Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
I'm a Paleoconservative & not a Libertarian.
I agree with some people on the left that starting wars especially in the middle east is bad but for different reasons.
I don't believe in regime change wars because I know that most muslims want islam & not Freedom.
The left on the other hand opposes the wars because they side always with 3rd world countries over the west.
I don't know of any list. But in addition to AOC and Michael Malice, he's also hosted Joe Norman (@normonics):
My take... I agree with Justin to a point, the key however is to:
1) Treat others with respect (no name calling, degrading, etc)
2) Identify where there is really a common end-goal.
3) Educator others on how to get what they are after with pro-liberty principles, and why their proposed solutions are problematic.
Take the issue of the rich getting richer; the left see this as cause for more government / higher taxes, which we know 1) are counter to liberty 2) won't work 3) will ultimately hurt the middle class.
I wrote a summary of my pro-liberty view on how to address the "rich getting richer" issue in a 2014 post / turned blog:
... at the heart of the "rich getting richer" issue in that government policy / law is quite often manipulated by the elite wealthy class for their own self serving interests. This is what needs to stop, and it can be done. There are some clear and obvious examples of this such as corporate handouts, special privileges that only corporations enjoy, manipulation of regulations to benefit big corporations, manipulation of trade agreements and so on. These need to stop.
There is one major root problem however, the Federal Reserve System, which puts the control of our entire money supply into the hands of seven people. Seven. We tend to be feed information that these board members are looking out for the best interests of the country but many here say they end up serving the interest of the elite banking class allowing for easy profits of countless billions a year. Talk about the rich getting richer...
Consider the possibility that the seven board members, who are each serving 14 year terms, pre-plan out the highs and lows of interest rates for the next 8 years, a road-map of sorts, and only share that with an elite few. Do you have any idea how much that information would be worth? That's just the beginning of the problems with the Federal Reserve System, I highly recommend doing some research if you haven't, here is a 42 minute video I would suggest for starters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLYL_NVU1bg
You can also get into the debt-based monitory unit we use and more.
Now repeat this on other applicable issues.
So there are common bridges, the problem is that too many are feed a single narrative on fixing the problems (always more government that benefits the elite class) and without a lot of thought / searching, it's easy to go with the flow.
This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.
Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.
I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.
The only thing I agree with in any of this analysis is corporate welfare should be eliminated. That should be done with eliminating stimmy checks as well.
I don't agree the "rich getting richer" is a problem. I think the income inequality debate is pure leftist nonsense. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B015CKO1DY...ng=UTF8&btkr=1 For the same reason, I don't see bottom income earners are also getting richer (which they are) as problem. Wealth inequality is self correcting. If it from something artificial there will be a bust and the gap will close
To the extent income gaps have widened, it is because of the changing economy. Creativity and knowledge are more highly prized and the ability to manage a global business is paid more.
That information wouldn't be worth anything. The Federal Reserve doesn't control interest rates. https://www.econlib.org/library/Colu...restrates.htmlConsider the possibility that the seven board members, who are each serving 14 year terms, pre-plan out the highs and lows of interest rates for the next 8 years, a road-map of sorts, and only share that with an elite few. Do you have any idea how much that information would be worth?
I suspect your argument is something like the Federal Reserve held interest rates artificially low for the last 12 years and enabled people with early access to get cheap credit at the expense of everyone else. And those low interest rates caused an artificial boom because of cheap money.
The problem with that is if rates were held artificially low, inflation would go up and all the interest rates the Fed has no influence on would go up. That never happened. http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.c...marketers.html
Last edited by Krugminator2; 05-09-2021 at 02:25 PM.
Most representatives do have a "real job or two" on the side of being a rep: selling us out.
So long as the federal govt requires full-time representation in DC (and I'm not sure that it should), congressional salary should be enough that reps don't need to take bribes on the sides. Pay them a wage that lets them make ends meet, then forbid them from any other form of income which could pose a conflict of interest.
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
Hi! Thanks for the reply. I don't want to hijack this thread but it could be a good discussion on talk about these items.
Issues: special privileges that only corporations enjoy, manipulation of regulations to benefit big corporations, manipulation of trade agreements
I completely agree, it's not a problem onto itself.I don't agree the "rich getting richer" is a problem.
FYI, this highlights a tactic in my post which was made in direct reply to someone on the left who was posting here. I worked to direct him to pro-liberty viewpoints that would address what he saw as a problem with no intent to agree or disagree. (Just one of many useful approaches).
As it's being presented, and the pushed for solutions, I agree 100%; but again with a view of trying to build allies the tactic is to look at how pro-liberty views can help address the issue. With that it's possible to see some anti-liberty elements that play a role in the issue, which can make it not complete nonsense to a degree.I think the income inequality debate is pure leftist nonsense.
Thanks, good piece. A few points....That information wouldn't be worth anything. The Federal Reserve doesn't control interest rates. https://www.econlib.org/library/Colu...restrates.html
1) This statement within the piece: "There is no denying that central banks have some impact on interest rates, in both the short and the long run." is enough of what I'm after to illustrate my point. That impact is still a huge deal when looking at the massive scale of things.
2) You and the piece are absolutely correct, the Fed can't exactly just do whatever they want. To sum up the piece, it's complicated.
FYI, my message here was also tailored to an approach of building allies by trying to simplify a message that is consumable to the target audience. One of the blessing of the free-thinking / pro-liberty movement is there are a lot of fact-based, detail-oriented, deep thinking people. This is ultimately what is needed to win the day, but I'd argue there is also value in trying to find simple ways to explain complex subjects to people when trying to win them over.
I was just pointing out the general issue of power consolidation, not referencing any specific decisions for any time frame (this was written in 2014 too).I suspect your argument is something like the Federal Reserve held interest rates artificially low for the last 12 years and enabled people with early access to get cheap credit at the expense of everyone else. And those low interest rates caused an artificial boom because of cheap money.
Thanks again!
This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.
Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.
I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.
You recently (and quite correctly) evinced skepticism of the notion that "people stop wanting money after $45 million".
So why would members of Congress stop wanting more money, regardless of any "ends-meeting" raises they may have given themselves?
Influence peddlers gonna peddle influence. Influence buyers gonna buy influence. The more power the government has, the more influence it will have to sell - and the more buyers will try to outbid each other for it (where "more" is relative to both the number of bidders and the sizes of their bids). Concocting rules to get rid of such "soft" money (or in-kind "contributions") will merely result in yet "softer" money that will simply find some way of getting around the rules (assuming such self-imposed rules are actually even enforced in anything more than a self-serving and desultorily partisan manner to begin with, which requires quite a stretch of gullibility ).
File "pay raise with conflict-of-interest rules vis-à-vis other income" under "deck-chair rearrangement schemes that do absolutely nothing to significantly reduce the power and scope of government" - right along with things like term limits and campaign finance reform. At best, these things will accomplish nothing more than changing the details of how (but not at all changing how much) influence is peddled.
Amash better watch his "reaching out" to women. He could end up like Stachel!
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
They wouldn't. That's why they must be forbidden from other sources of income, like I said. At the moment, they might have an argument that their salary simply isn't enough to me the expenses that the life of a rep requires. Pay them a fair wage, then outlaw the currently-prevalent forms of influence peddling and trading on information which is not available to the ordinary citizen.
This is a common issue in many places where corruption is accepted. In these areas, often government jobs simply pay too little money, and the ability to earn more money by taking bribes is just considered to be part of the salary and perks of the job.
What are some specific new laws you have in mind that would accomplish this?
It seems to me that there is no conceivable law that would prevent the richest people and corporations from being able to use their wealth to influence politicians.
If there is a conceivable solution (conceivable, but still very unrealistic practically), it is to remove the incentive by not allowing the government to have the amount of power that makes it worth it for those ultra-rich to expend the amount of money that it would cost to influence them.
But as long as the government has that power (which I believe it always inevitably will), it will always be moved in accordance with the iron law of oligarchy.
Ron PaulThere is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)
One example would be to allow reps to invest only in index funds or broad, professionally managed investments, preferably investments which are available to the general public as well, and forbid them from trading in individual companies or industries.
That seems relatively simple. Is it perfect? No, of course not. It reduces but does not eliminate their ability to make money off of their influence. But if that reduction takes the potential profit down to the point where the scandal would be more detrimental than the trading would be profitable... that might discourage most from taking the chance.
This could be stricter for those who sit on a particular committee or have some kind of extra influence over a certain industry. For example... someone on the armed services committee should not be making money by trading stocks of military suppliers.
I agree, of course. And reducing the number of places and ways that the federal government can influence markets should also be pursued.
However, absent an ideal world in which we do not need basic elements of statehood like a military, there will always be some amount of economic influence in the hands of reps
His next guest is this person:
https://twitter.com/janecoaston/stat...53049919533057
This page has more details: https://iop.z2systems.com/np/clients...jsp?event=1078
Via the "Upcoming Fellows Seminars" link at this page, I found this placeholder for a to-be-determined guest on the 20th and also this joint presentation on the 24th by Amash & a former governor of Massachusetts (via the same source). I haven't been able to find anything about his previous guests, though. Maybe Michael Malice, AOC, and Joe Norman are the only ones so far. (The event scheduled for the 20th is labeled as "Seminar Eight" but I don't know if that means the eighth one by Amash, or the eighth one overall.)
Last edited by Brian4Liberty; 05-12-2021 at 06:27 PM.
"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
Proponent of real science.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.
Connect With Us