Ron Paul: Capitalism is Dead

[POLS]

The fundamental problem America faces in 2009 is inadquate savings and investment.


Americans have been living off their wealth for far too long -- especially in regard to military spending for current and past wars . . . which amounts to more than the rest of the countries of the world combined.


Americans can no longer afford bases in more than 150 countries of the world . . and no one is asking the right questions:

For example:

1. Can American taxpayers really afford a US Marine base in Paraguay?

2. Can US taxpayers really continue to fund an Air Force base in Greenland?

3. Should the US Navy be "negotiating" with the leaders of Sao Tome for a new US Navy base?

5. Should the US abandon plans for a US military base in Mauitania?


6. Can the US taxpayers afford to continue paying for a huge military presence in Germany?

7. Should the US shut down the US NAvy base in Eitrea?

8. Does the US really need US Air Forces bases in El Salvador, Hondoras, and Guatemela?

9. Can the US taxpayer really afford operating a US military base in Uganda?

10. Should the US abandon the Camp David Accords agreement to give Egypt $2.1 a year and Israel $3 billion a year -- on the groundf the Federal treasury is empty?

11. Should the US taxpayer continue opperating a US Navy base in Aruba?

12. Does the US taxpayer have enough funds for suporting ten US Marine camps in Okinawa?

13. Why not shut down Kadena AFB -- and sell all the assets to the Okinawain peoples?

14. Why not close down all US Air Force and Navy bases in Japan -- or at least require the Japanese government to pay all the costs of all the US military forces in Japan?

15. Why does the US need a "secret" base inside Israel?


On and on go the questions . . .

A billion here, a billion there . . and pretty soon we start talking about real money, eh?

 

[ItsFairmont]

We need massive protectionism to restore the ability of the consumer.

Very true.


In the 1950s, people were buying products made in the USA.

And so was everyone else.

 

[ItsFairmont]

Ron Paul is a terrible Republican.

He's a conservative.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Said this before, but McCain was a fighter pilot who wanted to run the military. I never saw anything from him besides that and displays of his personal integrity, which is to his credit. Did not vote for him or The Prophet.

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.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Pols --
The problem is not 'free trade"
The fundamental problem America faces in 2009 is inadquate savings and investment.

Have to differ with you, although I may be misinterpreting your post.

Believe the genesis for our problems is government spending. It has increased almost without abatement for a very long time and now The Prophet wants to take Bush 43's excesses forward on steriods. Basically America is almost out of bullets.

Were we to have maintained a balanced budget of sorts over the years (and folks, please spare me the political boilerplate) we would have a lot of options today that could be aggressinve but would, basically, do no harm. Have a post about why we are at this juncture on my blog: http:indianaoracle.wordpress.com

 

[neurosport]

In the 1950s, people were buying products made in the USA.

and in USSR people were buying products made in USSR

worked great didn't it ?

dumbass !

FREE TRADE ALL THE WAY !

anybody against it is an idiot ...

i don't remember exactly who but some cyclist who used to win a lot once said " IF YOU BRAKE YOU DON'T WIN "

trade restrictions is nothing but putting the brakes on world economy - this is not an argument - its a fact

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Predictions of the socialist.

It does not seem to me to require much theory or foresight to imagine that we will have a downturn at least once a decade.

 

[neurosport]

Predictions of the socialist.

It does not seem to me to require much theory or foresight to imagine that we will have a downturn at least once a decade.

no thats too often. how you gonna have downturns every 5 years when a mortgage is 30 years ...

it was 20 - 30 years between WW1 and WW2, 20 - 30 years between WW2 and Vietnam, 20 - 30 years between Vietnam and "war on terror"

roughly 40 years between great depression and "oil crisis" in the 70s, and again rough 40 years between "oil crisis" and current crisis

the PERIOD is clearly 20 - 40 years or so or the time that it takes for the population to "turn over"

soviet union lasted about 70 years or one lifetime

of course you can have several "frequencies" superimposed ...

 

[Indiana Oracle]

It is too often. But that is how is how it has been working. What worries me with our national financial options shrinking, is that they will be coming more often. I would be willing to bet we will come out of this during next year and will be right back here again 2-3 years later.

 

[sealybobo]

Pols --
The problem is not 'free trade"
The fundamental problem America faces in 2009 is inadquate savings and investment.

Have to differ with you, although I may be misinterpreting your post.

Believe the genesis for our problems is government spending. It has increased almost without abatement for a very long time and now The Prophet wants to take Bush 43's excesses forward on steriods. Basically America is almost out of bullets.

Were we to have maintained a balanced budget of sorts over the years (and folks, please spare me the political boilerplate) we would have a lot of options today that could be aggressinve but would, basically, do no harm. Have a post about why we are at this juncture on my blog: http:indianaoracle.wordpress.com

So then then cost of Iraq, a war we should have never gotten into, is the reason we are in this mess?

And keep in mind that Bush chose to have America pick up the bill. That way, the oil companies get all the oil $, the private defense contractors make billions, and the US taxpayers got stuck with the bill.

I defy you to find any of Obama's spending that is as wasteful and irresponsible as the Iraq war.

And remember, you defended the Iraq war.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

You will not find me a defender of Bush 43 or the Iraq adventure. But you are presenting a false choice which ignores economic facts and reality. Have posted on this a couple of times.

 

[neurosport]

once a person learns an idea ( whether it is correct or wrong it works the same ) he will keep "knowing" it until he's dead or somebody forcibly beats this idea out of his head.

life expectancy is about 70 years. people become politically aware at maybe age 20 or so.

70 - 20 = 50 years.

in 50 years EVERYBODY with a certain idea will be dead. however the idea doesn't have to be 100% gone to LOSE to a newer idea. it only needs to be 50% gone.

therefore 50 years X 50% = 25 years

so the period is about 25 years ...

its the time it takes idiots ( which constitute 90% of voters in all nations ) to switch from one error of reasoning to the next error

 

[sealybobo]

You will not find me a defender of Bush 43 or the Iraq adventure. But you are presenting a false choice which ignores economic facts and reality. Have posted on this a couple of times.

Your position is very vague and could open us up to a very long discussion.

For example, jobs going overseas doesn't have a lot to do with this shitty economy?

I say it has more to do with it than government spending does.

I don't ignore economic facts. You are probably ignoring 100 economic facts.

 

[GHook93]

[youtube]jw3PfUUDmyM[/youtube]

The more I hear the man speak the more sense he makes! He will never be President of the US, but I think if he was, the changes he might bring would be great!

 

[GHook93]

We need massive protectionism to restore the ability of the consumer.

LOL, go back and look how well the Smoot- Hawley Tarriff Act worked right after the '29 crash. Get a glue!

 

[GHook93]

Best solution is to kill the corporate, income, payroll, social security and capital gains tax and replace it with the fair tax! We should take advantage of free trade for a change!

 

[sealybobo]

We need massive protectionism to restore the ability of the consumer.

LOL, go back and look how well the Smoot- Hawley Tarriff Act worked right after the '29 crash. Get a glue!

Will you please stop spreading that lie?

When conservatives rail in the media of the dangers of "returning to Smoot Hawley, which created the Great Depression," all they do is reveal their ignorance of economics and history. The Smoot-Hawley tariff legislation, which increased taxes on some imported goods by a third to two-thirds to protect American industries, was signed into law on June 17, 1930, well into the Great Depression. In the following two years, international trade dropped from 6 percent of GNP to roughly 2 percent of GNP (between 1930 and 1932), but most of that was the result of the depression going worldwide, not Smoot-Hawley. The main result of Smoot-Hawley was that American businesses now had strong financial incentives to do business with other American companies, rather than bring in products made with cheaper foreign labor: Americans started trading with other Americans.

Smoot-Hawley "protectionist" legislation did not cause the Great Depression, and while it may have had a slight short-term negative effect on the economy ("1.4 percent at most" according to many historians) its long-term effect was to bring American jobs back to America.

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class

 

[GHook93]

We need massive protectionism to restore the ability of the consumer.

LOL, go back and look how well the Smoot- Hawley Tarriff Act worked right after the '29 crash. Get a glue!

Will you please stop spreading that lie?

When conservatives rail in the media of the dangers of "returning to Smoot Hawley, which created the Great Depression," all they do is reveal their ignorance of economics and history. The Smoot-Hawley tariff legislation, which increased taxes on some imported goods by a third to two-thirds to protect American industries, was signed into law on June 17, 1930, well into the Great Depression. In the following two years, international trade dropped from 6 percent of GNP to roughly 2 percent of GNP (between 1930 and 1932), but most of that was the result of the depression going worldwide, not Smoot-Hawley. The main result of Smoot-Hawley was that American businesses now had strong financial incentives to do business with other American companies, rather than bring in products made with cheaper foreign labor: Americans started trading with other Americans.

Smoot-Hawley "protectionist" legislation did not cause the Great Depression, and while it may have had a slight short-term negative effect on the economy ("1.4 percent at most" according to many historians) its long-term effect was to bring American jobs back to America.

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class

Who ever said it started it? I, and many conservatives, rightfully point out S-H and the Revenue Act of 1932 made the Great Depression 10 fold worse!

 

[neurosport]

The main result of Smoot-Hawley was that American businesses now had strong financial incentives to do business with other American companies, rather than bring in products made with cheaper foreign labor: Americans started trading with other Americans.

who gave you the right to speak LIB ?

the point of economy is not to employ useless people in useless jobs

the point is to produce that which is high demand

FDR was the biggest douche after Al Gore

 

[Iriemon]

The main result of Smoot-Hawley was that American businesses now had strong financial incentives to do business with other American companies, rather than bring in products made with cheaper foreign labor: Americans started trading with other Americans.

the point of economy is not to employ useless people in useless jobs

the point is to produce that which is high demand

That was a very big problem in the GD. With 25% unemployment, falling prices (deflation), and credit frozen, there wasn't much demand.