Ron Paul: Capitalism is Dead

[neurosport]

Wake up and smell the TRADE IMBALANCE.

in Soviet Union when you got sick with a fever you would stay at home in bed and rest. you would not take drugs unless the fever was dangerously high. you would only take vitamins and drink a lot of fluids.

in America you take a drug for cough, a drug for pain, a drug for fever and a drug against drowsiness and then you go back to work. in other words you treat all the symptoms while blocking all of the mechanisms that your body uses to actually fight the disease.

when Russians come to US and see what Americans do to their kids we laugh to tears.

before you set out on a crusade to treat the symptoms - why not examine the causes ? have you considered that trade imbalance may be a symptom of a deeper problem ?

editec buddy if your child had a cough i would not be surprised if you duct taped the mouth. then as the child went blue you would probably reach for pink paint.

is it really so hard to believe that there are reasons for things ?

 

[Agnapostate]

Ron Paul's "capitalism" was never alive to begin with, inasmuch as "free markets" are a utopian impossibility.

 

[mash107]

Ron Paul's "capitalism" was never alive to begin with, inasmuch as "free markets" are a utopian impossibility.

It was alive for the few moments in the 19th century, when government didn't feel the need to go to war or institute a national bank or intertwine silver with gold. Of course, statists always find a means to exploit a perfect system for their advantage.

Regardless, savings is where credit comes from. If we want a healthier economy, we'll rely less on leveraging and artificial credit and more on savings. Credit = Savings. Those that really do need credit to operate, companies that hire people, are being screwed now because whatever credit is available now is being spent by the government and consumers.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Ron Paul's "capitalism" was never alive to begin with, inasmuch as "free markets" are a utopian impossibility.

It was alive for the few moments in the 19th century, when government didn't feel the need to go to war or institute a national bank or intertwine silver with gold. Of course, statists always find a means to exploit a perfect system for their advantage.

Regardless, savings is where credit comes from. If we want a healthier economy, we'll rely less on leveraging and artificial credit and more on savings. Credit = Savings. Those that really do need credit to operate, companies that hire people, are being screwed now because whatever credit is available now is being spent by the government and consumers.

if i may:

Savings = Capital

Credit = Debt

 

[neurosport]

if i may:

Savings = Capital

Credit = Debt

i think that's an oversimplification.

if you are China and you save by buying US treasuries or whatever then there is no Capital there at least not for you, because for all your savings you won't get shit.

If you get credit and use it to build a state of the art factory to produce something that is in high demand then that is Capital even though you borrowed that money from China.

the problem is that we BLEW all of the money we borrowed. we didn't build shit with it except the now empty McMansions.

so how about instead:

using Credit to consume = Debt

using Savings to produce = Capital

 

[dilloduck]

how about

trying to buy today what you can't afford until tomorrow = debt ?

and

charging interest to assist people to enter into debt = criminal ?

 

[editec]

Wake up and smell the TRADE IMBALANCE.

in Soviet Union when you got sick with a fever you would stay at home in bed and rest. you would not take drugs unless the fever was dangerously high. you would only take vitamins and drink a lot of fluids.

in America you take a drug for cough, a drug for pain, a drug for fever and a drug against drowsiness and then you go back to work. in other words you treat all the symptoms while blocking all of the mechanisms that your body uses to actually fight the disease.

when Russians come to US and see what Americans do to their kids we laugh to tears.

before you set out on a crusade to treat the symptoms - why not examine the causes ? have you considered that trade imbalance may be a symptom of a deeper problem ?

editec buddy if your child had a cough i would not be surprised if you duct taped the mouth. then as the child went blue you would probably reach for pink paint.

is it really so hard to believe that there are reasons for things ?

Nuero...I read a lot of words there but how they relate to anything I've written is beyond my limited ability to understand your metphor

Just assume I am stupid, and you must therefore use simple declaritive sentences to state your point of view clearly

The subject is FREE TRADE.

If you'd like to discuss that subject with me, I'd be more than happy to do so.

 

[neurosport]

The subject is FREE TRADE.

you can start a thread about free trade we could argue there.

maybe not right now as i feel kinda sleepy ...

but you can start.

 

[Iriemon]

As is often the case when I hear or read something from Ron Paul, I'm reminded why 90-95% of us figured out why he'd be a poor choice for running the Govt.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As is often the case when I hear or read something from Ron Paul, I'm reminded why 90-95% of us figured out why he'd be a poor choice for running the Govt.

And yet he was the only candidate that saw our current economic troubles coming, and had a plan for helping us through them rather than exacerbating them.

 

[Agnapostate]

And yet he was the only candidate that saw our current economic troubles coming, and had a plan for helping us through them rather than exacerbating them.

Rather limited perspective. Ron Paul was able to "predict" the economic crisis in a sense because he is a supporter of the Austrian school, and heterodox economics centers around predicting the failures of capitalism, which accounts for the recent popularity of Peter Schiff. So Ron Paul didn't possess a greater capacity to "[see] our current economic troubles coming" than any other supporter of any heterodox school, such as Dawn Saunders, a socialist.

For instance, in her introduction to Political Economy and Contemporary Capitalism: Radical Perspectives on Economic Theory and Philosophy, she wrote this:

t is surely safe to assume we will have at least one cyclical downturn in this next decade, perhaps generated by disruptions in financial markets, or as continued drag from foreign stagnation reduces prospects for profitable investment. Our expansion is currently dependent on consumer confidence, which could be disrupted either by stock market problems or an end to the recent gains in real wage growth. Our reduced state sector and our abolished fiscal deficit will reduce the cushion we've enjoyed in past recessions; our transformed welfare system, now a block grant system and thus devoid of its former role as automatic stabilizer, will place severe stress on state budgets and cause great harm to people in need. In other words, the next recession could be unusually deep, unusually harsh, and unusually regressive in its effects.

So Ron Paul and the Austrian school possess no unique ability to predict the failure of capitalism, simply a behavior pattern that's relatively common to all heterodox schools.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Some of the foot soldiers for ideoglogy contributing to this string need to do some studying. A safe starting point might be the opposite of what one was 'taught' in college. Comparative economics is hardly taught anymore or is a misnomer for what is being taught.

Not trying to be offensive here, but protectionism in this day and age is crazy.

Yet every trading (so-called partner) we trade with PROTECTS their economies, while we allow them to screw the American industries and workers.

Wake up and smell the TRADE IMBALANCE, IO.

Oh, BTW...as to comparitive advantage?

Perhaps you really ought to read ADAM SMITH's Wealth of Nations before you start telling us that he was an advocate of FREE TRADE.

He most definitely was NOT advocating what this nation is currently doing.

Edit --
Was not addressing protectionist reciprocity. We have had this dialogue before. What I am referring to is any damaging protectionism, no matter where it occurs. There is nothing wrong with reciprocity when it is called for.

Frankly, at this stage, I don't care what Adam Smith was for or against. We know free trade works and we should work to have as much of it as can be managed. That said, I think we need to consider the things in our financial and tax structure that lets companies ship US jobs overseas just to boost their bottom lines. There is more to this obviously, but that is the gist of it.

 

[Agnapostate]

We know free trade works and we should work to have as much of it as can be managed.

I don't know where you got that idea from. As I always mention, trade liberalization advocates harp on about Ricardian conceptions about "comparative advantage"...but they limit themselves to focus on static comparative advantage without analyzing methods of maximizing dynamic comparative advantage, such as through the strategic protection of the development of infant industries. The trade powers of the world developed in such a manner, contrary to neoliberal rhetoric.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Good grief, Agno.

 

[Agnapostate]

Good grief, Agno.

Far simpler than it sounds, actually.

 

[Iriemon]

As is often the case when I hear or read something from Ron Paul, I'm reminded why 90-95% of us figured out why he'd be a poor choice for running the Govt.

And yet he was the only candidate that saw our current economic troubles coming, and had a plan for helping us through them rather than exacerbating them.

I thought that was McCain? At least that's what his supporters claimed.

 

[sealybobo]

As is often the case when I hear or read something from Ron Paul, I'm reminded why 90-95% of us figured out why he'd be a poor choice for running the Govt.

Didn't you already say this on another thread?

First off, the masses aren't really all that bright. The masses are generally under informed. The masses usually don't even know what's really going on unless tv tells them.

But then I thought, wait a minute, Ron Paul won the GOP debates. So when did 95% of us decide Ron Paul was no good? We never did. The GOP just stopped inviting him to debates and the corporate media ignored it. Then they spread a rumor that Ron Paul is a racist.

See, if the Corporations that own this country don't like what one honest guy is saying, all they have to do is smear the guy via the corporate media.

I remember Ron Paul went on Glen Beck. Glen Beck, who now pretends to be a Libertarian so he can sucker those idiots into watching Fox News. Anyways, Glen Beck when he was on CNN mocked Ron Paul and rolled his eyes everytime Ron Paul spoke the truth.

So you may not know it, but you have been brainwashed by the Corporate Media buddy.

This is why Rupert Murdoc & 4 other rich dudes bought up all the media. They control the message. They win, we lose. But you seem happy. I guess it is true, ignorance is bliss.

Either that or you are a banker. We should not have to argue with house slaves.

 

[Iriemon]

As is often the case when I hear or read something from Ron Paul, I'm reminded why 90-95% of us figured out why he'd be a poor choice for running the Govt.

Didn't you already say this on another thread?

First off, the masses aren't really all that bright. The masses are generally under informed. The masses usually don't even know what's really going on unless tv tells them.

But then I thought, wait a minute, Ron Paul won the GOP debates. So when did 95% of us decide Ron Paul was no good? We never did. The GOP just stopped inviting him to debates and the corporate media ignored it. Then they spread a rumor that Ron Paul is a racist.

See, if the Corporations that own this country don't like what one honest guy is saying, all they have to do is smear the guy via the corporate media.

I remember Ron Paul went on Glen Beck. Glen Beck, who now pretends to be a Libertarian so he can sucker those idiots into watching Fox News. Anyways, Glen Beck when he was on CNN mocked Ron Paul and rolled his eyes everytime Ron Paul spoke the truth.

So you may not know it, but you have been brainwashed by the Corporate Media buddy.

This is why Rupert Murdoc & 4 other rich dudes bought up all the media. They control the message. They win, we lose. But you seem happy. I guess it is true, ignorance is bliss.

Either that or you are a banker. We should not have to argue with house slaves.

Jeez I'm certainly not going to defend Glenn Beck. LMAO!

By your post you seem to characterize me as a conservative. Most who know me would laugh at that characterization.

I'm no banker. Never have been. The implication is that you have to be a banker to think Paul's a little off the page?

 

[sealybobo]

As is often the case when I hear or read something from Ron Paul, I'm reminded why 90-95% of us figured out why he'd be a poor choice for running the Govt.

Didn't you already say this on another thread?

First off, the masses aren't really all that bright. The masses are generally under informed. The masses usually don't even know what's really going on unless tv tells them.

But then I thought, wait a minute, Ron Paul won the GOP debates. So when did 95% of us decide Ron Paul was no good? We never did. The GOP just stopped inviting him to debates and the corporate media ignored it. Then they spread a rumor that Ron Paul is a racist.

See, if the Corporations that own this country don't like what one honest guy is saying, all they have to do is smear the guy via the corporate media.

I remember Ron Paul went on Glen Beck. Glen Beck, who now pretends to be a Libertarian so he can sucker those idiots into watching Fox News. Anyways, Glen Beck when he was on CNN mocked Ron Paul and rolled his eyes everytime Ron Paul spoke the truth.

So you may not know it, but you have been brainwashed by the Corporate Media buddy.

This is why Rupert Murdoc & 4 other rich dudes bought up all the media. They control the message. They win, we lose. But you seem happy. I guess it is true, ignorance is bliss.

Either that or you are a banker. We should not have to argue with house slaves.

Jeez I'm certainly not going to defend Glenn Beck. LMAO!

By your post you seem to characterize me as a conservative. Most who know me would laugh at that characterization.

I'm no banker. Never have been. The implication is that you have to be a banker to think Paul's a little off the page?

Do you think Thomas Jefferson was crazy?

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Here is a great quote from Jefferson that should tell you how he feels about the income tax. Unless of course you think he really meant bread.

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As is often the case when I hear or read something from Ron Paul, I'm reminded why 90-95% of us figured out why he'd be a poor choice for running the Govt.

And yet he was the only candidate that saw our current economic troubles coming, and had a plan for helping us through them rather than exacerbating them.

I thought that was McCain? At least that's what his supporters claimed.

McCain has no knowledge of economics that I'm aware of, had no idea this crisis was coming, and his plan was no different than Obama's as evidenced by his support of the initial bailout plan.