Quote :

"Like I said, long on criticism, short on concrete solutions. You're depending on an absolute faith in the idea that if we abolished any intervention in everything, including monetary supply, whatsoever, that the cost of living and wages would fall, and yet the concentration of wealth would somehow be spread and people's purchasing power would, I guess, stay equal or go up?"

Minimum wage laws (price floors) prevent wages from falling. I can guarantee that unemployment would go down if the minimum wage were lowered. I'm pretty sure you know that is true. We're not doing the millions of unemployed any favors by keeping them out of work; we need to get people back to work, which means lowering the minimum wage.

Dispersing wealth is a more complicated subject, but there's many policies that could be ended that would accomplish that goal. Inflationary monetary policies, by default, affect the poor more than the rich. The rich can invest or buy goods. The poor spend most of their money on food and energy and tend to live paycheck to paycheck. Food, energy, and other commodities go up in price in inflationary environments; durable goods (which the rich spend a much higher percentage of their income on) tend to go down or stay the same in price.

The last 40 years has not been marked by free market capitalism, as some have suggested, but by the relentless creation of money by the Fed and other central banks. It's no surprise to me that the wealth gap has grown in lockstep with the growth of the banking/politically-connected class.

The way tax revenue is collected is also partially to blame; despite shifts in the top marginal tax rate, the super rich end up paying about the same tax rate. If there are going to be taxes, it should be a VAT or something similar that doesn't offer a reward for having a good accountant. Anyone should be able to comply with tax laws without lengthy education. Taxes should not be used as a method of social control, i.e. encouraging and discouraging specific behavior.

Quote :

"he industrial revolution increased lower class purchasing power through the provision of jobs. Are you assuming these jobs will all come rushing back from Asia to the new wild west of American monetary policy?"

Unfortunately, the jobs will not come rushing back. The damage has been done, and we have an uphill battle to fight. In all likelyhood, Ron Paul (or someone like him) will not be elected. The bond market will collapse, and the government's hand will be forced; small government will not be chosen, it will come because there is no other option. Many, many laws will need to be repealed in order to make the United States a competitive place to run a business again. Americans will become poorer in the meantime. There's no way to prevent this outcome; we've been conning the world for 40 years, and we're finally about to reach the end of an era. We are seeing major shifts in the global geopolitical order. It's not something that I'm comfortable with, but it is reality and I have to make the best choices I can based on that knowledge.

I'm very curious to know what you think of the current economic outlook. What kind of mess do you think we're in? What do you think the exit strategy is, and what do you think the exit strategy should be? What's your take on foreign policy, and do you believe there is any chance of us reversing our interventionism?

Quote :

"assumes that any form of mixed economy is somehow aimed at central planning, which is just silly and makes no sense unless you see the world in such a dichotomy that every government not abolishing all functions except courts or defense or whatnot is an oppressive central planner"

Interest rates are a price of sorts. If any central bank is setting interest rates, that is what I would classify as oppressive central planning. The market can (and should) determine interest rates; interest rates would go down as savings went up, they would go up as savings decreased. Saving should be encouraged, as it is a prerequisite for investment.

Quote :

"Shit, I even buy some of Hayek's arguments with regards to the organization of economies (pretty sure most non-socialists do), but I don't have absolute faith in the rationality of all that, so I support the social safety net and evil central banking systems (how was Friedman duped into supporting that stuff, anyway?)"

Spontaneous order works very well with the theory of evolution, I think.

Interesting that you refer to central banking systems as evil. While it comes across as kind of tin-foil-hatty, I do think greed is what has driven the creation of the modern global banking system. There's absolutely no way that the people running the game don't know what they're doing. They are undoubtedly lining the pockets of their ultra-rich buddies at the expense and middle and lower class. When you grant a person or an organization control over the currency, you give them the power to destroy wealth.

[Edited on June 7, 2011 at 5:53 PM. Reason : ]

6/7/2011 5:45:22 PM

I didn't know Paul was against abortion until now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Abortion-related_legislation

6/20/2011 9:55:59 PM

it's just convenient for now that the republicans' crusade to ban abortion currently amounts to putting it in the hands of the states. If it was being decided on a national level it's not clear which way Ron Paul would swing. And since he's only active in politics on a national level, there's a bit of a dubiousness about him being pro-life, since he holds that position exactly in the realm in which he has no influence.

6/20/2011 10:09:40 PM

He's against abortion, but he opposes federal legislation concerning it. Truthfully, I don't know why the federal government should be funding abortion. It has absolutely no constitutional authority to legislate on that matter, but the constitution hasn't mattered in decades.

With that said, I would oppose attempts by state and local governments to restrict abortion. Ron Paul calls himself a student of Rothbard, but Rothbard was very clear - women have the right to abort a fetus, and denying them that right is a violation of individual liberty. I'm not sure Ron Paul could have even had a career in politics if he had been pro-choice, given the area of the country he's from.

6/20/2011 10:28:22 PM

He probably says he's against abortion just to get some of that religious vote. But what if he's serious?

Listen, I'm all for states rights but the fact is we just can't let the southern states govern themselves. They're too damn redneck. They'd fuck it all up and be back to slaves and burning whores at the stake in no time.

6/20/2011 11:18:27 PM

Quote :

"it's just convenient for now that the republicans' crusade to ban abortion currently amounts to putting it in the hands of the states."

not at all. if you are actually a strict Constitutionalist, it's the only logical position to hold, as the Constitution surely doesn't give the federal government the ability to dictate what medical procedures are allowed/disallowed, FDA be damned.

Quote :

"If it was being decided on a national level it's not clear which way Ron Paul would swing."

I think he'd vote against any legislation, either way, unless said legislation was just saying "states can decide"

^ that's some damned good trolling right there

6/21/2011 12:03:16 PM

Really? I thought it was commonly accepted that states rights was a cover for allowing legislation that is too immoral (yet regionally popular) to be enacted on a national level.

It's absolutely true that the advances of the civil rights movement would be obliterated in southern and border states if allowed, especially in regard to mexicans.

6/21/2011 12:07:15 PM

Quote :

"Really? I thought it was commonly accepted that states rights was a cover for allowing legislation that is too immoral (yet regionally popular) to be enacted on a national level."

sure, if you are a dishonest douchebag who likes t stir the pot by throwing out sensationalist bullshit. like you

6/21/2011 12:10:46 PM

I love you.

6/21/2011 12:12:17 PM

Quote :

"Really? I thought it was commonly accepted that states rights was a cover for allowing legislation that is too immoral (yet regionally popular) to be enacted on a national level."

I see it as a way to prevent legislation that is too immoral (yet nationally popular, even if only by 1%) from being implemented on a national level. If federalism is rejected, draconian laws may only be an election cycle away, and your only option is to pack up and leave everything you've ever known behind and find a more tolerant country.

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 12:26 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2011 12:17:14 PM

Do any other developed nations still have this type of federal vs. provicial power struggle? Obviously the U.S. is a diverse nation, but we aren't that diverse. We all watch Oprah and our dialects are converging. Is states rights anything but a relic of the Civil War that's a strategy for certain regional majorities to take their toys and go home?

And another thing. Hasn't it already been established that Federal power ALWAYS trumps state power? The california medical marijuana fiasco established this most recently I think. Any time a state law deviates from a federal one, the feds just tolerate it for a while before cracking down. The states all operate at the pleasure of the King...er feds. The states are so reliant on the feds for funding they could never operate independently anyway. Texas tried to crack down on TSA groping last month. The feds cracked the whip and Texas immediately backed down.

I say we just get rid of states. Maybe go to a system of city states, large municipal areas with extremely limited power, and let the feds handle everything.

In the meantime, federal political candidates that defer to "states rights" are just weak and shifty. If they won't commit to a position before the election they shouldn't be elected, because ultimately the feds have the power to do exactly what they say they want to do.

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 12:41 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2011 12:26:42 PM

Quote :

"Do any other developed nations still have this type of federal vs. provicial power struggle?"

Most developed nations are substantially smaller and less diverse than the United States. If we had a fairly homogeneous culture in this country, centralized power would make a little more sense, though I would still oppose it.

If you walk into a public place in Alabama, New Hampshire, New York, and Califnoria, you're going to encounter people with substantially different values. You can "legislate down morality" all you want, but people don't just suddenly change. You can mandate that same sex marriage be legal in Alabama, but you can't force the people there to honor it.

Quote :

"And another thing. Hasn't it already been established that Federal power ALWAYS trumps state power? The california medical marijuana fiasco established this I think. Any time a state law deviates from a federal one, the feds just tolerate it for a while before cracking down. The states all operate at the pleasure of the King...er feds. The states are so reliant on the feds for funding they could never operate independently anyway. Texas tried to crack down on TSA groping last month. The feds cracked the whip and Texas immediately backed down."

In practice? Sure. The Constitution is very clear with the 10th amendment: all powers not specifically granted to the Federal government resides with the state or the people. The federal government does whatever the fuck it wants though. Ron Paul is one of the only people out there trying to limit federal power. When you give a centralized authority to do "good," you give them the power to commit atrocities...and they have.

Quote :

"I say we just get rid of states. Maybe go to a system of city states, large municipal areas with extremely limited power, and let the feds handle everything."

For someone that seems to be critical of many federal policies, you sure seem willing to cede absolute power to them.

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 12:47 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2011 12:40:24 PM

Um, sure you can. You just call in the national guard.

6/21/2011 12:42:46 PM

Quote :

"In the meantime, federal political candidates that defer to "states rights" are just weak and shifty. If they won't commit to a position before the election they shouldn't be elected, because ultimately the feds have the power to do exactly what they say they want to do."

I know. How dare anyone have a Constitutionally defensible position. what an idiot that kind of person is!

Quote :

"For someone that seems to be critical of many federal policies, you sure seem willing to cede absolute power to them."

since when is a troll consistent?

6/21/2011 2:32:06 PM

Tom Woods is great on explaining nullification of federal laws, as well as dispelling the myths that go along with it, such as nullification being used to keep slavery.

http://www.tomwoods.com/learn-about-state-nullification/

6/21/2011 3:00:03 PM

Ultimate power has already been ceded to the federal government. There's no going back. There's no such thing as state nullification. You know why? Because states don't have armies. So why don't we end the charade, get rid of states and then tackle the problems of the fed head on with a true revolution instead of whistling dixie like little wannabe rebels in state legislatures.

Ron Paul wants to abolish the federal reserve. He thinks too small. He should really be fighting to abolish states.

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 3:22 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2011 3:10:39 PM

From the article:

Quote :

"Isn’t This Just a Smokescreen for Slavery? Nullification was never used on behalf of slavery. As I show in Nullification, it was used against slavery, which is why South Carolina’s secession document cites it as a grievance justifying southern secession, and Jefferson Davis denounced it in his farewell address to the Senate. Thus Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, backed up by the state legislature, declared the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 unconstitutional (the mere existence of the fugitive-slave clause in the Constitution did not, in its view, suffice to make all the odious provisions of that act constitutionally legitimate). In Ableman v. Booth (1859), the Supreme Court scolded it for doing so. In other words, modern anti-nullification jurisprudence has its roots in the Supreme Court’s declarations in support of the Fugitive Slave Act. Who’s defending slavery here?"

6/21/2011 3:23:25 PM

Civil War America and Late 20th Century America are entirely different countries that have nothing in common, and any supreme court cases from that era no longer apply.

There is no such thing as state nullification.

6/21/2011 3:29:09 PM

If we're going to abolish the states, why not just abolish the whole government? Sounds like a better plan to me.

6/21/2011 3:46:26 PM

Quote :

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion."

6/21/2011 4:37:58 PM

Yeah, I don't agree with that statement. Many of the founders were very hostile towards organized religion or even religious dogma in general. It's a shame that American politicians are in bondage to Christianity, but unfortunately that is the case for now.

I also think there's an overemphasis on the notion that our rights come from "God." If "God" is defined as the force responsible for our existence, then "God" is synonymous with "nature," which is consistent with the concept of natural rights - that all of us are equally entitled to act freely by virtue of the fact that we exist and can perform actions.

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 4:53 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2011 4:46:23 PM

Wouldn't just be easier to admit that the founding fathers were just some dudes who lived in those times and their ideas should have no more value than their own merit? Why do people feel the need to make their words out to be some sort of divinely inspired commandments from god?

6/21/2011 5:15:11 PM

I think that they were founders gives them some merit. They understand better than most people today what it means to be subjected to an oppressive government, and more to the point, what it means to risk your life to gain independence. Today, the average person has grown complacent, they don't bother themselves with "issues," and they're more concerned with who wins American Idol than who their local representative is. The founders lived in dire times, and so do we, though not everyone understands that at this stage of the game.

Here's a great interview with Ron Paul from Time: http://swampland.time.com/2011/06/20/qa-ron-paul/. Some excerpts:

Quote :

"You said recently that fellow Texan Rick Perry represented the “status quo.” Are there any competitors for the nomination who do not represent the status quo? I think they all pretty much represent the status quo. How many others would bring the troops home? How many others want to audit the Fed – and get rid of the Fed someday? How many others want to repeal the Patriot Act? How many are saying the war on drugs is a total failure, a waste of money? So yes, they are the status quo, some more so than others. ... You voted against the budget blueprint devised by Paul Ryan and backed by nearly all House Republicans. What would you do, if anything, to reform entitlements as president? My goal would be to get the federal government out of the entitlement business. It will be a tragedy if we continue to do what we do, because we won’t be able to finance them. If you look at Medicare and Social Secruity and Medicaid, they don’t have the money. What I propose is a transitional period. Let young people get out. Take care of the people who have become so dependent on the government. Work our way out of it. Stop spending this money running a world empire and cut some of the budget that won’t hit the poor. ... You’re known for voting your ideology. Are you willing to compromise this time around to enhance your chances of winning the nomination? That would be like crossing your fingers as you take an oath of office. Instead of compromising, I work with coalitions. Some of my best groups have been working with progressive Democrats. They understand civil liberties and they understand war, and many of them, believe it or not, think deficits are bad. They like transparency of the Fed. I think working with coalitions without sacrificing any principle is the way to go. If you say now is the time to compromise, you’re also saying your oath of office is worth about 50%."

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 5:47 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2011 5:46:22 PM

Quote :

"I think that they were founders gives them some merit. They understand better than most people today what it means to be subjected to an oppressive government, and more to the point, what it means to risk your life to gain independence. Today, the average person has grown complacent, they don't bother themselves with "issues," and they're more concerned with who wins American Idol than who their local representative is."

And I would describe them as aristocrats who had little value for the lives or freedom of women, other races, and the poor. They had some good ideas for their time, but I don't think of them as any sort of gods and I don't think their ideas should hold anything more than their own merit, just like anyone else's.

6/21/2011 7:12:28 PM

Quit getting bogged down by rhetoric and hypotheticals. Ron Paul won another straw poll this week garnering 40% of the vote. Where is the noise about this???


Also, I noticed another person in my parking lot got a Ron Paul bumper sticker this week. It's good to see people coming to the light. The most important thing we do when we support Ron Paul is that we take control of our vote. We don't HAVE to vote for who the media tells us to vote for, we can think for ourselves. At this time in 2008 no one was thinking about voting for Obama because the media hadn't told us to yet. We have to stop allowing them to control who wins elected offices.

Look at what's happening in Greece. The citizens are coming together in droves to rally against their corrupt government. You have to ask why they are rallying against the government now when it's so late in the game. Where in the hell were they the last 10 years as their government sold them off into lifetime serfitude? Where are US citizens today as we get sold into slavery? Why wait another 5 years until we are in a state of crisis, why not fix things now?

We have to rally around Ron Paul. We have to show that there is support in America for doing the right thing and standing up to our elected officials who are abusing their electorate. They are there to serve the rich. They throw bones and scraps to the poor people, but just enough to keep them from overthrowing their power. Would you rather rely on their scraps or have your own money, job, security???

6/21/2011 7:34:14 PM

You give way too much credit to the media, they couldn't control a fishtank. They are completely incompetent, I don't think you have to whine and blame them for your candidate's own shortcomings.

6/21/2011 7:53:57 PM

His "shortcoming" is that most Americans aren't smart enough to see how the nation has been pillaged by its leaders.

His message has been the same for 20 years but it is now finally being disseminated due to the power of the internet.

Prior to the internet the media cast him as a zealot because it's an easy way to discredit someone who won't play the game and take money from companies.

Don't you think it's funny his funding from corporate america is literally like $100,000 while Obama collects nearly $1 billion for his campaign from companies? What's their ROI on Ron Paul? Zero. What's their ROI on Obama for Goldman Sachs? Infinite. They'd be out of business today if they didn't buy Obama.

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 8:01 PM. Reason : a]

6/21/2011 7:58:13 PM

Quote :

"The citizens are coming together in droves to rally against their corrupt government."

actually, they are rioting because the gov't is pulling away the teat. they aren't bitching about "corruption" one bit

6/22/2011 1:01:46 AM

^whoa, that post is completely incorrect.

They are condemning the fact that governments are willing to bail out banks and then force austerity on citizens.

Look at Iceland. They let their banks fail in 2007-2008. Now they have one of the strongest economies in the world right now.

Everyone did well except the bankers in Iceland.

In the U.S. and Europe it's the exact opposite interestingly enough.

6/22/2011 2:01:31 AM

Iceland is expected to have negative GDP this year. Get your damn facts straight.

6/22/2011 7:11:50 AM

Quote :

"I also think there's an overemphasis on the notion that our rights come from "God." If "God" is defined as the force responsible for our existence, then "God" is synonymous with "nature," which is consistent with the concept of natural rights - that all of us are equally entitled to act freely by virtue of the fact that we exist and can perform actions."

How is a person granted rights by merely existing? Human rights aren't any more "natural" than they are "god-given". It's just another set of rules we decided collectively to make our lives better.

6/22/2011 9:01:04 AM

DING DING DING

Like Property Ownership.

6/22/2011 9:43:16 AM

Quote :

"Iceland is expected to have negative GDP this year. Get your damn facts straight."

The US GDP has been rising for the past 30 years while middle and lower class incomes have actually fallen. Sometimes a positive GDP just means a handful of the richest folks are just getting richer.

[Edited on June 22, 2011 at 10:00 AM. Reason : .]

6/22/2011 9:59:21 AM

Quote :

"How is a person granted rights by merely existing? Human rights aren't any more "natural" than they are "god-given". It's just another set of rules we decided collectively to make our lives better."

They're not granted "by" nature. You just have rights when you're born. You can make decisions, act, and control your body, but nothing else. Rights are not "rules," they're just there. Beyond that, I believe in the concept of self-ownership; no one has a greater interest in preserving my life and liberty than myself. This should be the case for all people. When the "collective" violates rights on behalf of the "collective," it presumes that some individuals are less valuable than others.

Quote :

"Sometimes a positive GDP just means a handful of the richest folks are just getting richer."

Yep. GDP doesn't mean shit, but I suspect that Chance knows that.

6/22/2011 11:15:15 AM

You don't have the right to breathe a single breath when you're born. You're only here because someone liked you enough to look after you and keep other humans from bashing your skull in during the first 12 years when you're not a sentient human yet. Animals don't have the "right" not to be eaten by other animals. Nature doesn't give anyone shit. It's just an illusion of society that we have the right to do anything.

6/22/2011 1:44:28 PM

Quote :

"I'm very curious to know what you think of the current economic outlook. What kind of mess do you think we're in? What do you think the exit strategy is, and what do you think the exit strategy should be? What's your take on foreign policy, and do you believe there is any chance of us reversing our interventionism?"

Well, we need jobs and for one, I haven't seen any evidence that severe deflation is what's going to cause them. Whatever I say to you is irrelevant since you reject the use of empirical evidence and thus any study of job creation involving such a thing. This is like an atheist arguing the non-existence of God with someone who believes they are God.

6/22/2011 5:43:40 PM

Quote :

"Well, we need jobs and for one, I haven't seen any evidence that severe deflation is what's going to cause them. Whatever I say to you is irrelevant since you reject the use of empirical evidence and thus any study of job creation involving such a thing. This is like an atheist arguing the non-existence of God with someone who believes they are God."

Jobs come from capital. Without investment, there is no capital growth. Without savings, there is no investment. Right now, we're not dealing with price deflation (except perhaps in certain asset classes), we're dealing with inflation, and it's ramping up big time. This is all based on a myth that has been perpetuated from the beginning of the Bush era: in a recession, we need to "jump start" spending, the consequences be damned. "No savings, because then people aren't spending their money! We have to lower interest rates (increase access to credit) so people can spend money and keep the economy going!" It's just an awful, top-down approach that isn't sustainable and can only lead to disaster.

Deflation would be the result of a credit crunch. The credit crunch wasn't inevitable until the boom happened. Once the artificial boom happens, there's no easy way out. You have to let the bad debt clear out, which means some people lose out big. We should have had deflation, but we would have recovered. Instead, we got inflation, and if the Fed ever gets serious and decides to raise interest rates (decrease access to credit), we'll have deflation. No, it won't create jobs, and things will get worse...but maybe we'll learn our lesson this time?

6/22/2011 6:32:12 PM

Quote :

"Jobs come from capital. Without investment, there is no capital growth. Without savings, there is no investment. "

I agree with that and find it quite funny you would post it. Deflation discourages investment, I've explained why in another thread, basically deflation increases the demand for money. As the demand for money increases, the demand for investing (and trading money for stock or equipment or a new business or whatever) goes down.

Quote :

"Once the artificial boom happens, there's no easy way out. You have to let the bad debt clear out, which means some people lose out big."

Why?

6/22/2011 8:00:19 PM

Iceland has one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios on the planet and is already beginning to get economic growth. That is clearly a strong economy.

Look at our economy. If we were to balance our budget right now we'd be in a MAJOR recession. We'd still be 100x better off in the long run, but we certainly wouldn't be growing right now.

You can't hide behind GDP numbers when they are based off debt fueled spending.

It's the equivalent of me getting a huge house and a fancy car but spending more than I make. Eventually it ends in pain when everyone finds out it was a mirage.

6/22/2011 10:36:30 PM

Quote :

"Why?"

Once all this debt is issued, but the debtors can't even service their debt, bankruptcy has to happen. Creditors realize they're not going to get their money back, so they restructure the debt or simply not get paid at all. Someone doesn't get their money, and that's the clearing out of debt.

Our entire system is built on usury. The government and the people are leveraged to the gills. Interest rates are being held down which is the only reason the debt is at all manageable. Of course, we know what side the government is on - the big banks. If they weren't, there would have been no no bailout, and they wouldn't be able to get free money from the Fed. I'm thoroughly convinced that, unless we get the right people in office, the people will be the ones that get screwed over through inflation.

6/22/2011 11:25:46 PM

Quote :

"bankruptcy has to happen"

You're begging the question, why does bankruptcy have to happen? You haven't explained why we HAVE to suffer.

It's like saying "well when you have a grease fire, you just have to let the house burn down and build another one, if you put it out, you're just going to have a bigger fire next time".

Quote :

"Creditors realize they're not going to get their money back, so they restructure the debt or simply not get paid at all. Someone doesn't get their money, and that's the clearing out of debt."

You're still begging the question, why can't those guys get their money back?

Quote :

"Our entire system is built on usury."

You say that like it's a bad thing. Credit IS money. Faith in others to pay you back IS money. Why should we let that money go to waste?

6/22/2011 11:37:18 PM

Quote :

"You're begging the question, why does bankruptcy have to happen? You haven't explained why we HAVE to suffer. It's like saying "well when you have a grease fire, you just have to let the house burn down and build another one, if you put it out, you're just going to have a bigger fire next time"."

Quote :

"You're still begging the question, why can't those guys get their money back?"

It's right there in my post. When debtors cannot even service the debt, creditors have to take a haircut. How big of a haircut depends on how far behind the debtor is. In the case of the United States government, they're way the fuck behind.

Quote :

"You say that like it's a bad thing. Credit IS money. Faith in others to pay you back IS money. Why should we let that money go to waste?"

Usury is a loan at interest, which is enforced by contract law. When you can charge interest on money that you don't have, which is possible and encouraged in a fractional reserve banking system, that should be considered fraud.

6/22/2011 11:48:47 PM

Ron Paul and Barney Frank introduced a bill to legalize marijuana on a state by state basis

If I remember correctly from the article

6/22/2011 11:50:02 PM

No, but you see, Ron Paul is a racist. He couldn't possibly want to undo a law that puts blacks in prison at a rate 3 times higher than whites. And there definitely won't be 100+ democrats that vote against it, because they are the party that understands oppression and is full of compassionate people.

6/23/2011 12:17:23 AM

Kris bankruptcy is the only option when someone can't pay a loan back. You are just being silly here.

Greece can't pay and they can't get out from under their debts. Obviously, everyone is better off if they restructure.

Bankruptcy is a fundamental base of capitalism and a big reason why its so great. It's just inherently wasteful by the creditor and cruel to the debtor to force him to live below subsistence levels

6/23/2011 12:23:40 AM

Quote :

"In the case of the United States government, they're way the fuck behind."

What are you even talking about? I was thinking we were talking about the housing crisis or something, yet now you are suggesting that we default on the national debt?

Quote :

"Usury is a loan at interest, which is enforced by contract law. When you can charge interest on money that you don't have, which is possible and encouraged in a fractional reserve banking system, that should be considered fraud."

They charge interest on money they gave you. They pay interest on money they don't have. How is that fraud? You know when you put in your money it is going to be loaned out by the bank. I fail to see how that is fraud.

Quote :

"Kris bankruptcy is the only option when someone can't pay a loan back."

What loan are we not paying back?

Quote :

"Bankruptcy is a fundamental base of capitalism"

No it is not. It has nothing to do with capitalism. It is completely a legal concept.

6/23/2011 12:46:14 AM

Quote :

"They charge interest on money they gave you. They pay interest on money they don't have. How is that fraud? You know when you put in your money it is going to be loaned out by the bank. I fail to see how that is fraud."

No, they don't. What, you think them paying out 1% interest on savings makes it okay for them to create money and loan it out to people at 3-10%, maybe more? Nah, son. That shit is wrong, and I can tell you what would happen without FDIC or anything like that. A bank, or multiple banks would go under, and people would say, "wow...what happened? They gambled with people's money and now they lost their deposits. Gee, maybe I won't put my money in a fractional reserve bank. I want a secure place to keep my money, so I'll use a full reserve bank, since they don't loan out money they don't actually have."

6/23/2011 1:31:06 AM

Quote :

"You just have rights when you're born. You can make decisions, act, and control your body, but nothing else. Rights are not "rules," they're just there. "

You're wrong - because you just are.

6/23/2011 10:20:24 AM

I guess you've dropped the whole "fraud" thing, which is a pretty good idea, because that argument is silly.

Quote :

"What, you think them paying out 1% interest on savings makes it okay for them to create money and loan it out to people at 3-10%, maybe more?"

Yeah, what's wrong with that? All of the parties agreed to the contract, no one was coerced, why should you care? If you don't like it, don't use it, banks won't mind.

Quote :

"Gee, maybe I won't put my money in a fractional reserve bank. I want a secure place to keep my money, so I'll use a full reserve bank, since they don't loan out money they don't actually have.""

Well FDIC only covers like $100K, so people aren't really keeping that much money in there. The larger amounts of money are kept in money markets, stocks, bonds, and other financial vehicles that are not FDIC insured. Even still, I don't don't see what you're so upset about, the government providing a paltry 100k insurance so people won't have to worry about whether or not thier bank is fractional reserve. I'd encourage you to read up on Islamic banking to see how this system would work in practice, then think about how badly this system, and before that, christian restrictions on usury have slowed down growth. It's simply a waste of money. Fractional reserve banking is a wonderful thing that allows us to drastically increase the amount of money in the world. It's the only real form of "magic" in the world.

6/23/2011 10:23:32 AM

Actually fdic insurance is much higher $250k per depositor and you can have accounts at multiple banks.

Fdic insurance has some benefits but its also very damaging because it has created the largest moral hazard in world history.

If you scrapped fdic coverage all together it wouldn't be destructive to the economy, it would just limit the amount of unfair profit banks make off the fdic insurance which is really just a gigantic government subsidy

6/23/2011 11:04:06 AM