the people endorse the system because they have requested and expect government to provide benefits that can’t be provided any other way. (p.150) "When times are good and the benefits are being enjoyed, no one is much interested in breaking up the party or worrying about morality in money. The Fed encourages irresponsible accumulation of personal debt. People live beyond their means with the help of an expansionist monetary policy. They trade their futures for the present, neglecting the need to save in order to spend more and more. In this sense the Fed is the ultimate promoter of consumerism and living for the present. This amounts to a terrible cultural distortion in which short-term thinking wins out over long-term planing." (p. 151)So this is a lot of what my "STRAWMAN" was referencing, i.e. "Congress, though, is a reflection of the people...." So, you know, EXACTLY what I was talking about. Reference my earlier "STRAWMAN" post for discussion of this 'point'."The Fed encourages irresponsible accumulation of personal debt."Why? How? Because Ron Paul says they do? This is as specious an argument as I have ever seen. The Fed in no way whatsoever concerns themselves with the personal spending habits of the American consumer. Blaming the Fed for the culture of consumerism in this country is PATENTLY ABSURD BOOGEYMANism. There's no proof, there's no way to quantify what he's saying. It's his personal opinion which has no basis in reality. HIS PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY does not gel with the notion of a group of experts controlling the nation's money supply. THIS DOES NOT MEAN IT IS AN INHERENTLY FLAWED SYSTEM. The mind of Ron Paul is not an absolute arbiter or what is and what is not correct. His argument for ending the Fed is essentially: I DON'T LIKE IT. Congrats. The expansion of the economy in the hundred years since the Fed's creation disagrees with you.4. Monetary policy was accommodative for too long, resulting in the real estate and credit bubbles of the mid 2000sThe steep rise in housing prices relative to personal income should have been a major red flag to all economists that the growth of the housing market was unsustainable. I don't disagree with this. I would, however, argue that monetary policy had less to do with it than the Ron Pauls of the world would lead people to believe. What had much more to do with it was the nonregulation of mortgage lending, i.e. subprime mortgages were created en masse with no lender taking responsibility for any of the loans, but instead bundling them up, taking their cut and passing them off to investors. The Fed does not regulate commerce. Congress is supposed to do that.5. The Fed creates boom and bust cycles and eliminating the Fed would end these cyclesThis another great one where you are asked to not look at history but merely trust in Ron Paul that it is so. The U.S. in the 1800s (especially late-1800s) experienced MASSIVE shocks of deflation and inflation. Prices of goods were actually LOWER in 1914 than they were in 1814 due to the money supply being limited to the physical supply of gold. THAT RON PAUL WISHES TO RETURN TO THIS SCENARIO IS TOTALLY INSANE LUDDITEism. Economic growth was artificially and painfully limited due to a currency which was pegged to the supply of a useless, arbitrary metal. The population continued to grow and the money supply did not increase along with it, limiting growth and creating deflationary spirals. Since the creation of the Fed we've had two major contractions, both caused by credit bubbles. The Fed's role in each is complex and not easily distilled into sound-bites (though more clear in the Great Depression, when monetary policy was too easy for too long in the 20s and then far too tight throughout the 30s), but OVERALL the economy has been MUCH more stable and as mentioned before, has expanded at a rate which is unprecedented in history.Ron Paul is a demagogue who has been predicting impending doom consistently and has been proven consistently wrong. When things are particularly bleak economically some of what he says begins to sound appealing to a wider mass audience because they're looking for a scapegoat to blame for their troubles and Ron Paul likes blaming a lot of people for a lot of things. It doesn't make his positions any more valid than they are when things are good.If this is seen as trolling, please forgive; it is not meant as such. If you think I'm off base tell me why.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fine. It's certainly a major problem of his, though, yes, that he believes it's unconstitutional? We can agree on this?His other issues (none of which you've actually mentioned or thought to bring into any kind of discussion) include:1. Inflation and 'debasing' of the currency are disastrous for the economyIf the last 100 years of the U.S. economy, i.e. the broadest expansion of growth and employment in the history of the world resulting in the unquestionable global economic dominance of our country = disaster one really must wonder what results Ron Paul seeks to achieve. Do you agree with him that the U.S. economy since the creation of the Fed has been a disaster? Or do you think it's something that's still coming and we have to wait another hundred years or so? I'm never sure. Also, fiscal policy plays a major role in the nation's balance sheet and therefore the standing of the dollar vs. other global currencies. The Fed has nothing to do with that.2. War artificially inflates the economy like a sugar highFine, but since when does the Fed have control of the nation's war powers? Maybe I missed something; it happens occasionally.3. The 'Philosophical' Case for ending the FedI quote, at length:"The moral argument against the Fed should be simple, and it would be in a moral society. (p.149) "Congress though, is a reflection of the people. If the problem were seen as a moral problem and people were to demand morality in money from their representatives in government, the process would end. But the people endorse the system because they have requested and expect government to provide benefits that can’t be provided any other way. (p.150) "When times are good and the benefits are being enjoyed, no one is much interested in breaking up the party or worrying about morality in money. The Fed encourages irresponsible accumulation of personal debt. People live beyond their means with the help of an expansionist monetary policy. They trade their futures for the present, neglecting the need to save in order to spend more and more. In this sense the Fed is the ultimate promoter of consumerism and living for the present. This amounts to a terrible cultural distortion in which short-term thinking wins out over long-term planing." (p. 151)So this is a lot of what my "STRAWMAN" was referencing, i.e. "Congress, though, is a reflection of the people...." So, you know, EXACTLY what I was talking about. Reference my earlier "STRAWMAN" post for discussion of this 'point'."The Fed encourages irresponsible accumulation of personal debt."Why? How? Because Ron Paul says they do? This is as specious an argument as I have ever seen. The Fed in no way whatsoever concerns themselves with the personal spending habits of the American consumer. Blaming the Fed for the culture of consumerism in this country is PATENTLY ABSURD BOOGEYMANism. There's no proof, there's no way to quantify what he's saying. It's his personal opinion which has no basis in reality. HIS PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY does not gel with the notion of a group of experts controlling the nation's money supply. THIS DOES NOT MEAN IT IS AN INHERENTLY FLAWED SYSTEM. The mind of Ron Paul is not an absolute arbiter or what is and what is not correct. His argument for ending the Fed is essentially: I DON'T LIKE IT. Congrats. The expansion of the economy in the hundred years since the Fed's creation disagrees with you.4. Monetary policy was accommodative for too long, resulting in the real estate and credit bubbles of the mid 2000sThe steep rise in housing prices relative to personal income should have been a major red flag to all economists that the growth of the housing market was unsustainable. I don't disagree with this. I would, however, argue that monetary policy had less to do with it than the Ron Pauls of the world would lead people to believe. What had much more to do with it was the nonregulation of mortgage lending, i.e. subprime mortgages were created en masse with no lender taking responsibility for any of the loans, but instead bundling them up, taking their cut and passing them off to investors. The Fed does not regulate commerce. Congress is supposed to do that.5. The Fed creates boom and bust cycles and eliminating the Fed would end these cyclesThis another great one where you are asked to not look at history but merely trust in Ron Paul that it is so. The U.S. in the 1800s (especially late-1800s) experienced MASSIVE shocks of deflation and inflation. Prices of goods were actually LOWER in 1914 than they were in 1814 due to the money supply being limited to the physical supply of gold. THAT RON PAUL WISHES TO RETURN TO THIS SCENARIO IS TOTALLY INSANE LUDDITEism. Economic growth was artificially and painfully limited due to a currency which was pegged to the supply of a useless, arbitrary metal. The population continued to grow and the money supply did not increase along with it, limiting growth and creating deflationary spirals. Since the creation of the Fed we've had two major contractions, both caused by credit bubbles. The Fed's role in each is complex and not easily distilled into sound-bites (though more clear in the Great Depression, when monetary policy was too easy for too long in the 20s and then far too tight throughout the 30s), but OVERALL the economy has been MUCH more stable and as mentioned before, has expanded at a rate which is unprecedented in history.Ron Paul is a demagogue who has been predicting impending doom consistently and has been proven consistently wrong. When things are particularly bleak economically some of what he says begins to sound appealing to a wider mass audience because they're looking for a scapegoat to blame for their troubles and Ron Paul likes blaming a lot of people for a lot of things. It doesn't make his positions any more valid than they are when things are good.If this is seen as trolling, please forgive; it is not meant as such. If you think I'm off base tell me why.
Good post. That's what happens when people who possess knowledge decide to share understanding. I learnt something from that post. That's why I post here. To learn and share understanding. This place however is beyond redemption because people don't want to learn, and in your case for example, people didn't want to share understanding. Anyway, thanks for the post - there is something I learnt which I want to expand on, and something which I disagree which i want to discuss. Will post a bit later.Surprised you responded sensibly, cos I had changed my profile and was ready to troll up this sh*thole until banned...
Link to post
Share on other sites
If this is seen as trolling, please forgive; it is not meant as such. If you think I'm off base tell me why.
I didn't take it as such. Thanks for the post.
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a few years old, but the NAACP, which is happy to play the race card at the drop of a hat, weighs in on the Ron Paul race card.The only people still playing the race card for Ron Paul are either intellectually dishonest or just total morons. There are plenty of things to dislike about RP, but racism is absolutely not one of them.Despite that, watch for the ridiculous attacks to grow. Even the Republicans are starting to play the race card against them as their spot at the Trough of Other People's Money is threatened.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The steep rise in housing prices relative to personal income should have been a major red flag to all economists that the growth of the housing market was unsustainable.
It did. Matter of fact, plenty of people were very vocal about it. As we know, there will always be some absurd narrative to justify any position, no matter how ****ing ridiculous it is. Peoples natural desire to believe what fits into their existing worldview- rather than what most closely adheres to a robust, objective logical construct- is usually the motivator of where they come out on any given issue. With housing, the driving force behind the ideal was 30% annual gains on home values. People had enormous, practical incentive to delude themselves into believing that it would go on forever. The small handful of people who are relentlessly objective, though, saw it coming from a mile off. A lot of your post is 'narrative driven'.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I wish you could bet on stuff like Newt Gingrich's campaign will rapidly implode.
so i just logged onto an online sportsbook i use thinking there must be some kind of line out there. Sadly there is a line for the grammy awards, Xfactor, next years ryder cup and a money line on the masters in april, soccer from around the world as well all of the normal sports and even the NY state lotto...but not Newt.my personal fav was the over/under number on ball totals for the lotto tonight, it was 100...LOL i'll take the over for -10 please...LOL.
Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-r...letters-2011-12Interesting take on Paul's racist newsletters from 20 years ago.
I started writing a longer response, but the article covered most of the points. I definitely criticize Paul for not outing who is responsible for that crap. If he had fired the person immediately, this issue would be even less of a starter than it is. Either way, bringing up 20 year old newsletters not written by him, written without his knowledge, and which he instantly disavowed -- it's showing the desperation of the old guard to protect their place at the trough.Ron Paul's record on racial issues speaks for itself. There are videos on YouTube of him defending equal rights and trying to eliminate unjust sentencing laws. This crap won't stick except for people who are looking for any excuse to keep government big, and they wouldn't vote for him anyway.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...