Ron Paul on the Fed, North Korea and the TSA Revolt

The fact that he appeared on the Alex Jones show keeps him in the crackpot camp as far as I'm concerned.

 

Alex Jones... seriously, Dr. Paul?

 

Where you choose to appear speaks volumes.

 

I have never understood the Paul supporters.

Once in one of my senior business courses my professor took a week to show us via simulations what would happen to the economy if Mr Pauls free market policies were enacted...

Needless to say it was not pretty...I laugh at any Paul supporter who believes he can change anything.

He should stick to riling up his base and leave us thinkin folk alone.

 

I am sure a liberal professor could have a lot of fun doing that. A conservative professor could have fun with it too only the results would be a little different. Just because a "professor" said it would happen by running a "simulation" does not make it so. This was basically the "professor's" theory of what would happen if free market policies were enacted. Some "professors" have no idea what would happen in the "real world".

 

LOL @ RON PAUL

 

Says the middle-aged married man who stalks teenage girls through his friend's facebook page. Post of the year!

 

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6JyvkjSKMLw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6JyvkjSKMLw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

That wasn't funny at all. Dumb post of the day.

 

Praytell sir, what in YOUR opinion do you think will happen if Ron Puals "free market" policies were enacted?

 

Post of the year, Creeper! Your wife does not like this.

 

What is your problem with DonnyMost? This is about the fifth thread I've seen you show up in only to call him a stalker, without contributing anything to the discussion at all.

 

b/c a 'simulation' run by some college 'professor' (with his own inherent biases, i might add) is exactly the way it would play out in real life, isnt it?

for starters, we would see an era where the government and corporations were held accountable for their actions. there would be no more corporate welfare. we wouldnt be bailing out companies that went belly-up due to their own malfeasance and greed. the government would no longer be permitted to continue as the nations largest polluter and not be subjected to the laws that everyone else must follow. we would be saving hundreds of billions a year by not engaging in unnecessary wars.

do you have an opinion or do you let your "professor" tell you what to think?

why dont you tell us what happened in your "professors" simulation?

 

I would be very interested in seeing the assumptions that went into this simulation. While I agree that it doesn't necessarily reflect what would really happen, if it is actually well-informed, it probably does a better job than the typical libertarian "simulation" where all the world's problems are solved by limiting government.

Of course the government wouldn't be the largest polluter anymore, but not because they stop polluting, just because everyone else kicks it up a notch or two.

The only libertarian position I really agree with is the anti-war position, and that includes the war on drugs.

 

(full disclousre - im copying and pasting this from another thread)

the problem right now is that the regulatory agencies do not work. look at the oil spill and all the failures of the regulatory agencies - they were out doing coke and having sex w/ the people they were supposed to be regulating. for decades now the oil industry and their lobbyists have been writing the laws and giving them to our elected officials to pass. the industry has its own "experts" and scientists which they trot out infront of our politicians and "regulatory" agencies, who then go off their testimony. there is nothing libertarian about that.

under the libertarian philosophy of private property rights, individuals, small businesses and cities would be able to sue for damages. congress put a $75 million dollar cap on the amount that oil companies are liable for in the event of a spill. that right there was a disincentive for BP to get their act together. again, i dont speak for the "moderate libertarian", but it seems to me that under a libertarian ideology there would have been no cap on their liability and BP would have been held criminally negligent and have been able to be sued by all the fishermen, local towns and small businesses that were impacted by their negligence - knowing that, i dont think it is a stretch to say that BP might have been a little more careful if they knew the government safety net was not there for them to fall into. here was a case of "government power" helping the corporations by putting a cap on the amount they would have to pay for damages and disincentivizing them from getting their act together.

the system we have right now is pretty f***ing corrupt. i wouldnt mind seeing one where people are actually held liable for their malfeasance. and i really wouldnt mind seeing one where the government doesnt abdicate its responsibility and actually holds these corporate criminals accountable.

on the government, they are our nations largest polluter (specifically the pentagon) and are exempt from most of its own laws. the military can pollute to its hearts content and the EPA will not enforce its own laws on them. imo, a "moderate libertarian" would want the government held to the same standards that corporations are held to and would even argue that the government could be sued for polluting.