Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

What "legitimate" system?

 

Ones that don't leak hundreds of billions of dollars per year into the pockets of people who have created their own money-for-nothing scheme to the detriment of the rest of us, of course.

Balbus, do you see the interest collected by a private corporation on money that doesn't really exist as thievery? Just a simple yes or no, if you don't mind.

 

Balbus,

I'm confused as to why you blame "free market ideology" for tanking the American economy on one hand, but on the other claim that there has never been, and never will be any kind of free market. I've seen this from you multiple times throughout this thread.

 

I am libertarian-leaning, not liberal or conservative

 

He's saying that it's failing because there isn't one, just a very profitable (for a few) illusion. And he's totally right.

But he keeps asking not what the solution wouldn't do, but what it would..... Simple. Have a legitimate government bank......

And yes, inflation is a tool to make the economy look like it's always growing, when it stays the same.

By the way, I don't think I would vote for ron paul, honestly, anymore.... I'm a socialist, with a libertarian slant.

 

storch

LOL - But WHAT system?

To repeat - My problem with the right wing libertarian argument about the FED is that they seem to want to take a hammer to the system without having a viable alternative and what’s worse they don’t seem to care that they don’t have a viable alternative it seems like another case of ideological beliefs outweighing rational thought.

 

Letlovin

Try reading - Read - Free market = plutocratic tyranny.
http://www.hipforums.com/modules/News/showarticle.php?threadid=353336

Try reading – Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353

 

Edward

But that doesn’t mean that a libertarian can’t be right wing, that is why I say right wing libertarian to distinguish it from other forms of libertarianism.

Peter Marshal – Demanding the impossible
Thread - Bringing in libertarianism
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=151086

 

Roo

Thanks’ for the support.

I’d point out that in the UK the government owns several banks (for example it owns 63 per cent of the Royal Bank of Scotland), they are publically owned, the British people own them, they are basically nationalised banks.

The problem is that neoliberal ideology is still very strong and these publically owned banks are not been run to help the people but as business concerns with the priority been the bank management (that’s why these are still trying to give out huge bonus) and the shareholders (meaning the Tory government is likely to give any money gained in selling the governments bank shares will probably go in tax cuts for wealth).

As I’ve often repeated I think a society should be about promoting the interests of everyone in it and the institutions of that society should be order in such a way as to bring that about. But we don’t live in a perfect world and sometimes you have to choose between bad and worse.

So given the chose between a twisted Fed system and the ideology of the right wing libertarians, i'd go for the bad rather than the worse.

But why not have the better? It seems to me the founding of the Fed was a fudge, a mix of public and private, my view is that it should be reformed or replaced with a better more public system, that was geared more toward full employment.

At the same time the US should be pushing for better international institutions that can better regulate the globalised economy to work for everyone rather than a few.

Try - Manifesto for a New World Order by George Monbiot
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Manifesto-World-Order-George-Monbiot/dp/1595580395"]Manifesto for A New World Order: Amazon.co.uk: George Monbiot: Books

 

Balbus,

LOL??

To repeat: Do you agree that there is a theft going on? A simple yes or no will suffice. I must say that getting you to answer this question is like pulling teeth! If you're not going to answer it, will you at least answer this: Why are you not answering that question plainly?

The first step in solving a problem is to admit that there is a problem; that's half the battle. By the same token, the first step in stopping an ongoing theft is to admit that one is taking place.

I'm reluctant to put anything else in my post for fear that you will latch on to it and completely ignore the question I have put to you concerning an admission on your part that an ongoing theft is taking place.

Nevertheless . . .

You said: "I’ve got nothing against some types of local barter systems but I don’t think they are in any way going to replace an already established national currency unless the national currency itself becomes worthless and at that point that country is in real, real deep shit."

Then I posted this: http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/Billinfo/...morials/4010-Inflation by federal reserve.pdf from 2009.

It is information concerning the activities of the Fed, and how it has caused a 3000% increase in the interest-bearing money-out-of-thin-air supply, resulting in an 89% decrease in the value of the dollar. I also pointed out how things have degraded since then.

Then I showed you that the criteria you established for when it is time to replace a national currency has been met.

Then I posted this:
http://www.lightlink.com/hours/ithacahours/otherhours.html

And this:
http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/cc/CED.html
_________________________________________________

Do you believe that there is an ongoing theft taking place? A simple yes or no.

 

Storch, you really need to think about what’s been said.

To repeat - To you this thing is a crime but to me the bigger crime would be to replace it with something worse rather than something better.

You I’m sure would claim it wouldn’t be worse, but you have put up no rational or reasonable argument to back that theory up only assertions.

I think you suffer from a common complaint, in that you think too much in absolutes, yes or no, black or white, good or evil. The problem is that in the real world things are seldom that clear cut.

To put it in simplistic terms people might prefer a thief been in control if the alternative been offered is a psychopath.

And my problem with the right wing libertarian argument about the FED is that they seem to want to take a hammer to the system without having a viable alternative and what’s worse they don’t seem to care that they don’t have a viable alternative it seems like another case of ideological beliefs outweighing rational thought.

I’ve repeated this several times and you still don’t seem to be disputing it.

 

Sorry, Balbus, but I've already told you that I am not affiliated with any group or ideology . . . twice now. My concern is that income tax would be better spent on the things people expect it to be spent on, and not to line the pockets of thieves.

And yes, you've stated that, to me, this thing is a crime. But what about you? Do you see it as a crime? Yes or no?

Again, I've shown you that, by your own criteria, the national currency is virtually worthless. Still, you refuse to acknowledge that it should be replaced, as you said it should be. Explain this seemingly contradictory position of yours.

Also, I've posted the alternative to being robbed--the thing you called a psychopath. How do you propose an alternative be introduced, if not by process?

But first, answer me this: Are YOU calling it a theft?

 

And by the way, I've asked you to describe how having more money--by way of having our income tax being used for legitimate purposes--is going to be painful. But in your own words, " . . . you have put up no rational or reasonable argument to back that theory up only assertions."

 

Storch

LOL You can assert anything you want, but what you say and do is what counts with me, I mean you are in a thread on a right wing libertarian. But it is very hard to work out for thinking because you refuse to explain things and what you do say often seems muddled.

But as far as I can tell (you refusing to explain) you would just replace it with a right wing free market system that would give wealth even greater power.

LOL to repeat – something could be a crime but to me the bigger crime would be to replace it with something worse rather than something better. It doesn’t matter if it is or isn’t the question is if it is to be replaced with something better or worse.

No you haven’t

Please read my posts, to repeat - my view is that it should be reformed or replaced with a better more public system, that was geared more toward full employment.

I don’t think you have explained a viable alternative.

 

Balbus, you are evading storch's questions. You get bent out of shape when someone doesn't answer yours, but you refuse to answer a simple question by use of evasion tactics.

 

Letlovin

It doesn’t matter if I answered yes or no - the question is if it is to be replaced with something better or worse.

*

 

Yes, Balbus, I have offered you the alternative. It just left you with no alternative but to claim it was not shown to you, which you are doing now.

I've clearly pointed out that a crime has been ongoing, and still you refuse to acknowledge even that! So just say that a crime has been committed and has been allowed to continue, and we can continue from there. However, if you refuse to acknowledge it, how can we go on to discuss the solution?

And no, you haven't given a shape or form to the boogey man you say awaits us all when the thieving is stopped. Why is that you believe less profits for the corporate banks making up the Federal Reserve is a bad thing? It's not their money; it's ours. What are they doing with it??

____________________________________________________

In case you've forgotten:

With the exception of coins, all of our "money" is really debt acting as a substitute for
real, Constitutional money. Real money would be created and spent into circulation
by the government, tax free and interest free. Instead we continue to let private
corporations use the government's own power to create money and loan that money
to us and charge us interest for the use of our own money.
**See “Modern Money Mechanics” published
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________________________________
Inflation Correctly Defined:
Recall that as the debt grows exponentially due to the
accumulating interest, more and more money must be created
just to pay the interest for the debt - which is expanding
exponentially.

This process sets up a chronic and ever-worsening shortage of
money relative to debt, as the DUM equation shows.
Over time, wages and prices must rise just to pay the interest
costs, never mind the ACTUAL cost of goods and services.
Therefore inflation in a debt dominant money system, such
as the Fed, is correctly defined as "debt-induced currency devaluation.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________________________________
By the mid 1700’s England was in a lot of debt and looked to the colonies for
revenue. Because the colonies were prospering so nicely during this period,
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) was called before the British Parliament
during one of his visits to London in 1757 and asked how he could account
for the new found prosperity in the colonies.
Franklin replied:

"That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial
Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and
industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the
consumers. In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we
control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to any one."

All of the above, and a complete explanation of the money system, can be found here:

http://www.thetwofacesofmoney.com/files/money.pdf

And what, exactly, is your problem with this? And I suggest you read it before condemning it.

 

So you can change the questions that are asked to better suit what you want to say?

Free market or not, something has to change. Ron Paul still stands as the only candidate In 2012 to offer anything other than the status quo. We have to try something new, to continue this path were on is insanity.

 

storch

No you haven’t – nowhere have you explained in any detail your alternative to the Fed system –

You have hinted at a ‘free market’ approach

You have hinted at congress having direct control

You have hinted at abolishing the Fed

You have hinted at phasing it out

You have hinted at replacing the dollar with local currencies

And so on – many hints no explanations and you have not addressed the criticism levelled at the things been hinted at.

No you haven’t you assert that it is a crime, but the point is if it is or isn’t a crime doesn’t resolve the problem of what it should be replaced with something worse or something better.

LOL - Easily all you have to do is be willing to discuss solutions a good start would be you clearly setting out your alternative.

I’m really unsure what you mean by ‘boogey man’. I’ve set out the problems I see with a free market approach and the congressional approach and the local currency approach and a lot more besides you haven’t even attempted to address those criticisms.

LOL oh the old if you’re not with us you’re against us gambit – to repeat - my view is that the fed should be reformed or replaced with a better more public system, that works for the many not the few and be geared more toward full employment. As noted in my often repeated criticisms of the many alternatives you’ve hinted at - they either are not credible or are likely to make a bad situation worse.

Can you address those criticisms or not?

 

Letlovin

I’ve explained my opposition to a ‘free market’ route many times so I’d say not - but you go no to support the ‘free market’ ideas personified by Ron Paul so can you defend that ‘free market’ approach from criticism?