"The constitution has failed" - Ron Paul delivers farewell speech to Congress, freedom
316 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;38471468]
If you state the gold standard is a good idea, you are one of three things:
-A liar
-An imbecile
-[u]Misinformed[/u]
-All of the above
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;38471468][IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/197460/emot-siren.gif[/IMG][B][I]HOLD THE FUCK UP, GOTTA DEFUSE A BIG OLE' STUPID BOMB[/I][/B][IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/197460/emot-siren.gif[/IMG]
[URL="http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_cw1nNUYOXSAKwrq"]Literally 0 published empirical economists support the gold standard[/URL] and [URL="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/why-the-gold-standard-is-the-worlds-worst-economic-idea-in-2-charts/261552/"]no economic science supports the use of it.[/URL] It amplifies policy decisions so prominently that even [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fNfUscKPC5g#t=190s"]Milton Friedman[/URL] and [URL="http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11482.pdf"]Bernanke[/URL] agree on that point. [URL="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/golden-instability/"]No gold standard has ever had stable prices[/URL], [URL="http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/goldbug.html"]basic economics tells you that under a gold standard prices [I]must,[/I] by [I]definition,[/I] be unstable.[/URL]
If you state the gold standard is a good idea, you are one of three things:
-A liar
-An imbecile
-All of the above
Since only demonstrating why someone is a lying imbecile is a bit prickish, I'll freely reeducate you (or Ron Paul, for that matter) via PM if you care to pull your head out your ass.
[SUB]Whew, that was a close one.[/SUB][/QUOTE]
Define stable prices. I wouldn't exactly say that greenbacks have been a stable holder of value. If I saved up $100 in 1900(probably a respectable savings for the time), I'd be in for a rude awakening if that's all I had to name today. Now if I saved a couple ounces of gold, I'd be rather happy.
[QUOTE=snuwoods;38471507]If I saved up $100 in 1900(probably a respectable savings for the time), I'd be in for a rude awakening if that's all I had to name today.[/QUOTE]
That's that we call ~~~inflation~~~, which not only is a sexual fetish and method of making sure your car tires have enough air in them, but also affects the coins in your pocket. It's a rather important economic concept which will slowly affect the price of goods and services over time.
Governments can usually help control this magical thing by setting up central banking, preventing banks from lending too much cash, and also printing/minting less money than usual.
[QUOTE=snuwoods;38471507]Now if I saved a couple ounces of gold, I'd be rather happy.[/QUOTE]
Oddly enough, gold prices change over time too.
If you looked back over the past few centuries, you would actually see that the gold standard has been anything but stable.
[QUOTE=snuwoods;38471507]If I saved up $100 in 1900(probably a respectable savings for the time), I'd be in for a rude awakening if that's all I had to name today. Now if I saved a couple ounces of gold, I'd be rather happy.[/QUOTE]
Yet speaking realistically, around the time of your death you'd be devastated.
[IMG]https://lh3.ggpht.com/-f1_yvPIysVY/ToTb5p_HsOI/AAAAAAAAAFE/V-JjDqE-c1c/s1600/Inflation+Adjusted+Gold+Price+Index+1948.jpg[/IMG]
Can you quit trying to rewire this thing?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38462698]Somalian politics actually are, hence Ron Paul wanting to bring America on par with the Somalians.[/QUOTE]
Somalia is a failed state and is currently in the middle of a civil war with corrupt politicians on one side and Wahhabist and Salafist warlords on the other.
Ron Paul-style politics didn't get them very far...
I don't understand how Ron Paul has amassed so many diehard supporters. Why is this ignorant, extremist [del]senator[/del] NEVER HAD A POSITION OUTSIDE THE HOUSE 20 YEARS AGO fellow so goddamn popular? I mean I won't even get into why his ideas are fucking crazy, but what draws people? He's not in the media. He's not held a significant political position. But there are people, especially some here, who are almost jingoistic in his defense.
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;38472399]Somalia is a failed state and is currently in the middle of a civil war with corrupt politicians on one side and Wahhabist and Salafist warlords on the other.
Ron Paul-style politics didn't get them very far...[/QUOTE]
Because they don't have "Ron Paul-style politics" in Somalia. That's a strawman.
[QUOTE=scout1;38473031]I don't understand how Ron Paul has amassed so many diehard supporters. Why is this ignorant, extremist [del]senator[/del] NEVER HAD A POSITION OUTSIDE THE HOUSE 20 YEARS AGO fellow so goddamn popular? I mean I won't even get into why his ideas are fucking crazy, but what draws people? He's not in the media. He's not held a significant political position. But there are people, especially some here, who are almost jingoistic in his defense.[/QUOTE]
He's different.
#
christ i haven't seen such a clusterfuck of arguments since The Final Cut.
[editline]16th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ybbats;38468863]Lots of people criticizing Ron Paul who don't even seem to understand American politics or political history at all. Herp de derp, politics are dumb, why should we have to learn about it.[/QUOTE]
i don't know if this is sarcasm or if you just have marzipan for a brain.
Am I the only one who considers Ron Paul is a good politician? I mean he regurarly criticises the current American government and generally he seems like a decent guy, who just wants to help his country.
[QUOTE=RentAhobO;38473456]Am I the only one who considers Ron Paul is a good politician? I mean he regurarly criticises the current American government and generally he seems like a decent guy, who just wants to help his country.[/QUOTE]
he's a charlatan with backwards views and ulterior motives. so he's basically your average politician in a fancy mask.
[QUOTE=RentAhobO;38473456]Am I the only one who considers Ron Paul is a good politician? I mean he regurarly criticises the current American government and generally he seems like a decent guy, who just wants to help his country.[/QUOTE]
He may seem a nice enough guy, but his plans for the economy were batshit insane and he probably would have led to a lot of civil rights regression if he somehow managed to become president.
[QUOTE=Swilly;38467963]Ron Paul is simply idiotic because he refuses to say that the US Government is small. He obviously wasn't around during the 50's and 60's when the US government was actually massive. That's also when it actually functioned.[/QUOTE]
no the US government was massive then and is even more massive now
distinguish between when a politician promises to cut the size of the government and what they actually end up doing
[editline]16th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;38465558]You don't actually believe that, on further review, and I'll put $10 on it.
Get a transcript, look at a list of his normal platitudinous bullshit, misconceptions and lies, and see what of that speech doesn't fall into one of those two categories. Then come back and tell me with a straight face (I assume you have Skype) that you think he was "spot on" about anything.[/QUOTE]
I have Skype
never bet with a bayesian, motherfucker~
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;38469113]That doesn't actually show intelligence, it shows willingness to jump through hoops.
I'm reminded of NdGT discussing how many doctors he's seen fail physics.[/QUOTE]
How does physics denote one's ability to understand and act intelligently?
[editline]16th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38474177]no the US government was massive then and is even more massive now
distinguish between when a politician promises to cut the size of the government and what they actually end up doing
[/QUOTE]
No, the US government is actually smaller. Even the massive hiring for the Homeland Security office, it only dented the general layoffs happening at the federal and state level.
[editline]16th November 2012[/editline]
[url]http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11stus.txt[/url]
[url]http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/92stus.txt[/url]
Boop
1992 and 2011. Almost NO change.
[QUOTE=Swilly;38474545]No, the US government is actually smaller. Even the massive hiring for the Homeland Security office, it only dented the general layoffs happening at the federal and state level.[/QUOTE]
I actually looked it up and was surprised that the [url=http://www.opm.gov/feddata/historicaltables/totalgovernmentsince1962.asp]number of Federal employees[/url] has indeed fallen since the 1960s, so at least with regard to manpower I was wrong that the Fed has expanded. However, what about in regard to the number of government agencies and how much they interfere with the average citizen's life? I'm talking about the DEA, FEMA, the TSA, the FDA, the OSHA and of course the Armed Forces. I'm not saying that say, regulation is necessarily a bad thing, but increased regulation by definition is an increase in the remit of the government. The reduction in the number of employees could simply be a function of technological advancement making certain jobs redundant, while the actual scope of government activities has increased.
[QUOTE=scout1;38473031]I don't understand how Ron Paul has amassed so many diehard supporters. Why is this ignorant, extremist [del]senator[/del] NEVER HAD A POSITION OUTSIDE THE HOUSE 20 YEARS AGO fellow so goddamn popular? I mean I won't even get into why his ideas are fucking crazy, but what draws people? He's not in the media. He's not held a significant political position. But there are people, especially some here, who are almost jingoistic in his defense.[/QUOTE]
he knows his way around a vagina and thats all that matters
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38474657]I actually looked it up and was surprised that the [url=http://www.opm.gov/feddata/historicaltables/totalgovernmentsince1962.asp]number of Federal employees[/url] has indeed fallen since the 1960s, so at least with regard to manpower I was wrong that the Fed has expanded. However, what about in regard to the number of government agencies and how much they interfere with the average citizen's life? I'm talking about the DEA, FEMA, the TSA, the FDA, the OSHA and of course the Armed Forces. I'm not saying that say, regulation is necessarily a bad thing, but increased regulation by definition is an increase in the remit of the government. The reduction in the number of employees could simply be a function of technological advancement making certain jobs redundant, while the actual scope of government activities has increased.[/QUOTE]
They can't do jackshit without manpower. They're little more than just names on badges and without any sort of manpower to actually you know, flex government power, it means nothing. You can make as many branches as you want, but that just splits up manpower even more meaning that its even weaker. There is a reason the FBI can't do shit with white collar crime or hacking, its not that they're stupid, its that they don't have enough agents.
The US government is smaller, and as such can't do its job properly anymore or just barely. Most government workers are overworked and buckle after just 5 or 6 years of employment.
And this is all because suddenly we got worried about Government interference. After all the incidents that happened were conducted by maybe two branches, suddenly any sort of government work is corrupting work.
Meanwhile in private land, most large corporations have systems of their own in the same way as modern Governments.
[QUOTE=scout1;38473031]I don't understand how Ron Paul has amassed so many diehard supporters. Why is this ignorant, extremist [del]senator[/del] NEVER HAD A POSITION OUTSIDE THE HOUSE 20 YEARS AGO fellow so goddamn popular? I mean I won't even get into why his ideas are fucking crazy, but what draws people? He's not in the media. He's not held a significant political position. But there are people, especially some here, who are almost jingoistic in his defense.[/QUOTE]
he hasn't amassed many supporters, he is a very unpopular politician
literally only some internet users like him, they know of him because of memes
all these people amount to nothing in terms of the real world, or else he would have been the Republican candidate for president
There is no question the country is fucked and is going to look like an overweight version of the Phillipines. The only question for me is how I will use the circumstances to further my interests and start a new life overseas.
Many have encouraged me to 'be a part of the solution'. In all candour, it is too much trouble for me, and it would be disadvantageous for me to stay on a sinking ship with a bucket than to take the cash register and make a run to the lifeboats.
[QUOTE=Swilly;38476210]Meanwhile in private land, most large corporations have systems of their own in the same way as modern Governments.[/QUOTE]
no you've got it backwards. the government is a (badly managed) corporation
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38476830]no you've got it backwards. the government is a (badly managed) corporation[/QUOTE]
are you sure about that
[QUOTE=Bobie;38477020]are you sure about that[/QUOTE]
Yes, and government failures have much more devastating consequences when they fuck up.
Think great depression, yes I know the Fed isn't part of the "government".
Why don't you go ahead and look through this list, [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_failure[/URL].
[QUOTE=RinVII;38477562]Yes, and government failures have much more devastating consequences when they fuck up.
Think great depression, yes I know the Fed isn't part of the "government".
Why don't you go ahead and look through this list, [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_failure[/URL].[/QUOTE]
market failure doesn't make a goverment a corporation
[QUOTE=Bobie;38477593]market failure doesn't make a goverment a corporation[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corporation[/URL]
[quote]an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, [B]having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members[/B]."[/quote]
[editline]16th November 2012[/editline]
If you don't want to argue semantics, then tell me what you think a corporation is.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38476830]no you've got it backwards. the government is a (badly managed) corporation[/QUOTE]
Depends on the leaders.
[QUOTE=RinVII;38477636][URL]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corporation[/URL]
[editline]16th November 2012[/editline]
If you don't want to argue semantics, then tell me what you think a corporation is.[/QUOTE]
by that definition then a lot of things are corporations. i know a corporation as a private entity
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38474177]I have Skype
never bet with a bayesian, motherfucker~[/QUOTE]
Alright, so when do you want to do this? Compiling a list of Ron Paulisms might take a while.
Also, who's judging the straightness of your face?
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38474657]The reduction in the number of employees could simply be a function of technological advancement making certain jobs redundant, while the actual scope of government activities has increased.[/QUOTE]
Well comparatively [URL="http://www.opm.gov/feddata/historicaltables/totalgovernmentsince1962.asp"]legislative and judicial branches made gains while executive's was small and the military shrunk[/URL], so it gives a pretty good hint.
[QUOTE=Swilly;38476210]They can't do jackshit without manpower. They're little more than just names on badges and without any sort of manpower to actually you know, flex government power, it means nothing.[/QUOTE]
Think about what you just said for five seconds. Are you going to seriously tell me the U.S. military cannot "flex" better now than it did in the 60s, despite being about 56% of its previous size?
You can make any point you want about there not being enough guys in the right fields, but saying "the US government is smaller, and as such can't do its job properly anymore" isn't even wrong. There's no absolute that as government employment increases, government efficacy increases, and there are examples of efficacy increasing as employment decreases, so an argument that the government overreaches with fewer people is completely plausible.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;38477803]Alright, so when do you want to do this? Compiling a list of Ron Paulisms might take a while.
Also, who's judging the straightness of your face?[/QUOTE]
I don't have a webcam so you'll have to go by ear.
[editline]17th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bobie;38477020]are you sure about that[/QUOTE]
Yes I am completely sure.
The easiest way to make sense of "governments" is to see them as corporations under a different garb. They own a chunk of the Earth's surface and thus charge various rents for the people living on that landmass (taxes). They are a persistent entity (the civil service) with a CEO (head of state/government). The two main differences between a traditional corporation and a sovereign corporation is that the latter traditionally goes under a different name, and is managed terribly in comparison to the former.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.