Ron Paul talking point - Power of the Market

[jjschless]

I just finished listening to the Ron Paul Arnie Arnesen Political Chowder NH (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=4214) audio and I can't help but notice something. During the conversation about the free market and energy policy Arnie seemed surprised to hear Dr. Paul insist that the free market with minimum regulations can provide reasonably priced energy. Perhaps even cheaper energy.

I have noticed this same doubt when speaking with people about Dr. Paul and his candidacy. It is if they don't see that the power of the market is in the hands of the consumer. Media advertisements may hope to influence the consumer but ultimately the decision is made at the check out counter, by the consumer.

Just image what would happen if nearly all consumers stopped using one particular brand of gas station. For one week. The lost revenues and supply line congestion would devastate these super massive corporations. There vast size is a weakness. They would certainly not be undone by a week long boycott but the bottom line/stock price would effected. And shareholders are always looking those two numbers. Finally while corporations don't have to lawfully listen to the consumer, they do the shareholder.

We must promote yet another area of education for our countryman: The Power of the consumer in a truly free market.

[angrydragon]

Yup, the consumer can make or break monopolies in a true free-market.

[graystar]

I always think this point is lost with environmental groups with regards to energy markets. Environmental groups tend to favour regulation as the answer.

If you think about if there was a true free market in energy, where oil security was paid for by the oil producers rather than as a government subsidy via the use of the military then so called green technologies might actually be viable on their own without any government influence.

Entrepreneurs would be looking to make money in delivering cheaper energy - it also might be cleaner.

That is what I find annoying by some proposals such as "we must put ethanol in petrol" - which inevitably involve a government directive or subsidy - how can the government possibly know which technology is the best? What about wind, solar, nuclear? It is up to the market decide not bureaucrats with an agenda in washington. Not to mention the side effects such as artificially encouraging farmers to shift food production to fuel production without reference to true price mechanisms. See tortilla protests in mexico regarding this.

[PatriotOne]

I would like to see Ron Paul educate himself on the alternative energy technology that many scientists have already developed which are being suppressed by the Government and those who it doesn't benefit (oil whores).

One of many interesting case studies on this subject is Stan Meyer. Stan Meyer developed a dune buggy that ran on water. 22 gallons of water could get him from L.A. to New York. After the Government threw as many roadblocks in his way as possible, he finally managed to get some patents. Coincidently, Stan Meyers was poisened in 1998 and his technology buried in some deep dark abyss.

I'm aware of many claims of people who have actually converted their cars to run on water. Apparently there are kit's people can buy to do so.

Of course it doesn't take a scientist to figure out why water as fuel technology is suppressed (free energy is a curse to those who make trillions selling oil).

There's several video's on Google about Stan Meyers and his technology:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?num=10&so=0&q=stan+meyers&start=0

Like dismantling the Federal Reserve, this is another downright dangerous subject to have a legitimate politician publically talking about though. Now he would have 2 powerful groups gunning for him (Banker's and the oil-monger's).

[angrydragon]

I'm sure once he's elected, he wouldn't suppress any kind of technology that will help us. He'll let the market determine what is best.

[PatriotOne]

I'm sure once he's elected, he wouldn't suppress any kind of technology that will help us. He'll let the market determine what is best.


I don't think he would either, but what I am saying is that it would be one of those issues that if spoke about during his campaign and the debates, it would send a shock wave through the unenlightened public wondering why the rest of the bozo's aren't telling them that and further expose the corrupt Government puppets and corporations. Can you imagine the positive public response when people realize that they could have had cars running on water for at least the last 10 years and not paying $3.00 to $4.00 a gallon for gas and polluting the air?

My feeling is this would bring a tidal wave of American's to his campaign. Of course it would bring a tidal wave of Corporations gunning for him at the same time and Iowa might not like it either (Corn for fuel) :eek:

[mconder]

People have not known liberty for so long, I think people deep down are affaid liberty. They no longer have the faith in themselves or others to do the right thing in the absence of government. My hope is that Ron and his people can change that.

[angrydragon]

I think people do and are of afraid of the absence of government, but what they don't realize is that probably 95% of the time, they don't need the government.

[graystar]

I think people do and are of afraid of the absence of government, but what they don't realize is that probably 95% of the time, they don't need the government.

I always look at my own life. Where do I need it? The government needs me - via tax and support. I do not need it.

[jjschless]

I always think this point is lost with environmental groups with regards to energy markets. Environmental groups tend to favour regulation as the answer.

If you think about if there was a true free market in energy, where oil security was paid for by the oil producers rather than as a government subsidy via the use of the military then so called green technologies might actually be viable on their own without any government influence.

Entrepreneurs would be looking to make money in delivering cheaper energy - it also might be cleaner.

That is what I find annoying by some proposals such as "we must put ethanol in petrol" - which inevitably involve a government directive or subsidy - how can the government possibly know which technology is the best? What about wind, solar, nuclear? It is up to the market decide not bureaucrats with an agenda in washington. Not to mention the side effects such as artificially encouraging farmers to shift food production to fuel production without reference to true price mechanisms. See tortilla protests in mexico regarding this.

I agree here is part of a blog I wrote about the subject:


"...The truth of the matter is that our society has created this energy gulping, pollution belching, disgrace through demands put upon a free market. In this disposable society we find ourselves taking the low road of convenience more and more often. It is so easy to point and blame when in fact the blame resides squarely on the consumer. If the market didn't demand the factories to produce tons of cheap plastic trinkets, they wouldn't produce them. If the market didn't demand disposable cutlery, mops, toys, electronics, et cetera, they would not be produced.

But instead of reason and common sense we, the consumer, are demanding government regulations which in turn will cause the price of this superfluous crap to cost more. We will still buy it up and when we still see a problem with pollution there will be another outcry.

"Just look at this mess we are leaving our children." You moan as you drive to Burger King to get your child that kids meal because, "She nearly has the whole set of collectible figurines." Which your child will play with for about 3 weeks and you will end up throwing out.

"But she keeps bugging me to go get these toys!!!" You say defiantly. Well yeah, plant her in front of a TV for 4 odd hours and she'll want a certified preowned (see: Used) Lexus too.

I digress, this problem stems from an overall lack of responsibility in the adults around us.

"It's not my job."

"I didn't make that mess."

"I saw him do it first."

Lovely excuses, just lovely.

You want to end this problem of pollution?


Buy a fuel efficient vehicle, boycott manufacturers who do not have energy efficiency programs in place, donate to wildlife funds, volunteer to clean up highways and woodlands, use fans in summer instead of air conditioners and stop buying so much stupid $**t!

The free market will react and stop making so much stupid $**t and pollution will decline. That and in the race to get your dollar companies will react to the boycotts/demands of consumers."

[Gee]

Friedman used to say "Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself", and I think he was right. The free market is something impossibly complex which emerges from simple rules. I don't think we can ever hope to understand it completely, so to tell some people "don't worry about it, the market will handle it" without having perfect knowledge of how the market will handle it upsets them.

Of course with fuel and energy, its simpler. As oil gets scarcer, its supply decreases, driving the costs up. More money will then be diverted to alternative energy research. As the cost to search for more oil increases, eventually it will reach the point where it is more economical for the big oil companies to invest money into alternative fuels instead of searching for new sources of oil.