View Full Version : Paul is hot on C-SPAN this morning
tangent4ronpaul
08-14-2011, 05:23 AM
Just about every call, tweet and e-mail has been supporting to him and slamming the media for marginalizing him.
Not a single call being supportive of Bachmann yet.
-t
wgadget
08-14-2011, 05:24 AM
The media marginalizing him is the most important story...It should carry us for miles.
;)
Warrior_of_Freedom
08-14-2011, 05:41 AM
They read my tweet!
wstrucke
08-14-2011, 05:45 AM
If anyone heard the statement by the well spoken gentleman from Allentown (I think) -- what is an appropriate response to the implication that RP doesn't know what he's talking about blaming the FED for booms and busts because there were booms and busts in the 1800s and in Europe before that?
I suspect the point is that the fed creates artificial and enormous booms and busts while they would otherwise exist naturally and gently?
tangent4ronpaul
08-14-2011, 05:57 AM
Apparently Bachmann will be on all 5 major networks this morning and later C-SPAN.
Is Paul going to be on any of them? - I mean it was really close and I'd kind of expect him to be deserving of some face time today or tomm.
Is the campaign doing anything about this?
-t
dusman
08-14-2011, 06:15 AM
Bump. Seriously, have a listen. It's an interesting convo right now. http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/
Warrior_of_Freedom
08-14-2011, 06:18 AM
Time to call and
tweet @cspanwj
stream http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/
dusman
08-14-2011, 06:22 AM
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_history
That might be a pretty good start.
Compare Civil War time to now.. Compare Great Depression to now.
PredatorOC
08-14-2011, 06:33 AM
I suspect the point is that the fed creates artificial and enormous booms and busts while they would otherwise exist naturally and gently?
According to the Austrian Business Cycle Theory inflation (increase in the money supply) leads to malinvestment. The newly created money causes the factors of production to be bid up, leading to an artificial boom in prices. Think of a several house builders who are suddenly given large sums of money to build houses with, like home loans. Now all these builders have to compete for a limited amount of building materials, like bricks for example. What happens is that the cost of bricks increases because the demand and ability to pay increases with increase in home loans. That's the boom phase. But when that flow of new cash stops, suddenly the demand and ability to pay drops, which is the bust phase. Of course, the bust is just the market correcting itself from the malinvestment and which is why the economy will never recover until the malinvestment and debt is liquidated.
Now as to why there were booms and busts prior to Fed is a rather expansive topic. Each panic had it's own catalyst, but it always went back to cheap credit in one form or another. So you can't really answer the question until someone points to a specific panic or era.
Lastly, it should be pointed out that the Federal Reserve is actually the THIRD central bank in the US. I also wouldn't consider the national bank era as one of free banking, meaning that the only free banking era was between 1837 to 1962. Though even that era had it's share of problems.
fatjohn
08-14-2011, 06:44 AM
If anyone heard the statement by the well spoken gentleman from Allentown (I think) -- what is an appropriate response to the implication that RP doesn't know what he's talking about blaming the FED for booms and busts because there were booms and busts in the 1800s and in Europe before that?
I suspect the point is that the fed creates artificial and enormous booms and busts while they would otherwise exist naturally and gently?
Europe had central banks for a very long time, the panics of the 1800's were called adequately, since it had short durations like the panic of 1987. The downturns in the 30's, 70's and now, were decadelong. Completely different in nature. Point to a decadelong panic before the fed please and I'll shut up.
PC_for_Paul
08-14-2011, 06:44 AM
"According to the Austrian Business Cycle Theory inflation (increase in the money supply) leads to malinvestment"
Exactly.
By the way I am back. Precinct Captain in 07, wrote in Paul in 88, and looking forward to 2012.
Most people have been brainwashed on how things really work:
The economy isn't a class you can Master in College,
to think otherwise is the pretense of knowledge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc
and don't forget the orginal both created by a Ron Paul supporter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk&feature=relmfu
I don't know if we win or system just fails, about a 50/50 right now.
Ireland4Liberty
08-14-2011, 06:51 AM
t-paw is out!
PC_for_Paul
08-14-2011, 06:53 AM
"t-paw is out!"
One tool down about 9 more to go.
dusman
08-14-2011, 06:56 AM
"t-paw is out!"
One tool down about 9 more to go.
Hmm.. I see a strategy guised in this. Anyone else get that feeling?
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ex-minn-gov-tim-1107797.html
tangent4ronpaul
08-14-2011, 06:58 AM
Yeah - I just heard that about t-paw - was wondering if I'd mis-heard. w00t - how many votes did he get?
Interesting dirt on Perry came up:
Most jobs created were apparently low paying. illegals maybe?
slashed state education funds and test scores took a nose dive, while the droprout rate from HS skyrocketed.
insider deal to sell a bunch of taxpayer paid for roads to a foreign company and turn them into toll roads.
-t
tangent4ronpaul
08-14-2011, 07:44 AM
n/m he got third - so better spread to next nearest compensator.
How many of his supporters do people think we''ll pick up?
-t
LibertyEagle
08-14-2011, 07:55 AM
Lastly, it should be pointed out that the Federal Reserve is actually the THIRD central bank in the US.
Yup. I didn't understand why Paul said we didn't have a national bank until 1913. At least, that's what I thought he said.
I also wouldn't consider the national bank era as one of free banking, meaning that the only free banking era was between 1837 to 1962. Though even that era had it's share of problems.
1962? Is this a typo?
nobody's_hero
08-14-2011, 08:01 AM
Hmm.. I see a strategy guised in this. Anyone else get that feeling?
Yes, and it concerns me quite a bit.
If these lower tier candidates start dropping out and endorsing Bachmann, Ron Paul will get crushed as their supporters choose her over the doctor.
We must build a strategy of going outside the GOP to independents and democrats if we're going to have the numbers to win Ron Paul the nomination in the primary. The 72.4% that didn't vote for Ron Paul may not pull through for the cause of liberty.
anewvoice
08-14-2011, 08:04 AM
Noting the campaign cannot advise us on what to do next, do we have any projections on where their efforts will be? Does the grassroots double down in those areas or apply focus out ahead of the campaign in other states?
happyphilter
08-14-2011, 08:23 AM
Hopefully RP is seeking endorsements from the candidates that drop out.
musicmax
08-14-2011, 08:26 AM
The media marginalizing him is the most important story...It should carry us for miles.
Among the slight minority of actual voters who don't vote based upon media guidance.
anewvoice
08-14-2011, 08:30 AM
Really looking for some TV air time from the campaign now, our statistical win in Iowa being right up front.
sofia
08-14-2011, 08:33 AM
If anyone heard the statement by the well spoken gentleman from Allentown (I think) -- what is an appropriate response to the implication that RP doesn't know what he's talking about blaming the FED for booms and busts because there were booms and busts in the 1800s and in Europe before that?
I suspect the point is that the fed creates artificial and enormous booms and busts while they would otherwise exist naturally and gently?
Ron Paul doesn't know what he's talking about when he blames drunks for causing auto accidents. There are many automibile fatalities involving people who do not drink.
PredatorOC
08-14-2011, 08:49 AM
1962? Is this a typo?
Yes, should have been 1862. Lincoln had to pay for his war somehow.
US banking history is rife with things like bi-metallism, rampant fractional reserve banking and bank-government collusion even when there was no central bank, so the easiest answer to "why were there busts before the Fed" is "because the business cycle (alternatively boom-bust cycle) comes from fractional reserve banking, not exclusively from the Fed". 99% of people making the argument about busts before the Fed won't know a thing the business cycle or fractional reserve banking, so they won't be making any kind of sensible rebuttal. Perhaps a tad dishonest argumentation, but it works if one doesn't want to delve too deeply into the whole theory and history behind the ABCT.
1000-points-of-fright
08-14-2011, 10:02 AM
Sure there were booms and busts prior to the Fed. But the dollar was also increasing in value for the most part. Take your pick...
Boom & Busts + a strong stable dollar
or
Boom & Bust + a dollar that gets more worthless every year
sailingaway
08-14-2011, 10:06 AM
If anyone heard the statement by the well spoken gentleman from Allentown (I think) -- what is an appropriate response to the implication that RP doesn't know what he's talking about blaming the FED for booms and busts because there were booms and busts in the 1800s and in Europe before that?
I suspect the point is that the fed creates artificial and enormous booms and busts while they would otherwise exist naturally and gently?
There was bimetalism and fractional reserve banking before then. It is a microcosm next to the Fed, and at least the busts were quickly over so you could save to get through them, which is hard to do when it is a lost decade.
Ron addresses this in 'Revolution'.
sailingaway
08-14-2011, 10:08 AM
n/m he got third - so better spread to next nearest compensator.
How many of his supporters do people think we''ll pick up?
-t
Unfortunately, he's more a Romney type candidate so we really only have a chance with the ones confused by him who can't stand Bachmann, but I'm not sure that kind of candidate generates enough passion for his supporters to hold a grudge.
PredatorOC
08-14-2011, 10:15 AM
Sure there were booms and busts prior to the Fed. But the dollar was also increasing in value for the most part. Take your pick...
Boom & Busts + a strong stable dollar
or
Boom & Bust + a dollar that gets more worthless every year
But that's not the choice. Busts come precisely from fractional reserve banking, which is essentially fraud. It's kind of like selling a single car to several buyers, except in this case the bankers get away with it because people tend to keep their money on their bank accounts. In reality, a bank may only have a tiny fraction of your money.
No fractional reserve banking = no busts.
spladle
08-14-2011, 10:28 AM
But that's not the choice. Busts come precisely from fractional reserve banking, which is essentially fraud. It's kind of like selling a single car to several buyers, except in this case the bankers get away with it because people tend to keep their money on their bank accounts. In reality, a bank may only have a tiny fraction of your money.
No fractional reserve banking = no busts.
Fractional reserve banking is nothing remotely like fraud and although it can and has at times led to what you call "busts," on the whole the practice is responsible for more economic growth than just about any other in the last 100 years.
Less Rothbard, more Friedman. Where's the logic in wanting to ban people from engaging in voluntary banking transactions? Might as well come out in favor of the drug war while you're at it.
PredatorOC
08-14-2011, 10:37 AM
Fractional reserve banking is nothing remotely like fraud and although it can and has at times led to what you call "busts," on the whole the practice is responsible for more economic growth than just about any other in the last 100 years.
Less Rothbard, more Friedman. Where's the logic in wanting to ban people from engaging in voluntary banking transactions? Might as well come out in favor of the drug war while you're at it.
I can't say I appreciate the hyperbole and the strawman argument.
I'm not against someone investing their money. If you want to give a bank your money so they can lend it out and give you a profit, that's nice. But in the current system there is no choice, or clear volition. People don't think about the money they have in the bank as being being invested in something; to them it's clearly their money that they should be able to withdraw whenever they please. So clearly there is fraud, but it's just on a such massive scale that it has become an accepted practice. And the no choice aspect is the fact that central banks make saving outside of banks nearly impossible, since inflation will eat away the value of your savings. And the fact that the FDIC guarantees the fractional reserve system translates into an astounding amount of moral hazard to go along with the fraud.
spladle
08-14-2011, 10:42 AM
If anyone heard the statement by the well spoken gentleman from Allentown (I think) -- what is an appropriate response to the implication that RP doesn't know what he's talking about blaming the FED for booms and busts because there were booms and busts in the 1800s and in Europe before that?
I suspect the point is that the fed creates artificial and enormous booms and busts while they would otherwise exist naturally and gently?
The Fed was explicitly created to put an end to the booms and busts that occurred prior to its existence. Rather than do so, it actually exacerbated the problems for a number of reasons on which an entire semester of coursework could be written. The Great Depression was a direct result of poor Fed policy, as was the stagflation of the '70s, as is the Great Recession we are experiencing today.
The fallacy people fall for in promoting the Fed is the same one people were falling for in the '30s and '40s when promoting central economic planning (socialism) as superior to free enterprise in directing a country's economic development. The centralization of power and policy promotes corruption and limits incentives for innovation and good service. As in every other industry, competition rules. This is not to say that capitalism immediately produces perfection. Far from it. Free enterprise is simply a more efficient means of transmitting information about what goods and services people want to the potential producers of said goods and services. The Fed interferes with this process. That things weren't perfect before it and wouldn't be perfect were it abolished does nothing to undermine this fundamental fact.
hth
spladle
08-14-2011, 10:59 AM
I can't say I appreciate the hyperbole and the strawman argument.
With respect, I don't think you know what those words mean.
I'm not against someone investing their money. If you want to give a bank your money so they can lend it out and give you a profit, that's nice. But in the current system there is no choice, or clear volition. People don't think about the money they have in the bank as being being invested in something; to them it's clearly their money that they should be able to withdraw whenever they please. So clearly there is fraud, but it's just on a such massive scale that it has become an accepted practice. And the no choice aspect is the fact that central banks make saving outside of banks nearly impossible, since inflation will eat away the value of your savings. And the fact that the FDIC guarantees the fractional reserve system translates into an astounding amount of moral hazard to go along with the fraud.
There absolutely is a choice in the current system. Banks are not legally allowed to use checking accounts as the monetary base for loans or investments. Only when you place funds in a savings account can they be drawn on. Think about which sorts of accounts offer interest and why.
You are simply mistaken. There is no fraud of the sort you suggest going on. This is a fairly widespread and common misunderstanding amongst people who've read only Rothbard, largely by his conscious design. That's why I suggested you read more Friedman and less Rothbard.
Inflation does not make saving nearly impossible, merely unprofitable. In some respects that is a good thing; in others a bad one. It is true though that the legal monopoly on money-printing held by the Fed prevents people who would otherwise prefer to save from being able to neutrally do so, which I oppose. That's why this monopoly power should be removed. But free banking would almost certainly yield an industry where the vast majority of money producers operated under a fractional reserve system and created new money with some regularity. And on the whole both of these are good things. Just FYI.
spladle
08-14-2011, 11:08 AM
According to the Austrian Business Cycle Theory inflation (increase in the money supply) leads to malinvestment. The newly created money causes the factors of production to be bid up, leading to an artificial boom in prices. Think of a several house builders who are suddenly given large sums of money to build houses with, like home loans. Now all these builders have to compete for a limited amount of building materials, like bricks for example. What happens is that the cost of bricks increases because the demand and ability to pay increases with increase in home loans. That's the boom phase. But when that flow of new cash stops, suddenly the demand and ability to pay drops, which is the bust phase. Of course, the bust is just the market correcting itself from the malinvestment and which is why the economy will never recover until the malinvestment and debt is liquidated.
Now as to why there were booms and busts prior to Fed is a rather expansive topic. Each panic had it's own catalyst, but it always went back to cheap credit in one form or another. So you can't really answer the question until someone points to a specific panic or era.
Lastly, it should be pointed out that the Federal Reserve is actually the THIRD central bank in the US. I also wouldn't consider the national bank era as one of free banking, meaning that the only free banking era was between 1837 to 1962. Though even that era had it's share of problems.
ABCT is wrong hth :p
Edit: Sorry if it seems like I'm being unnecessarily antagonistic. I'm not trying to start an argument. I just think that in general it is better when people think more true things and less false things. You'd benefit by broadening your economic education. There's a reason Austrian economists are considered fringe and it is not the one Hoppe postulated in his whole "anti-intellectual intellectual" spiel.
scrosnoe
08-14-2011, 11:19 AM
Reminding everyone on this thread that we are involved in the Republican Party Primary process here and not the General Election. That should be factored into everything you think and do and say here on the forums. Just saying. We want to win people into the Republican Party by what we stand for and we want to woo other Republican Party voters to our candidate and our issues -- not destroy them personally! We win on the issues AND how we treat people.
Warrior_of_Freedom
08-14-2011, 11:20 AM
http://i53.tinypic.com/2n8sw81.png
They broadcasted my tweet today!
sailingaway
08-14-2011, 11:23 AM
With respect, I don't think you know what those words mean.
There absolutely is a choice in the current system. Banks are not legally allowed to use checking accounts as the monetary base for loans or investments. Only when you place funds in a savings account can they be drawn on. Think about which sorts of accounts offer interest and why.
You are simply mistaken. There is no fraud of the sort you suggest going on. This is a fairly widespread and common misunderstanding amongst people who've read only Rothbard, largely by his conscious design. That's why I suggested you read more Friedman and less Rothbard.
Inflation does not make saving nearly impossible, merely unprofitable. In some respects that is a good thing; in others a bad one. It is true though that the legal monopoly on money-printing held by the Fed prevents people who would otherwise prefer to save from being able to neutrally do so, which I oppose. That's why this monopoly power should be removed. But free banking would almost certainly yield an industry where the vast majority of money producers operated under a fractional reserve system and created new money with some regularity. And on the whole both of these are good things. Just FYI.
The essence of a 'fractional reserve system' is fraud. They are getting interest on many multiples of the money they actually have, and it increases the monetary supply, if less so, (only to the extent SOME reserve is required) than just printing money out of thin air.
sailingaway
08-14-2011, 11:24 AM
Reminding everyone on this thread that we are involved in the Republican Party Primary process here and not the General Election. That should be factored into everything you think and do and say here on the forums. Just saying. We want to win people into the Republican Party by what we stand for and we want to woo other Republican Party voters to our candidate and our issues -- not destroy them personally! We win on the issues AND how we treat people.
I haven't read the whole thread, but I agree with that, certainly.
PredatorOC
08-14-2011, 11:33 AM
With respect, I don't think you know what those words mean.
You mean claiming I was against money lending, when I wasn't, wasn't a strawman argument?
There absolutely is a choice in the current system. Banks are not legally allowed to use checking accounts as the monetary base for loans or investments. Only when you place funds in a savings account can they be drawn on. Think about which sorts of accounts offer interest and why.
People don't hold their lifesavings in their checking accounts. And the "choice" is "put your money into the financial leviathan or have it slowly erode away". That's not a free choice, that's a slightly more benign form of coercion.
You are simply mistaken. There is no fraud of the sort you suggest going on. This is a fairly widespread and common misunderstanding amongst people who've read only Rothbard, largely by his conscious design. That's why I suggested you read more Friedman and less Rothbard.
Saying I'm wrong does not constitute an argument. Nor does an appeal to authority.
But free banking would almost certainly yield an industry where the vast majority of money producers operated under a fractional reserve system and created new money with some regularity.
Except it would be fraud. If I release notes and claim they are redeemable for an ounce of gold, then proceed to release twice as many notes as I have gold for, what would you call that? I clearly can't fulfill my promises and I'm misleading people intentionally, hence it's clearly fraud.
And on the whole both of these are good things. Just FYI.
Again, simply claiming you are right is not an argument for anything.
spladle
08-14-2011, 11:35 AM
The essence of a 'fractional reserve system' is fraud. They are getting interest on many multiples of the money they actually have, and it increases the monetary supply, if less so, (only to the extent SOME reserve is required) than just printing money out of thin air.
With respect, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word "fraud." When the details of a transaction are open and available to every potential party involved, no fraud can take place.
Printing money out of thin air is both good and necessary for sustained economic growth. Failing to do so incentivizes stagnation, as people can become wealthier simply by sitting on their capital.
Fetou
08-14-2011, 11:37 AM
The essence of a 'fractional reserve system' is fraud. They are getting interest on many multiples of the money they actually have, and it increases the monetary supply, if less so, (only to the extent SOME reserve is required) than just printing money out of thin air.
How is it fraud? It's not as if it's some form of secret that banks can lend beyond deposits. Shouldn't a bank with a fractional reserve system naturally pay higher rates than one that is less fractional? The risk of bust is the cost of the extra return, and should motivate both lenders and borrowers to be more cautious than when there is no risk of failure and deposits are insured. However, I don't know how you would ensure transparency as to how much reserves a bank is actually holding.
This is just a thought to pose a question, not a claim of fact. Let me know the holes within this thinking
spladle
08-14-2011, 12:04 PM
You mean claiming I was against money lending, when I wasn't, wasn't a strawman argument?
I did not claim that you were against money lending.
People don't hold their lifesavings in their checking accounts. And the "choice" is "put your money into the financial leviathan or have it slowly erode away". That's not a free choice, that's a slightly more benign form of coercion.
Whether people do is irrelevant to the question of whether they can.
While I agree that monopolies are harmful, your reasoning here mirrors Marx and Engels to an amusing degree. Maybe you should read them next instead of Friedman.
Saying I'm wrong does not constitute an argument. Nor does an appeal to authority.
"I'm not trying to start an argument."
Except it would be fraud. If I release notes and claim they are redeemable for an ounce of gold, then proceed to release twice as many notes as I have gold for, what would you call that? I clearly can't fulfill my promises and I'm misleading people intentionally, hence it's clearly fraud.
You are re-defining fraud in a misleading and unhelpful way. Firstly, banks in a fractional reserve system are only initially incapable of paying back depositors in the event of a bank run. Secondly, even a single bank run is insufficient to prevent depositors from being paid back, since banks can borrow from one another to provide the necessary liquidity. Only a massive, system-wide demand for cash can result in depositors not being paid what they are owed, and even this eventuality can be prevented by the existence of a printing press, which is in fact why the Fed was granted this power in 1913.
Again, simply claiming you are right is not an argument for anything.
"I'm not trying to start an argument."
I can tolerate both arrogance and ignorance so long as they are not coincident in a person. If you insist on seeing this as a debate rather than an opportunity to share ideas and possibly learn I will stop responding to you.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness
Let me be clear. I know what you think. I know why you think it. I have read every single thing you have and lots of stuff you haven't. This is not an exchange between equals. Quit treating it as such.
spladle
08-14-2011, 12:09 PM
How is it fraud? It's not as if it's some form of secret that banks can lend beyond deposits. Shouldn't a bank with a fractional reserve system naturally pay higher rates than one that is less fractional? The risk of bust is the cost of the extra return, and should motivate both lenders and borrowers to be more cautious than when there is no risk of failure and deposits are insured. However, I don't know how you would ensure transparency as to how much reserves a bank is actually holding.
This is just a thought to pose a question, not a claim of fact. Let me know the holes within this thinking
You're pretty much spot on. There are no holes other than the fact that non-fractional reserve banking is basically illegal due to the government-granted monopoly possessed by the Fed. Also, when a bank can freely print money there is no risk of actual "bust," merely the devaluation of money paid out as a result of inflation.
The question of transparency mirrors that of virtually every other business in existence. How can we be sure that food-sellers aren't poisoning their products? How can we be sure that clothes and furniture do not contain carcinogens? The best defense against bad business practice is competition. Calls for governmental regulation are misguided at best.
Fetou
08-14-2011, 12:13 PM
EDIT: reading reply
EDIT: Unintentional double post
EDIT: Fail
Fetou
08-14-2011, 12:22 PM
You're pretty much spot on. There are no holes other than the fact that non-fractional reserve banking is basically illegal due to the government-granted monopoly possessed by the Fed. Also, when a bank can freely print money there is no risk of actual "bust," merely the devaluation of money paid out as a result of inflation.
The question of transparency mirrors that of virtually every other business in existence. How can we be sure that food-sellers aren't poisoning their products? How can we be sure that clothes and furniture do not contain carcinogens? The best defense against bad business practice is competition. Calls for governmental regulation are misguided at best.
But how would people judge between competitive banks? One that has been reputable for generations and responsible could start loaning like crazy without investors really knowing that anything had happened. Even assuming that the bank is self-interested, not TRYING to go under, isn't it possible that the bank could take on too much risk without the investor being aware of that risk when making decisions? In other words, if information (e.g. ratio of reserves held) is critical to distinguishing between competitive financial institutions, and only the bank has that information available, doesn't that limit any benefits of competition? I'm not making an argument for regulation, just trying to figure out exactly how people could make decisions in this environment.
PC_for_Paul
08-14-2011, 12:23 PM
I know of no sin greater, no injury more egregious than debasing the dollar, but taxing a mans labor is a close second. If we can print, what purpose does borrowing serve?
Fetou
08-14-2011, 12:33 PM
I know of no sin greater, no injury more egregious than debasing the dollar, but taxing a mans labor is a close second. If we can print, what purpose does borrowing serve?
I feel that if we stopped taxing so much, people could buy things and invest without having to be so reliant on borrowing. I understand the benefits of debt and borrowing when it relates to capital in a business venture, but not so much when we have reduced the lower class/lower-middle class to borrowing at high cost to buy consumer goods and necessities.
The non-wealthy pay so very little in income taxes anyhow (in a macro sense, not relative to how those individuals perceive it), it seems as if removing them altogether is one of the best things that can be done to restore decreasing purchasing power. The fatal problem with this is that the people who don't pay taxes but can receive govt. benefits will simply demand more benefits on the tab of the rich, ignorant to how this actually harms them in the long run.
Unless you are on welfare, want more from social security than you paid in, or don't pay taxes, why the hell would you be a liberal? I don't understand their argument that poor uneducated people were tricked by the Republican party to vote against their own interests. What do Democrats do for the people outside of welfare? They punish all profit seeking behavior.
Brian4Liberty
08-14-2011, 12:33 PM
If anyone heard the statement by the well spoken gentleman from Allentown (I think) -- what is an appropriate response to the implication that RP doesn't know what he's talking about blaming the FED for booms and busts because there were booms and busts in the 1800s and in Europe before that?
I suspect the point is that the fed creates artificial and enormous booms and busts while they would otherwise exist naturally and gently?
The Fed is not the only cause of booms and busts. But right now, they are the primary cause, and they prolong and deepen the bust, just as they do the same to the boom.
Now as to why there were booms and busts prior to Fed is a rather expansive topic. Each panic had it's own catalyst, but it always went back to cheap credit in one form or another. So you can't really answer the question until someone points to a specific panic or era.
Yep, derivatives, leverage, naked shorts, etc. can also add to booms and busts.
Sure there were booms and busts prior to the Fed. But the dollar was also increasing in value for the most part. Take your pick...
Boom & Busts + a strong stable dollar
or
Boom & Bust + a dollar that gets more worthless every year
Currency inflation is perhaps the greatest sin of the Federal Reserve, even if it doesn't lead to booms, busts or malinvestment.
spladle
08-14-2011, 12:42 PM
But how would people judge between competitive banks? One that has been reputable for generations and responsible could start loaning like crazy without investors really knowing that anything had happened. Even assuming that the bank is self-interested, not TRYING to go under, isn't it possible that the bank could take on too much risk without the investor being aware of that risk when making decisions? In other words, if information (e.g. ratio of reserves held) is critical to distinguishing between competitive financial institutions, and only the bank has that information available, doesn't that limit any benefits of competition? I'm not making an argument for regulation, just trying to figure out exactly how people could make decisions in this environment.
You're astutely raising the point that competition's effectiveness is hindered by the existence of asymmetric information. In a case where potential investors/depositors have absolutely NO information about the banks in which they wish to place their money, it is rendered entirely meaningless. Every bank/producer is equal in the eyes of the consumer/depositor. The upshot is that this provides banks/producers with an incentive to distinguish themselves from others by being more transparent and making their ratio of deposits:reserves public.
It is true though that a bank might take on more risk than it could manage and conceivably even go bankrupt, losing its depositors' money in the process. This is exactly what happened in 2008, prompting the bailouts. What free market advocates such as myself have sought to point out in its aftermath is that the incentive structure which led to the assumption of too much (bad) risk was created by federal regulation in the first place.
So although it is technically true that banks might go bankrupt and lose their customers' money in the process if left to their own devices, this is no more an argument for government oversight than is the fact that literally every single other industry in existence carries with it the same risk. A toy company might convert all of its assets to cash, put it in a pile, and set it on fire, thereby costing its investors a bundle. But in general this will not happen unless government regulations make it profitable to do so (which they in fact did in the banking industry).
spladle
08-14-2011, 12:44 PM
I feel that if we stopped taxing so much, people could buy things and invest without having to be so reliant on borrowing. I understand the benefits of debt and borrowing when it relates to capital in a business venture, but not so much when we have reduced the lower class/lower-middle class to borrowing at high cost to buy consumer goods and necessities.
The non-wealthy pay so very little in income taxes anyhow (in a macro sense, not relative to how those individuals perceive it), it seems as if removing them altogether is one of the best things that can be done to restore decreasing purchasing power. The fatal problem with this is that the people who don't pay taxes but can receive govt. benefits will simply demand more benefits on the tab of the rich, ignorant to how this actually harms them in the long run.
Unless you are on welfare, want more from social security than you paid in, or don't pay taxes, why the hell would you be a liberal? I don't understand their argument that poor uneducated people were tricked by the Republican party to vote against their own interests. What do Democrats do for the people outside of welfare? They punish all profit seeking behavior.
+rep
Though I would add that the label "liberal" has been greatly abused in this country, and in its classical sense I would very much consider myself one.
PredatorOC
08-14-2011, 12:53 PM
Let me be clear. I know what you think. I know why you think it. I have read every single thing you have and lots of stuff you haven't. This is not an exchange between equals. Quit treating it as such.
Wow.
spladle
08-14-2011, 12:57 PM
Wow.
I am sorry if being overtly condescended to offends you. If you are uninterested or unwilling to engage in a discussion about a subject with someone who knows more than you and is cognizant of it then you are unlikely to learn much via conversation. Which is fine, so long as you do the requisite reading on your own time. But you clearly have not. That is why I made the recommendation I did.
Less Rothbard, more Friedman.
PredatorOC
08-14-2011, 01:03 PM
I am sorry if being overtly condescended to offends you. If you are uninterested or unwilling to engage in a discussion about a subject with someone who knows more than you and is cognizant of it then you are unlikely to learn much via conversation. Which is fine, so long as you do the requisite reading on your own time. But you clearly have not. That is why I made the recommendation I did.
Less Rothbard, more Friedman.
Ummm, you just said twice that you don't want to debate anything, now you're accusing me of being unwilling to engage in discussion?
Are you a troll, perchance?
spladle
08-14-2011, 01:14 PM
Ummm, you just said twice that you don't want to debate anything, now you're accusing me of being unwilling to engage in discussion?
Are you a troll, perchance?
There is an important distinction between discussion and debate. The former involves open-minded individuals in pursuit of truth. The latter involves closed-minded individuals in defense of what each perceives to be the truth. The former is often productive for the parties involved. The latter is almost never and instead directs itself toward witnesses who may find themselves swayed by one argument or another. I do not dispute or deny the value of debate. I am simply not interested in having one here.
I have explicitly stated why I initially chose to engage you. "I just think that in general it is better when people think more true things and less false things." Questioning my motives suggests that you have not been paying attention and does not reflect well on you.
PredatorOC
08-14-2011, 01:19 PM
I have explicitly stated why I initially chose to engage you. "I just think that in general it is better when people think more true things and less false things." Questioning my motives suggests that you have not been paying attention and does not reflect well on you.
There hasn't been anything to pay attention to. All you've done is say "I am right, you are wrong".
Which is hilarious since you just implied that everyone here is close-minded, where as you are open-minded...
spladle
08-14-2011, 01:32 PM
There hasn't been anything to pay attention to. All you've done is say "I am right, you are wrong".
If this is the extent of what you have taken from my words then a fairly serious failure of communication has occurred. Whether the fault lies with you or I is immaterial. I don't know how to make myself more clear nor how to make you better at reading.
Which is hilarious since you just implied that everyone here is close-minded, where as you are open-minded...
You are confused. I made no such implication.
This can end now if you would like. I'd prefer it to.
1000-points-of-fright
08-14-2011, 02:18 PM
But that's not the choice. Busts come precisely from fractional reserve banking, which is essentially fraud. It's kind of like selling a single car to several buyers, except in this case the bankers get away with it because people tend to keep their money on their bank accounts. In reality, a bank may only have a tiny fraction of your money.
No fractional reserve banking = no busts.
The OP argued that booms and busts occurred when there wasn't a central bank. The Fed was supposed to stop that. It obviously didn't and in addition it gave us rampant inflation. What I was trying to say in my previous post was that given the choice between boom/bust cycles with rampant inflation and boom/bust cycles without inflation I'll choose the latter every time.
Aratus
08-14-2011, 04:09 PM
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_history
That might be a pretty good start.
Compare Civil War time to now.. Compare Great Depression to now.
i began by comparing potus barack obama to professor woodrow wilson when he put his hand on honest abe's bible.
i did a posting just now where i compared him to jimmy carter + martin van buren, both being one term democrats!!!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.