User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 85

  1. #31
    . Blank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Sure in the long run but in the long run we're all dead.
    Do we not have children? Will there not be any future generations?

    This kind of thinking is toxic.
    Ti = 19 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Te = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ne = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fi = 15 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Si = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ni = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Se = 11[][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fe = 0

    -----------------
    Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
    Man got to sit and wonder why, why, why;
    Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
    Man got to tell himself he understand

  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blank View Post
    Do we not have children? Will there not be any future generations?

    This kind of thinking is toxic.
    No its not toxic, its a direct quote from Keynes, is appropriate reply to extreme parsimonious rhetoric.

  3. #33
    Member peterk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    39

    Default

    America's decision not to join the League of Nations and not stay involved in European affairs contributed more to WWII than our involvment in WWI. AS for Japan. What were we supposed to do, let them take over all of Asia? Korea and Vietnam were necessary wars to stop communism--a threat as great as Fascism. You can stick your head up your ass and be antiwar and isolationist but in the end, when the bad guys will have amassed so much power, it will be necessary to fight or die. This is what America did prior to WWII. Why come to that point again? Better a little war than a BIG one.

  4. #34
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    It is a certain type of misconception to think that Ron Paul would necessarily carry out his stated plans.
    While it is true that most politicians dont keep promises, what the hell are we judging Ron Paul on if he doesnt even believe in his own plans?

    For instance, taking the U.S back to the gold standard would take a long time, and it is not the first item on the agenda... Later on down the line is to audit nad nationalize the Federal Reserve, and then to abolish it.
    He is not fit to be in any sort of governmental role simply for those beliefs. He is absolutely bat shit crazy and has zero understanding of modern economics. Nationalize the fed? Audit the Fed? Ron Paul is one of these conspiracy theorists that thinks the Fed is run by ancient banking families and is making trillions of dollars off Americas back... In REALITY. The Fed hands over its profits to the treasury every year and is made up of hundreds of civil servants working for what basically ends up being gov paychecks. These are people making university professor salaries. They arent banking tycoons pulling the strings of illuminati.

    What Ron Paul doesnt realize, is that the fed is SUPPOSED TO BE politically isolated! Its SUPPOSED TO BE. That might sound bad to you, but think about it. For the same reasons the supreme court is supposed to be separate from the whims of congress, the Fed is to be separate in similar ways. I personally would rather have PhD economists running the country's money supply than political hacks. Thats what Ron Paul wants. he wants the "fed to be accountable to capital hill". Are congressman and senators REALLY the people you want running your money supply? :confused: The same people who make sure to pull plenty of pork home during election years? The Fed actually did used to be more "accountable" to capital hill, and its little suprise that thats when election economics was more prevalent with LBJ and Nixon.

    I guess the real truth is that Ron Paul doesnt want ANYONE running america's money supply, as he would completely abolish the Fed and simply peg to gold. Free markets dont work perfectly in the short term. Prices are sticky, there are deflationary spirals and neoclassical economics is horribly passive (what if the long run ends up being 10 years?). In the original depression, the retards at the Fed treated money supply as being equal to the money base. They disregarded issues such as the money multiples and the velocity of money. Thus the "real money supply" was plummeting, while the Fed simply sat and watched a deflationary spiral ravage the country. In todays "almost depression", the Fed realized that with the multipliers and velocity dropping, they would NEED to nearly double the money base just to keep the money supply constant. If we had had a Ron Paul government, the Fed wouldnt be able to break a gold peg, double the money supply and stop a deflationary spiral.

    If we understand that pegging to gold would be an exchange rate peg, similar to pegging to another currency:

    1. If we use a fixed exchange as a means to control inflation

    2. If we maintain perfect capital mobility (then again, maybe Ron Paul isolationist will put capital controls on our economy)

    3. Then a fixed exchange rate prevents a government from using domestic monetary policy in order to achieve macroeconomic stability.

    #3 directly refers to what the Fed had to (double the money base). If we had lacked this ability we likely would have hit deflationary spiral like in the real great depression.

    Notice that all of this is to control something that is supposedly a problem: Inflation. Is inflation really that big of a deal in America? Do we ever have annual inflation over 3, 4, 5% over the past 20 years? No. This is again why complaints about the Fed printing money is again woefully unsophisticated. America does not have inflation problems. Printing money is not a 1:1 issue with inflation. Doubling the money base does not double the money supply!


    Quote Originally Posted by spamtar View Post
    Hitler had a lot of whacked out plans and its speculative at best what would have happened had U.S. not declared war on Germany. Germany primary goal was to take out Russia and east Europe. Hitler was a bad guy as was Stalin. The point I am making is that had U.S. not gotten involved in WWI there would have been no WWII/no Hitler/no Nazis and no death camps...this is less speculative.
    I largely disagree. Although American propaganda likes to blame WII on an unfair WWI treaty, WWII could not have been possible without eugenics. Eugenics is what allowed Hitler to convince an entire nation of otherwise sane people to get on board. Eugenics was elevated to a highly respected science in the USA. Its what allowed Hitler to convince even the smartest Germans of his cause.

    Eugenics actually gained much of its momentum and capital backing in the USA. As early as 1900's we had Stanford Deans talking about "racial hygiene". Harvard and other Ivy leagues taught real classes about eugenics. The supreme court even upheld that forced sterilization was legal. Hitler was largely inspired by the USA. America has a grim connection to jewish genocide:

    California and the Nazis

    The point is, even in our "interventionist years" we managed to fuck up the planet with our ideas. Granted there might have been other motives at the political level, but our involvement in WWII was justified. Mankind was in serious trouble. It was the only conscionable thing to do.

    First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by spamtar View Post
    chosing peace without appeasement instead of war.
    And yet they call me the idealist... how would Europe have maintained peace without appeasement? Surrendering?


    Quote Originally Posted by ChildoftheProphets View Post
    About the gold standard--Paul's main gripe is that the U.S. spends more than it earns, and returning to the gold standard is just his ideal way of keeping the spending and inflation in check.

    With less debt and inflation, U.S. citizens would have more money to save, invest, and donate as they see fit, improving the lives of all without the coercion, corruption, and inefficiency of government intervention.
    Inflation has not been a serious American problem since the 1970s, thanks in large part to having a very capable federal reserve. People spend beyond their means...I agree...but??? So rather then just campaign on a balanced budget, we need to take our monetary policy back to the dark ages? :confused:

    Quote Originally Posted by peterk View Post
    You can stick your head up your ass and be antiwar and isolationist but in the end, when the bad guys will have amassed so much power, it will be necessary to fight or die. This is what America did prior to WWII. Why come to that point again? Better a little war than a BIG one.
    Totally and completely agree. And im not even a republican, nor a 'conservative, nor did I support the Iraq war. What we are talking about is involvement in truly necessary wars like WII.

    Quote Originally Posted by spamtar View Post
    ^and printing money like crazy to pay for these wars and welfare programs really make us stronger?
    Again. Doubling the money base (all the money printing you are referring to), does not go 1:1 into the money supply. Velocity and multipliers are extremely low in the USA. When the economy comes back, money can be removed along with raising interest rates. We arent Zimbabwe

  5. #35
    Member peterk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    39

    Default

    The national debt, social security, and health care are going to bankrupt us and make it impossible for us to have a decent military. We will become a second rate power. Ron Paul and liberal democrates would like to see that. Anything to keep us out of a war.

  6. #36
    Senior Member iamathousandapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    495

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peterk View Post
    The national debt, social security, and health care are going to bankrupt us and make it impossible for us to have a decent military. We will become a second rate power. Ron Paul and liberal democrates would like to see that. Anything to keep us out of a war.
    A second rate military power with 800 billion in military spending and bases in nearly every part of the world, in case one of them steps out of line

  7. #37
    Member peterk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    39

    Default

    In twenty years we will not have that level of spending and as a result non of those bases(where the goverments want us) if we don't get our financial house in order.

  8. #38
    Senior Member iamathousandapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    495

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peterk View Post
    In twenty years we will not have that level of spending and as a result non of those bases(where the goverments want us) if we don't get our financial house in order.
    Interventionism is a waste of spending anywho. Iraq is proof enough of this.

  9. #39
    Member peterk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iamathousandapples View Post
    Interventionism is a waste of spending anywho. Iraq is proof enough of this.
    Sometimes interventionism is necessary before things get out of hand. Just because Iraq turned out badly doesn't mean we shouldn't have done it.

  10. #40
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peterk View Post
    Sometimes interventionism is necessary before things get out of hand. Just because Iraq turned out badly doesn't mean we shouldn't have done it.
    You shouldn't use WWII and the Nazis as an excuse to invade every country that doesn't do what you want. That strategy is horribly inefficient.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] What Strategy Would Win Ron Paul the Republican Nomination/Presidency
    By Vizconde in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-18-2012, 03:28 AM
  2. Bob Barr or Ron Paul?
    By 6sticks in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-28-2008, 08:42 PM
  3. Ron Paul
    By Paul3144 in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 03-06-2008, 11:14 AM
  4. Ron Paul Tea Party... will you be donating?
    By file cabinet in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 12-20-2007, 03:19 PM
  5. Ron Paul Wins Another Presidential Debate
    By FranG in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-18-2007, 12:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO