Ayn Rand (and Ron Paul) Madde This Nation More Selfish

You're only proving how little you know about economics. It takes time for monetary debasement to be reflected in the measured inflation rate. The new money has to circulate for some time before prices begin to increase as individuals and firms bid up prices as the new money becomes their income. Also, you're showing overall inflation which doesn't show how inflation is impacting particular industries. In a period of economic decline, a measure of overall inflation can be misleading because of deflation in particular sectors of the economy.

Of course, I'm not expecting you to be persuaded by a reasonable argument. I'm expecting that you'll keep trolling and towing the party line. I don't think your fooling anybody, though.

 

I agree. Inflation isn't going to be a problem. The Euro isn't slowly dying before our very eyes either. The world's central planners have everything under control.

 

As for that graph

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/12/exposed-why-krugman-smoothed-inflation.html

 

EXPOSED - now we finally found that hyperinflation you, bingsha10, promised us in 2008- at an annual rate of........................ < 2%.


Please stop failing.

Yes, supposedly it takes time, like 2 years...oops:

 

No my friend. it is YOU that has been exposed.

 

Isn't it beautiful when academics can be used to prove liberal academia wrong.

 

.

Uh, brah, you may want to check the headliens. The euro is definitely dying, because the original Kings of Austerity Comedy tour has diagnosed the problem of lack of demand by recommending hard money policies that murder demand.

Surprisingly, leeches are not curing blood loss. But the answer is of course...MORE LEECHES. As soon as italy cuts its spending, things will magically get better...I know it.

 

Sarcasm on the reply.

 

ive never said anything about antitrust laws, but i believe pauls position would be that the federal government has no enforcement role - rather its a state matter.

paul would argue that the securities laws are set up to further entrench the very people who got us into the mess we are in and actually makes things worse. and paul actually introduced a bill calling for greater transparency in the SEC. like his call to audit the fed, paul wants congress to have oversight.

and what good is the SEC when they knew about madoff for 10 years and didnt do s***?

racist!

his opposition to the civil rights act was based on the fact that it only served to foster racial division. i dont necessarily agree as i believe that it was necessary in the 60's, but at this point in time if we want to be a society w/ true equal rights for everyone we can probably get rid of it. pauls position is based always on treating people the same and not putting americans into different sub-groups...to me its the opposite of racism.

good points samuel! those are two great reasons to get behind paul, but there is sooooooo much more!

1) tsa opposition is a microcosm of his overall stellar position on civil liberties. against warrantless wiretapping, pro-habeas corpus, anti-torture, anti-government secrecy, not worried about the gays getting gay married. compare paul to your president obama, who has been a massive disappointment and shown a total disregard for civil liberties. only the most partisan of hacks can see that he has been even worse than bush.

2) pot - not just pot, legalize it all. end the pointless and ineffective war on drugs - take the power away from the cartels in mexico - tax and regulate - stop putting users in prison - addicts are not criminals and should not be in prison. people should be free to make their own choices. as paul humorously said, "if the government legalizes heroin are you going to all of a sudden go out and use it?"

3) anti-war - the only republican not calling for preemptively attacking iran (even the obama administration is making threats) - calls for immediate end to all wars and closing our bases and bringing troops home...and he leads everyone (including obama) in donations from active duty military. the biggest anti-war hippie is leading in active duty military donations...hmmm.

4) non-interventionist foreign policy - its pretty simple - treat others as you would like to be treated and stop giving billions in military aid/equipment to other countries, whose interests are often at odds w/ ours.

5) lower spending/smaller government - as far as the deficit, obama has made a bad situation worse - republicans talk the talk, but whenever in power they spend and expand government like liberals (and during the bush years even worse). we are broke and the current system is not sustainable.

what many of you partisans fail to realize is that there are a huge number of people in this country who are disgusted by both R's and D's and are looking for a new direction. people are sick of the corruption, corporate influence, hypocrisy and lies. the rise of paul is a direct reflection of that sentiment. many, like myself, believe that the system is broken beyond repair and paul represents a 'reset' button, if you will, on the game of 'the united states of america'.

 

for all your spot-on, insightful and eloquently stated criticism of obama and his policies you and me both know that you are going to vote for him next year.

stop supporting the status quo - i know there is good in you rhad...the emperor hasnt driven it from you fully!

 

and even if paul didnt change a damn thing id still trust having him as president a hell of alot more than corporate whores like bush and obama.

Spoiler

this 3rd post is a row was made just for samuel!

 

I have stated repeatedly on this forum that I will not vote for Obama. For over a year now, at least.

I will not vote for Paul, because while I support him in regards to foreign policy and matters of individual liberty, his ideology fueled domestic agenda is a complete disaster. One that I, unlike some others, cannot ignore.

 

So you are either going to try to elect your dog catcher, or not vote. How is that going to impact the 2012 election for President? You'll end up just like those other people, Rhad, who complain about the status quo, but don't bother to vote and are doing nothing to change it. Who would you rather appoint Supreme Court Justices, and the other lifetime Federal judges, Rhad... Obama, or any one of the remaining Republican contenders? Are we better off if one of those Republicans manages to beat the President? I think not.

 

I am reasonably confident that any vote for a federal post (congressional or presidential) is a de facto vote for the status quo. As such, your complaint here is totally ineffective - I am precisely resisting the status quo by refusing to vote in such a way that perpetuates it.

I vote for local and state officials, as appropriate.

Seeing as Obama has enshrined Bush policies that are whole-heartedly inline with an Alito-world-purview, I again must counter that your argument is meaningless. These choices are not choices at all.

Ron Paul is certainly distanced from this in some ways, but the annoying thing is that the ideas he will probably have the easiest time forcing through congress are those I find most abhorrent. Republicans as of late are all for dismantling social services, and the democrats have been far from saints in that regard either. Paul has some individual control over foreign policy, but his ideas for DoD cuts are ****ed in congress. Hard to say how his standpoint on civil liberties would or would not work with actual legislative efforts. So, of the two things I like, they're both limited or practically impossible. The things I don't like are, crazily enough, potentially passable.

I really liked Hunstman. He seemed the only one who was both practical and bound by his convictions.

 

It's a way of looking at it, I suppose, although I couldn't disagree more with your take on Federal judicial appointments. As you know, Obama has done many things I disagree with, and I haven't been shy about saying so, either. But the alternative is unspeakable. Oh, I like Huntsman as well. Sadly, he appears to have no chance in this Republican Party to win their nomination. I wish he would change parties and become a Democrat. We could use him.

 

i fully support all disillusioned democrats not voting for obama. you cant bring yourself to support paul, but you are too principled to tow the party line...i respect it. personally, i think obama has been such garbage that he does not deserve a 2nd term - f*** it - at this point id rather see romney. lets get freaky!

totally cool brah! just make sure you stay home next november. i must say im a tad worried about your commitment to this very noble sentiment, but if anyone can not do it, you can!

 

I am not a democrat. To be frank, this insistence on pigeon-holing your "opposition" is one of the major flaws in your arguments.

That being said, I do enjoy seeing you go at it with such fervor. Refreshing.

 

LOL - Let's take a look at what happened here. Confronted with a subject he has little experience with and doesn't understand (antitrust, a pretty academic wonkish subbranch here; to be fair though, neither does Ron himself), Paulista launches into "ERRR MUST BE STATES YA THAT'S IT MUST BE RIGHT" Federalist-devolution-subroutine....

Not having read the words of the sacred golden plates myself prior to tonight, I find this doubtful that this is what L. Ron said.

First off, even a half-witted constitutional fundamentalist like Ron Paul can actually ****ing read the words "interstate commerce". And even a cursory look at the Sherman Act reveals that it's pretty much absolutely and entirely grounded in interstate commerce; furthermore, an even slightly less cursory look about the the history of it and its drafting reveals that it was explicitly devised in the 1890's after the states were entirely unable to cope with the nature of the problem....(and passed unanimously). Again, this is not surprising and basically commonsensical.

Regulating multistate (and actually multinational) entities and interstate commerce is FAR more efficient to do at a centralized level than at a state level (though various state AT statutes exist today, they tend to not be the prime vehicle for enforcement). It's no different than having a single army or a single foreign policy - it's just a better way to do it for various reasons, and lowering costs of enforcement and compliance is one of them.

Again, this argument is just such a flat-out easy loser, so I was incredulous, so I checked it out. Ron is dumb, but he's also smart enough to lie when he knows he's dumb.

A quick googling reveals a bunch of simpletons in Paulista forums trying to specu-postu-lating by parsing L. Ron Paul's words like the sacred OT-III texts for an account of L. Ron's encounters with Xenu and dealings with the Thetanti-trusans. Pretty horrific stuff, but holding my nose I was able to find this quote.

(No joke, btw, right below this quote was an advertisement targeted to Paulistas for "RON PAUL 2012 1 OZ COPPER ROUNDS" for 2$ a pop. Holy WTF? Really? My god. I understand Paulistas and their hatred of J-Lo's Fiat adverts and their lustful need for acquiring precious metals, but ****ing copper? Are they going to melt these down into wiring in end times or just throw them in commemoration of the 1990's era Live album of the same name? Jesus ****ing christ in a chicken basket. I don't even know where to start with that ****. Maybe I should start shaving lincoln's beard off all of my pennies and start peddling them to Paulistas everywhere...perhaps that explains why Peter Schiff and his horrific financial advise is treated so reverently. Something about Paulistas and metals ireminds me of Buck Turgidsen and bodily fluids)


Anyhoo - we can see that it's not some bullsh-t federalism argument, so I'll give him points for that, but he's just dimly repeating a bunch of random crap that's not really supported by theory and practice. There's a boatload of evidence that firms that monopolize, you know, behave rationally like monopolists and charge people above rates in a competitive markets;. It's not "flawed economic theory" at all, but rather the natural outcome of the very free market model he endorses when a given set of circumstances is present; Second, even the most recalcitrant opponents don't really dispute the basic mechanics of the theory of antitrust; at best they tend to come up with criticsims of it as applied, claiming that enforcement is ineffective. But of course, he doesn't trouble us with that here, he constructs a simple counterintuitive syllogism insofar as allowing collusion and price-fixing somehow lowers prices. I don't expect him of course to go into some sophisticated analysis about the long term viability of cartels or per-se vs. rule of reason analysis - but I'm fairly certain that his truncated response is due to an absolute lack of understanding and comprehension, rather than any forced brevity.

Suffice it to say, Joseph mama's original contention of what L.Ron decreed is incomplete to be generous, and actually kind of arguably just dead wrong.

I'm going to spare joseph the long-form treatment here, but I don't need to hear what random 24-40 year old internet single male ron Paul suppporter thinks he thinks L. Ron says about federal securities regulation, when I can, you know, read what he actually said, which is basically abolish the SEC and federal securities laws., contending that "state fraud laws" can do better.

Again, prohibitively dumb - a uniform system of federal securities laws was enacted because it was more efficient, not less, than the previously existing state-based system (see e.g. race to the bottom/collective action problem etc) which failed miserably in the early part of the century prior to the 33 and 34 acts. And no, they don't "entrench" anything, that's why people pay him and his fellow republicans millions of dollars per year to try to gut them.

I'm not going to bother with the rest, I don't have the stomach or patience to go into Paulista racism whack-a-mole games about how Brown v. Board ruined the country, because, as in the past, their arguments end up detouring down the Brer Rabbit Hole with Uncle Remus and his benign southern cool story bros who lived in perfect harmony drinking Lynchburg Lemonades until evil yankees fomented a class war between the two. Too late for that.

 

I failed kindergarten for not sharing, and I love Atlas Shrugged.... OMG