FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


The policies of: Ron Paul





catscratches
So, instead of pointless name-calling and "that politician maybe did that!" and "nu-uh, he didn't", how about we actually have a discussion on their policies; you know, the things that might actually matter if they get into office?

In this thread, the focus is on Ron Paul's policies. So no "Yeah? We'll <politician> would be even worse!" or Obama-bashing or anything like that in here. This is a topic for Ron Paul, nothing else. I picked Ron Paul since he's the slightly more controversial alternative, not really fitting into the status quo of neither republicans nor democrats. I'll start by going through the policies I personally find positive and then take a shot at the policies I find abhorrent. So, here we go.

The good

War on Drugs
Ron Paul wants to end the War on Drugs as he believes it to be inefficient and costly. All the prohibition really does (my opinion here) is drive up the illegal use of drugs, overcrowd prisons (partly due to the private prisons who have a vested interest in imprisoning as many as possible) and raise criminality.

A far better option would be to have a regulated recreational drug market... but I very much doubt Paul would want to regulate it in any way whatsoever... and he's probably in favor of private prisons so all in all it's still a bad alternative. (I haven't been able to find any info on Paul's stance on private prisons. I just suspect he supports them as he supports privatizing pretty much everything. If any of you have any information, please post it.)

Non-interventionalist foreign policies
It's hardly a surprise that the rest of the world doesn't look too kindly on USA trying to police the world. The war on terror is exaggerated, irresponsible and completely unreasonable. This topic alone could take up all too much space so I'll just keep myself concise and say that I fully agree with non-intervention in American foreign politics.


The bad

Foreign aid
The bad is that his non-interventionalist policies extends to foreign aid as well, of which he thinks there should be none. Nada. Foreign aid money has been used poorly in some instances, yes. That doesn't invalidate all of it.

Global Warming
As a non-American not really up-to-date on American politics, I find Ron Paul's stand on Global Warming somewhat confusing. On his own website, under Issues>Global Warming, in the first batch of text it seems like he does acknowledge that human activity does have an impact on the climate, but down on the very same page:
Quote:
“The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming.” – Ron Paul on Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009

What he is clear about, though, is that he intends to do nothing about it. As usual, he believes the free market will give the solution all by itself. This is a clearly misguided belief as the free market has no interest in the environment (just as little as it has in ethics in general). The free market is interested in generating money; things like revering the environment, respecting civil rights, following the law and upholding good work conditions don't always do that.

Civil rights
Ron Paul wants to repeal the Civil Right's Act of 1964 that outlawed discrimination based on race, religion, colour or national origin. He says it violates the rights of private property and contract, but what rights are being violated exactly? The right to ban black people from your cinema? That's not a right in my book.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/

Abortion
Paul states he wants the individual states to pass laws on things like abortion. That's pretty much a stinking, blatant lie, though, as he introduced and supports the Sanctity of Life Act which defines life and legal personhood at conception, at Federal level. It's not exactly a secret that he's "pro-life". If legal personhood is defined at conception, I guess that means you now get to drink at 17 1/4, though. Laughing

Minimum wage
It shouldn't come as a surprise that Ron Paul is against minimum wage, or really any job security granted by the government rather than by the employer's own free will (because that'll happen).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jue6fNL0CaU


The ugly

Creationism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPoCsC8VT9g That is all.

"War on religion!"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html Dare I say 'crazy'? Yes, yes I do.


So, how are these two different from the name-calling I talked about; they're beliefs, not policies? Well, I do think they are legitimate issues and whereas they are not explicit policies, I do think they will affect his law-making. In his text on the "war on religion" he quite clearly states he doesn't believe in "the rigid separation between church and state". That coupled with a belief in creationism does not bode well.

The verdict
If I was American, I wouldn't vote for him. Not by a long shot. Not if all other alternatives were blood-sucking demons from hell. Which, I guess, isn't all too far from the truth. I can see why so many Americans don't vote, and I'm sure as hell glad we don't have a two-party system over here.


These are just some of the policies. There are many more I find either positive or questionable. This is not intended as any form of comprehensive list. This topic is not limited to merely these issues. Post about whichever of his policies you want to.
Ankhanu
catscratches wrote:
So, how are these two different from the name-calling I talked about; they're beliefs, not policies? Well, I do think they are legitimate issues and whereas they are not explicit policies, I do think they will affect his law-making. In his text on the "war on religion" he quite clearly states he doesn't believe in "the rigid separation between church and state". That coupled with a belief in creationism does not bode well.

I tend to agree with this. When someone allows their religious beliefs to (strongly) influence their decision and policy making, it becomes an issue for discussion. If it's left out of the public sphere, religion has no place to be discussed in politics... unfortunately, where it is discussed tends to come from the latter rather than the former, so there are grounds.
catscratches wrote:
The verdict
If I was American, I wouldn't vote for him. Not by a long shot. Not if all other alternatives were blood-sucking demons from hell. Which, I guess, isn't all too far from the truth. I can see why so many Americans don't vote, and I'm sure as hell glad we don't have a two-party system over here.

I'm pretty much with your verdict. I'm pleased he's running, as it's an option, but, I don't think he's a good option (none of the GOP are in my opinion, sadly). This whole free-market focus thing is, as far as I can tell, utterly delusional. I mean, it's nice that they have ideals, but, some grounding in reality would be beneficial Wink
Unfortunately, my country has a virtual 2-party system; while there are more parties, only two have ever held power. It's a really unfortunate state of things and generates a lot of complicity. In the States where there really are only two (one?) option, it seems even worse.
handfleisch
great post, cats. I agree with your verdict.
ocalhoun
Quote:
how about we actually have a discussion on their policies

Ah, refreshing.
^.^
I think I know what sparked the creation of this topic!




There are some other good ones you left out,

-Reducing the size and scope of the US government
-against regulation of the internet
-against the patriot act
-wants to end selective service registration (registering for the draft)
-wants to end affirmative action
-against eminent domain
-position on homosexual marriage based on 'the government shouldn't be involved in that anyway'
-As for global warming, I do agree with his saying that we have more urgent issues at hand... and I do agree with this part of what he's done:
Quote:

He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.

-I like a lot of his policies about the health care system... They wouldn't entirely fix it, but they would make it better.
-Election reforms like making it easier to get third party candidates on the ballot and eliminating the electoral college.
-Has a really interesting solution for Somalian pirates... (privateers)
-Supports the idea that a jury is there to judge not only the accused, but also the law itself (where others would say a jury's sole duty is to enforce the letter of the law, regardless of if they agree with the law or not.)


But yeah, also some major bad ones,
#The faith in the 'free market' to solve all problems is a flawed belief and will only end badly if followed... Really, I think a lot of his bad policies could be fixed if he could be shown that a 'free market' doesn't actually work in reality. -- Or, well, that it works... but the only thing it does is produce a lot of money, with no concern for the people involved or the environment, or long/short term stability... only concern for more money.
#He's also a bit too religiously oriented... to the point where I think he would base national policy on his religious beliefs... which I think is going too far.
#I also dislike his immigration policies... He's all about locking down the borders, but doesn't emphasize making legal immigration easy.
#There's also the whole 'state's rights' thing... While I agree that it's better to put power in the more local control of the states, he seems a little blind to how state governments can be as bad or worse than federal government at times.
#Seems to have no interest in campaign finance reform, rather it seems like he wants corporate interests to have an even easier time at influencing elections.
#Too excited about following the letter of the constitution... The US constitution is not perfect, and never was... To assume that following it to the letter will solve all problems is to have too much naive faith in the founding fathers.



All in all, I'd say he's the best out of the bunch when it comes to mainstream candidates for the next upcoming election. (Though that's not saying much... It's like being the world's tallest midget.)
Especially given that checks and balances in the way the government is set up will probably keep him from achieving any of his crazier ideas. -- He won't have absolute power to do these things, so a lot of them won't happen.

That said, I probably won't vote for him... even if he does win the primary. Depends what third party alternatives are available.
MrTylerGreen
Another good thing to mention about Ron Paul is that he is a brilliant economist. He literally predicted to the letter how the housing market was going to collapse, named the names of all the big players that would be involved, and told us exactly what the consequences would be. He was right on every single point, and if he would have been in charge of the economy back then, we would have been a lot better off for it! The greatest threat amongst any threat too our country is how we continue to sink ourselves into debt. What good is Green and renewable energy if nobody can pay for it. What good is the right to an abortion is nobody can afford one. What good is any of this stuff if we go bankrupt as a country?

We are literally in financial CRISIS, and unless it gets fixed the rest of it is pointless anyway. I think a radical plan to pay down the debt and restore America back to the free market that made it rich to begin with is a great idea.

People look at no minimum wage as a problem, but the minimum wage itself IS the problem. A minimum wage puts stress on producers of products because the amount they have to pay their employees prevents them from being able to compete in a global market. Some think that no minimum wage would allow greedy people to not pay people right, but all it would take to put all of the greedy people out of business would be for one honest man to open a business and pay a fair wage. All of the people working for greedy people would leave their jobs to go places where the pay is fair. Faith in a free market is well placed. But it only works if you end government restrictions on how and what people are paid.
catscratches
I'm not sure I'm following you. You're saying that a fair wage would come naturally in a free market? Then how is a minimum wage a problem if employers would be fair even if it wasn't mandated by law? By that logic, it would be unnecessary, but a problem? How?
ocalhoun
MrTylerGreen wrote:
Some think that no minimum wage would allow greedy people to not pay people right, but all it would take to put all of the greedy people out of business would be for one honest man to open a business and pay a fair wage. All of the people working for greedy people would leave their jobs to go places where the pay is fair. Faith in a free market is well placed.


Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

The greedy ones are actually the ones who drive the honest-wage-paying ones out of business, because they can undercut prices due to their lower overhead.

You also have to take into account that the competition is now global: we can't reduce wages enough to compete with places like China, because nobody could afford to live in the US on a Chinese laborer's salary.



You, like Ron Paul, don't realize the drawbacks of a free market.
The free market is very efficient at producing capital... But that's the only thing it's good at. It treats the people involved in it as just cogs in a machine, to be used mercilessly and thrown out when they break, with no consideration given for how they feel about it. It treats the environment the same way. A completely free market is also a danger to stability: it will proceed on a constant boom-and-bust cycle that will boost overall productivity, but gives no heed to what the actual living people should do during bust times.

So, no. A 'free market' is not the answer.
deanhills
I'd think the worst part are greedy Government and politicians. With those around, forget about even a modicum of a free market. They are the guys who created freedom of the banks so that the latter could exploit their customers and flog worthless investment products to them. I.e. it gave banks the power to include real estate products and investments, and amazing that after the huge melt down in 2008, no one has done anything to fix that. As far as I can see after that melt down it was the large mega corporation banks who got protection. Not its customers.
Ankhanu
deanhills wrote:
I'd think the worst part are greedy Government and politicians. With those around, forget about even a modicum of a free market. They are the guys who created freedom of the banks so that the latter could exploit their customers and flog worthless investment products to them. I.e. it gave banks the power to include real estate products and investments, and amazing that after the huge melt down in 2008, no one has done anything to fix that. As far as I can see after that melt down it was the large mega corporation banks who got protection. Not its customers.

I'm not sure how greedy politicians would really be to blame for the problems with the free market idea, human nature is.
You're blaming political greed for the power bankers had to alter the markets, but, in a free market, no one would have stopped them in the first place... Everyone would be free to exploit others however they felt they could get away with... and they would. That sort of greed and corruption would be quite rampant in a free market, and it's not the politicians' fault. Regulation is needed to prevent this sort of BS, not freedom.
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I'd think the worst part are greedy Government and politicians. With those around, forget about even a modicum of a free market. They are the guys who created freedom of the banks so that the latter could exploit their customers and flog worthless investment products to them. I.e. it gave banks the power to include real estate products and investments, and amazing that after the huge melt down in 2008, no one has done anything to fix that. As far as I can see after that melt down it was the large mega corporation banks who got protection. Not its customers.

I'm not sure how greedy politicians would really be to blame for the problems with the free market idea, human nature is.
You're blaming political greed for the power bankers had to alter the markets, but, in a free market, no one would have stopped them in the first place... Everyone would be free to exploit others however they felt they could get away with... and they would. That sort of greed and corruption would be quite rampant in a free market, and it's not the politicians' fault. Regulation is needed to prevent this sort of BS, not freedom.
Most politicians need money in order to get elected. That money comes from mega corporations, including the large banks. The more money they can get, the better for them of course. It is impossible to have a free market in an environment like that. If you had posted for a long time in this Sub-Forum you'd probably have had a better understanding where I come from in this, as I've repeated myself quite regularly. The US in essence is run by a very small group of mega corporations. They control politicians through elections contributions, they own the media and they pay millions of dollars in employing lobbyists for passing legislation in their own favour. There is no free market at all. In fact, it may be an interesting topic for discussion in the Economics Sub-Forum. When last has there been a free market in the US and when did that stop? Probably just after the war of independence? And then it stopped before the civil war? Perhaps people like Ocalhoun, jmi and Handfleisch may have come across literature on this, but it would be an interesting topic for research.
Ankhanu
Yeah, I understand the political funding bit, but my point was that sort of deregulation that you were referencing was just a small taste of human nature and freedom within markets... The result? Exploitation. This aspect of freedom isn't the responsibility of the political system, it exists anywhere it's given opportunity
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
Yeah, I understand the political funding bit, but my point was that sort of deregulation that you were referencing was just a small taste of human nature and freedom within markets... The result? Exploitation. This aspect of freedom isn't the responsibility of the political system, it exists anywhere it's given opportunity
You're right. And I agree. It is not the responsibility of the political system. It is the responsibility of the individual who is ultimately supposedly responsible for the political system, according to the fact that it's supposed to be a democracy. The people are responsible for voting for the Government that is in place. Instead that is not really what is happening here, as they have far less power than they think they have. Most of that is with the mega corporations who are in cahoots with Government. As the system as it is can only survive with massive funding from the mega corporations, and the mega corporations needs the Government to create laws for it, so that the mega corporations can have all of the power to control the individual so that it can make as much money as it can. We're back to greed here. Twisted Evil
catscratches
ocalhoun wrote:
-Reducing the size and scope of the US government
I don't really have a clue as to that one. USA is such a different country just by scale alone so I don't feel like any comparison to our system is at all applicable.

ocalhoun wrote:
-against regulation of the internet
-against the patriot act
These are indeed positive, for obvious reasons.

ocalhoun wrote:
-wants to end selective service registration (registering for the draft)
I can't say I'm all too familiar with this issue, but from reading up a bit on it, it does seem obsolete. I'll reserve my opinion on it though. The only thing I'm certain about the American military is that it should be smaller. :d

ocalhoun wrote:
-wants to end affirmative action
Indeed. Although I see the point, I think trying to end discrimination by the means of more discrimination (only in the opposite direction) is fundamentally flawed.

-against eminent domain

ocalhoun wrote:
-position on homosexual marriage based on 'the government shouldn't be involved in that anyway'
I think that position is flawed. Marriage is not a religious thing or something the government can't be involved in. Marriage is a legal matter like any other. I think it's very much something that has to be on a federal level, not so much that all states need to have the same jurisdiction regarding issuing marriages but rather that marriages need to be recognized equally.
It's better than wanting some kind of federal level ban on same-sex marriage or something like that, but I don't think it's a good position just because other positions are worse.

ocalhoun wrote:
-As for global warming, I do agree with his saying that we have more urgent issues at hand... and I do agree with this part of what he's done:
Quote:
He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.
I agree that federal subsidies for oil and gas is a terrible thing, but I don't think removing that is even nearly enough. Sure, other things might be more important, but that doesn't diminish the need for action and it seems like Ron Paul doesn't just not prioritize it; he thinks action isn't necessary at all. (It's all a hoax, after all.)

ocalhoun wrote:
-I like a lot of his policies about the health care system... They wouldn't entirely fix it, but they would make it better.
Can't say I've read much about his health care policies, but considering his faith in the free market, I very much doubt I'm going to like them. :p

ocalhoun wrote:
-Election reforms like making it easier to get third party candidates on the ballot and eliminating the electoral college.
Do enlighten me! How exactly does he intend to go about doing those things?

ocalhoun wrote:
-Supports the idea that a jury is there to judge not only the accused, but also the law itself (where others would say a jury's sole duty is to enforce the letter of the law, regardless of if they agree with the law or not.)
I think that's a terrible idéa. If there's anything I think the legal system should be, it's consistent, not dependent on the views of some randomly chosen individuals. Sure, that's inevitably what already happens, but I think the jury system itself is severly ****** up. Not that we over here have a much better system... I guess ever so slightly better but still pretty ****** up.
ocalhoun
catscratches wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
-wants to end selective service registration (registering for the draft)
I can't say I'm all too familiar with this issue, but from reading up a bit on it, it does seem obsolete. I'll reserve my opinion on it though. The only thing I'm certain about the American military is that it should be smaller. :d

The last time the draft was used was for the Vietnam war... But every male citizen still has to register for the draft when they register to vote (and also legally required to even if they don't register to vote, but that's rarely enforced). By registering, you put your name and information into a database, and in the case of a sufficiently nasty war, they could call you in to military service completely without your consent, giving you the choice of military service, jail time, or (trying to) flee the country.
(With a few exceptions for students, disabled, injured, et cetera... Any time the draft is activated, people begin to make a fine art of 'draft dodging': making themselves one way or another ineligible for the draft.)

It is antiquated, and what's more, it's an insult to the idea of a 'free country' that you could be involuntarily summoned into military duty at any time.
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:
-position on homosexual marriage based on 'the government shouldn't be involved in that anyway'
I think that position is flawed. Marriage is not a religious thing or something the government can't be involved in. Marriage is a legal matter like any other. I think it's very much something that has to be on a federal level, not so much that all states need to have the same jurisdiction regarding issuing marriages but rather that marriages need to be recognized equally.
It's better than wanting some kind of federal level ban on same-sex marriage or something like that, but I don't think it's a good position just because other positions are worse.

On the contrary, his position on gay marriage exactly mirrors mine.
I do see that the state could have a legitimate interest in defining marriage... but why should it?

Yes, the state needs to have marriage clearly defined if they are going to afford married couples different legal and tax status... But I think they shouldn't do that either.
I see no pressing reason why the government shouldn't be able to completely ignore the entire concept of marriage.
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:
-As for global warming, I do agree with his saying that we have more urgent issues at hand... and I do agree with this part of what he's done:
Quote:
He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.
I agree that federal subsidies for oil and gas is a terrible thing, but I don't think removing that is even nearly enough.

That's true. I do entirely disagree with his 'the free market will fix it' attitude.
But, I do agree with the 'we have more urgent problems to attend to' attitude.
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:
-I like a lot of his policies about the health care system... They wouldn't entirely fix it, but they would make it better.
Can't say I've read much about his health care policies, but considering his faith in the free market, I very much doubt I'm going to like them. :p

He does advocate government non-involvement in health care...

But a few things less controversial to call good:
-Voted against the majority of Republicans to allow the government to negotiate drug prices (like all insurance companies do, but the medicare drug benefit don't allow the government to do.)
-Replace malpractice lawsuits with 'bad outcome insurance' bought before the surgery/procedure. (Malpractice lawsuits (and insurance to protect against such lawsuits) are a huge -- and growing -- expense to nearly all medical professionals... The high risk of lawsuits and/or the high cost of malpractice insurance is driving many doctors away from the field (especially in specialties where malpractice suits are common), and it's forcing the rest to charge very high prices to their patients. Allowing the patient to assume (and carry insurance against) that risk would help lower health care costs across the board.)
-Veterans hospitals should be abolished in favor of paying for veterans' expenses at normal hospitals. (Would give veterans quicker and better service, and probably be cheaper overall for the government. Existing veterans hospital facilities could be sold and converted to private facilities - likewise the VA hospital staff could instead get jobs at private facilities.)

I know, his positions on the subject are rather opposed to anyone who wants state-sponsored medical care for everyone... So my espousing that as a good thing will be rather controversial.
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:
-Election reforms like making it easier to get third party candidates on the ballot and eliminating the electoral college.
Do enlighten me! How exactly does he intend to go about doing those things?

Not sure how he plans to make a third party getting on the ballot easier; but it is currently remarkably difficult, and having run as a third party candidate in the past, I imagine he'll be sensitive to what needs to improve in that area.
As for eliminating the electoral college, that's simple: Instead of having so many delegates from each state (supposedly) vote according to the votes in their state, just choose the winners of federal elections directly from the popular vote.
(Interestingly, if this had been done earlier, GW Bush wouldn't have gotten elected to a second term -- He lost the popular vote, but won the electoral college.)
Quote:

ocalhoun wrote:
-Supports the idea that a jury is there to judge not only the accused, but also the law itself (where others would say a jury's sole duty is to enforce the letter of the law, regardless of if they agree with the law or not.)
I think that's a terrible idéa. If there's anything I think the legal system should be, it's consistent, not dependent on the views of some randomly chosen individuals. Sure, that's inevitably what already happens, but I think the jury system itself is severly ****** up. Not that we over here have a much better system... I guess ever so slightly better but still pretty ****** up.

I see the Jury's ability to judge the law as another (and very important) aspect of the checks and balances in effect in the government.
It's another way of giving power to the people.

Take the example of someone being tried for 'possession with intent to distribute' marijuana, but who was actually just a regular drug user who happened to have more in his possession than the government deems necessary for personal use. (Hence being charged with the more serious 'intent to distribute' ie, being a drug dealer.)
Suppose the evidence against him is very strong; it's a sure thing that he did what the prosecutor says he did.

But, if the jury thinks that marijuana should be legal, or at least thinks that this man should be tried as a drug user, not a drug dealer, does the jury have the right to give a verdict of 'not guilty', or do they have to enforce a law they think is wrong?
jmi256
ocalhoun wrote:
(Interestingly, if this had been done earlier, GW Bush wouldn't have gotten elected to a second term -- He lost the popular vote, but won the electoral college.)

Actually, he won the popular vote in his second run:

Bush: 62,040,610
Kerry: 59,028,444
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004
ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
(Interestingly, if this had been done earlier, GW Bush wouldn't have gotten elected to a second term -- He lost the popular vote, but won the electoral college.)

Actually, he won the popular vote in his second run:

Bush: 62,040,610
Kerry: 59,028,444
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004

Oh, did I remember wrong? Was it his first run when that happened?

I remember that in one of his elections, he lost the popular vote, but still won with the electoral college, and therefore the election.
Ankhanu
Yeah, it was the first with the hanging chad Florida fiasco.
MrTylerGreen
ocalhoun wrote:
MrTylerGreen wrote:
Some think that no minimum wage would allow greedy people to not pay people right, but all it would take to put all of the greedy people out of business would be for one honest man to open a business and pay a fair wage. All of the people working for greedy people would leave their jobs to go places where the pay is fair. Faith in a free market is well placed.


Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

The greedy ones are actually the ones who drive the honest-wage-paying ones out of business, because they can undercut prices due to their lower overhead.

You also have to take into account that the competition is now global: we can't reduce wages enough to compete with places like China, because nobody could afford to live in the US on a Chinese laborer's salary.



You, like Ron Paul, don't realize the drawbacks of a free market.
The free market is very efficient at producing capital... But that's the only thing it's good at. It treats the people involved in it as just cogs in a machine, to be used mercilessly and thrown out when they break, with no consideration given for how they feel about it. It treats the environment the same way. A completely free market is also a danger to stability: it will proceed on a constant boom-and-bust cycle that will boost overall productivity, but gives no heed to what the actual living people should do during bust times.

So, no. A 'free market' is not the answer.


There will always be a "boom-and-bust" cycle and throwing money at a potential bust doesn't do anything more than delay the bust and actually make it worse when it actually does happen. Government being removed from social welfare of people who are unprepared for the "bust" phase of the economic roller coaster doesn't mean that those people are just screwed though. As long as good human beings live in this country social welfare programs will exist for the needy. They will just be run by private individuals instead of governmental agencies.

Look up what is happening the wake of recent tornadoes in Henryville, IN. While FEMA has responded there are actually MORE private individuals doing fundraisers and even hopping in their trucks to drive over and remove debris from total stranger's yards. A man from Indianapolis even CLOSED his restaurant, bought a food trailer, drove down to henryville, and has been grilling fresh meals for the thousands of volunteers helping with the effort. The response of local food pantries was so massive that they have actually asked people to STOP donating food. One local business even donating literally TONS of dog, cat, bird, and horse food to help people's pets while people are preoccupied cleaning up the disaster.

So why does the government need to create a bureaucratic monster that sucks up millions in tax dollars a year to do what people all around the country will do for free?
ocalhoun
MrTylerGreen wrote:


There will always be a "boom-and-bust" cycle

Not necessarily.

If regulation of the markets was effective and consistent, the boom-and-bust cycle could be very mitigated, perhaps even eliminated. ... At the cost of not having any more booms, only slow growth.

If you look at financial regulation during boom-and-bust cycles, you'll notice that the boom is nearly always associated with a period of deregulation... but this comes at a price: without enough regulation, the market becomes unstable, leading to a crash and a bust. The crash inevitably spawns new legislation to prevent it from ever happening again... which stays in place until the next boom-and-deregulate part of the cycle, where it is removed to encourage even more growth... causing the market to be unstable again... and the cycle continues.

So, the way government is currently run, rather than mitigating the boom-and-bust cycle, it actually amplifies the cycle, making it worse.
To help stop the cycle, the government needs to keep regulations consistent throughout the cycle.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
So, the way government is currently run, rather than mitigating the boom-and-bust cycle, it actually amplifies the cycle, making it worse.
To help stop the cycle, the government needs to keep regulations consistent throughout the cycle.
I remember when I was doing the Securities Course that we had been unable to match our theory of what we had learned about the business cycle with the practice .... which means that the business cycle has been distorted by Government interference for a very long time. Perhaps there isn't one at all, or if there is, it's completely artificial - another case of admiring the clothes of an Emperor with no clothes on. We have all of these learned economists telling us that everything is complicated, they are the only ones who can really figure it out. How can one have a healthy and free market in an artificial environment where there is DEFINITELY complete absence of fair and open disclosure of information to everyone.
boinsterman
I will not be voting--it just encourages more lies, and I do not really like any of the candidates, anyway. However, I am more Libertarian than any other party I am aware of. If I did vote for president, I would vote for Ron Paul.

Some of the things I like about him--

He sticks to the issues, without the personal attacks, as far as I know (something he shares with Obama). I believe it is a politician's job, not just to legislate, but to educate the people on the issues of the day. This is more true of national leaders than any other, because they are more visible to their people. The important thing is to EDUCATE, which implies reasoned arguments, as opposed to riling people up about a particular issue, which associates an intense emotion with the politician's arguments but not necessarily reason. Also, if I were running for any office, I would not want to be elected by a constituency which supports discord as opposed to whatever harmony can be achieved. (Furthermore, it was pointed out to me a long time ago that name recognition helps a lot in campaigns. Negative politics put an opponent's name out there, making it more recognizable. Not too bright.)

Some of the things I don't like about him--

His positions are too absolutist. Eliminating all overseas spending, for example, would effectively elimminate the State Department, including the Peace Corp.
deanhills
boinsterman wrote:
I will not be voting--it just encourages more lies, and I do not really like any of the candidates, anyway.
That would be honest non-voting. The ideal would be to have a candidate you would want to vote for. I'd say the second ideal would be to make sure that those who do not qualify don't get elected. Or the one you dislike the most definitely loses. By not voting you may inadvertently without thinking cause the lesser qualified of the two candidates to win the election.
ocalhoun
boinsterman wrote:
I will not be voting--it just encourages more lies, and I do not really like any of the candidates, anyway.

Are you sure that you don't like any of the candidates?
Have you looked at the 3rd party offerings?
(I wouldn't fault you if you didn't like those either... but one of the main things that's wrong with the way things are now is that people only look at the main two, and ignore all the others.)

...
Again, I bewail the absence of a 'none of the above' option on the ballot.
I would LOVE to have a 'none of the above' option that, if it got more votes than any candidate, would force a re-do of the election with new candidates.
Related topics
Forced charity is not charity at all: Foreign Aid Rip-Off
Why does the MSM seem to dislike Ron Paul?
If a black man becomes a US president
Left-Wing Extremist Media
Ron Paul's son follows in his father's footsteps
Who will be the Republican Presidential Candidate?
How to Vote for Ron Paul. Even if you're not an American
Possible "no-party" candidate on the ballot in all
Republican Debate Nov. 12, 2011
Ron Paul Newsletter
Ron Paul's run is good for democracy
Republican New Hampshire Primary - Competition
The policies of: Rick Santorum
Ron Paul Preemptively Wins Iowa + Minnesota
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.