Ron Paul on Real Time with Bill Maher (2/20/09)

Ok so since no-one here seems able to actually defend Ron Paul and the right wing libertarian viewpoint we have to assume that they are in fact, bollocks, and that even those that have praised them know in their hearts that they are in reality bollocks.

 

Balbus, you did not even attempt to refute what others have said, so why should people respond to what you've said when they have already explained why what you are proposing does not work and never has?

Trying to end a financial crisis by spending more money does not work. It never has worked, nor will it this time. But that's not what they want. If they wanted to really solve problems (ones they created), they would simply allow the banks to fail and the markets to crash so things can start over from scratch. It would be painful, but it would be relatively short in comparison to what they're setting us up for. All the government is doing is prolonging that which is absolutely inevitable, and will be far worse when it does happen, thanks to all this market manipulation. I think Ron Paul explained this rather well.

People are in for a lot of hurt no matter what the government does or does not do. However, by doing what they're doing, it will only make things much worse and destroy the dollar. It's basic economics, really. Never has a country gotten themselves out of a recession/depression by simply printing up more money, devaluing the currency, while spending themselves into even more debt. What the government is proposing is exactly what has gotten us into this mess.

 

The notion that you “can’t spend your way out of a financial crisis” is completely untrue.
To say that you can’t is being overly simplistic. The fact is, sometimes you can spend your way out of a financial crisis, and sometimes you can’t.

For example, I found myself in dead-end job after dead-end job, and there was only one solution right for me: go back to college and finish my degree. That involved borrowing money, and spending lots of borrowed money for years. It was absolutely the right thing to do.

I can think of a ton of businesses who also spent borrowed money to get out of a financial crisis. I know local Laundromat that got caught in a financial death spiral. First one machine broke, and they couldn’t afford to fix it. No big deal, that didn’t cost them any customers, but then two, three, four machines were broken and unfixed, and now they started to lose customers. So they borrowed and spent money for all new machines. It was actually cheaper for them to invest in new machines, with warranties.

On the governmental level it becomes much more complicated, but the idea is still valid. The question really is how to spend our way out of the financial crisis. I think there is only so much that can and should be done.

At the root of this problem is massive fraud. From the mortgage applicant who lied about there income, to the bank who never verified things, to the ratings agencies who turned this crap into AAA rating, to the insurers like AIG who sold default insurance when they didn’t have the reserves to be insuring these pieces of crap, its fraud, plain and simple.

 

Spending our way out of this crisis isn't quite applicable, IMO.


We have already devalued the dollar, and are in such debt, that I dont see any logic in printing up trillions more, to try to fix a broken system.


I think the dollar is going to crash soon, then we'll have some fun.

 

But oddly enough your "some things" seems to include nearly everything said by everybody here. I would be hard pressed to find examples of you not being condescending.

You finding something worthy of condescension is about as surprising as Rat concluding that something is a conspiracy. Its not exactly a stop-the-presses moment.

 

Depoisoned - your arguments are not applicable to what is being discussed. Corporations and people can barrow money. This often leaves them in debt. However, when the government barrows money, it must turn to the Federal Reserve to print that money (via the Treasury). Since the money system has been off the gold standard, the money has been worth nothing more than the paper it is printed on. And the more money they print out of nothing, the less the money is worth. This will eventually lead to hyperinflation and the destruction of the dollar, creating a crisis far worse than what is being experienced now. Any economist who knows what they're talking about will tell you this.

The corruption stems not with a couple low-level lackeys on Wall St., but from the central bankers behind the Federal Reserve scam. The fractional reserve banking system allows the pyramiding of bank money (demand deposits) on top of the fiat "government-issued" currency.

 

No.

If the US government issues a new treasury bond, if i buy it, you buy it, or China buys it, no money is printed. You pay for the bond, you are lending them the money. When the bond matures, they repay you.

This is why there is so much talk about how much US debt is held by China, and what will happen if they stop buying our bonds.

 

This post is completely unsurprising.


I make an observation about your character, and you immediately turn to attacking me.

Hardly behavior befitting of a moderator, IMHO.

 

Yes, and the US government can also sell the bonds to the Federal Reserve. When the Fed buys bonds it can pay for them simply by printing money.

 

Woohoo!


Money for nothing!


Now I get it when they mean that the first people to use the Fed's printed money have the most buying power from it.


Cause they are the first ones to use it, and they can actually get something worthwhile in return.


Ingenious!

And don't the bonds gain interest? and out government has to pay it off, with The Fed's own money.

 

The Fed loans the US government money at interest, yes. This ensures perpetual debt to the bankers.

 

But that's not what you said, is it? You said:

.So you are changing your argument as you go along. Did you think nobody would notice?

No, once gain your arguments contradict. The money the government owes to the Federal Reserve is money it owes to itself. You seem to think they print it and owe it at the same time, which makes no sense.

 

Hey Hiptastic your Israeli radar have Ron Paul topics targetted? And you use the same arguments and misdirection on every thread. Am I surprised? NO. It's like discussing anything with Balbus.

Perhaps you should move it to the conspiracy section.

 

The Federal Reserve is not a government entity...

:toetap05:

Maybe you should try knowing what you're talking about sometimes,

 

But they haven’t given me anything to refute? I’ve explained why I think these right wing libertarian ideas are crazy and so far no one has even attempted to explain why what I’ve said was wrong.

Lets face it you’re not explaining why what I’ve said about these stupid right wing libertarian ideas is wrong.

You telling me my ideas are wrong but this thread isn’t about my ideas it’s about Ron Paul’s and the other right wing libertarian ideas.

(If you wish to discuss Keynesian ideas, there are plenty of other threads in which to do so)

**

What got us into this mess was a lightly regulated free market geared for individualistic short term financial gain over long term stability and the interests of the community.

What right wing libertarian economic ideas are based on is the idea of a completely deregulated free market geared for individualistic short term financial gain over long term stability and the interests of the community.

As I said in post 11 the right wing libertarian economic policy is to have a – “completely deregulated laissez faire, market system, a bit like the one that caused this crisis but on steroids and unfettered by even the limited constraints it had?

And when it inevitably crashes oh well then you let it collapse. Runs on banks would bring them down, millions would have all their savings wiped out overnight, big business would fail, followed by small ones, the service sector would close up and a tsunami of unemployment would sweep across the country.

(oh and the rich having made their money in the boom would hold up or more likely leave with their wealth during the bust).

And then they’d buy up cheaply and make even more money and become even more influential.

I mean what you are proposing would hit everyone BUT wealth, extremely badly.

Once again Rat why is it that everything you ever seem to propose seems to come out favouring the very wealthy elite you make a big song and dance about disliking? .

You seem desperate to sell this wealth favouring idea even to the point of lying through your teeth – I mean claiming that such a economic shock as you suggest would be ‘relatively short’, well it would be to the many that would die because of it.

Try reading this piece on the Depression of 1873-1896 (often referred to as ‘the long Depression’ http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=477k3d8mh2wmtpc4b6h07p4hy9z83x18

 

Actually what you just said makes no sense. The interest is paid to the bankers, not the Federal government. Sorry, I don't believe the bullshit you are trying to peddle to confuse people, making them believe the government prints its own money when it doesn't and has not since 1913.

If this country printed its own money, it would be interest free. Are you telling me the government pays interest to itself?

 

Ok so since no-one here (STILL) seems able to actually defend Ron Paul and the right wing libertarian viewpoint we have to assume that they are in fact, bollocks, and that even those that have praised them know in their hearts that they are in reality bollocks.

 

Why. Do. You. Bother.

 

You can think what you want.



Why do you depend on us to base your opinions on.


For the record, I like Ron Paul, I subscribe to his website and his e-mail list, but I dont go out of my way to become familiar with every single detail of his platform. I think he's a good guy, and a hell of a lot better than the alternatives, I just dont have time to learn every piece of what he speaks about, so I can just regurgitate it back to you.

I'm also too lazy.


Go ahead, begin the tongue lashing, about how I follow everything blindly, and have no discernment.

I wont be listening.

 

No it's just like debating you on gun control...it's pointless and time cosuming. Why not just move it to the conspiracy section?