For Liberty(and pwnage) Ron Paul 2012 Part II

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Erm.... I'm not sure if you know what nuclear weapons are, but when you're being nuked, you don't have much else to lose. You will launch all your nukes at your pre-indicated targets, and for Israel that probably includes Pakistan.

Umm, ok this is Israel were talking about not the U.S. or the ole U.S.S.R. and we don't actually know how many nukes they have, what their ballistic capabilities are, or who they actually think are threats. Pakistan has never invaded Israel. During their history, Israeli threats are Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and to some extent the Saudis (but since there bffs with the U.S. so they ain't gonna do anything). Israeli nukes would be pointed towards these threats and not a hypothetical Pakistani one just because they don't recognise their right to exist.

 

[Ajidica]

Great! That saves us the trouble of doing it ourselves.

And you honestly think that a Saudi/Gulf Princedom invasion of Iran would be a good idea?
Dear Lord save us all.

 

[G-Max]

Erm.... I'm not sure if you know what nuclear weapons are, but when you're being nuked, you don't have much else to lose. You will launch all your nukes at your pre-indicated targets, and for Israel that probably includes Pakistan.

So in other words, it's just baseless speculation.

And you honestly think that a Saudi/Gulf Princedom invasion of Iran would be a good idea?

I'll take "not our problem" for $400, Alex.

 

[Ajidica]

I'll take "not our problem" for $400, Alex.

It would very quickly become our problem. Like it or not, Iran is what helps keep the Gulf Princedoms in check, if only because they all fear Iran.
If Iran gets invaded by the Saudis and the Princes, you would probably see a massive insurgency of the Iraqi Shia in the south which would cause the Iraqi government to collapse leading to absolute anarchy. The few moves toward liberalism Iran has been making would swiftly dissapear and Iranian-sponsored militant activity would be ratcheted into high gear.
If Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Princedoms decide to stay out of the war, it still becomes a Very Bad Thing due to mass insurgencies and support for militant movements. Like it or not, Iran has a reputation for not being a lackey of the west and if they get attacked by Israel, it won't be very good for Israel or the west and hard-line Islamists would gain in power.

 

[G-Max]

And all of that becomes our problem... how?

 

[Ajidica]

And all of that becomes our problem... how?

Are you really this dense, forcing me to hold your hand while leading you through the rational for why a large war in an unstable part of the world that would lead to the collapse of several governments -and seeing them replaced with hard-line Islamists- would be a Very Bad Thing for us?

 

[Crezth]

Umm, ok this is Israel were talking about not the U.S. or the ole U.S.S.R. and we don't actually know how many nukes they have, what their ballistic capabilities are, or who they actually think are threats. Pakistan has never invaded Israel. During their history, Israeli threats are Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and to some extent the Saudis (but since there bffs with the U.S. so they ain't gonna do anything). Israeli nukes would be pointed towards these threats and not a hypothetical Pakistani one just because they don't recognise their right to exist.

Admittedly, this is so; it makes the circumstances no more desirable, however, and the free exchange of nukes in such a hotly contested region is liable to spark conflict in surrounding regions.

So in other words, it's just baseless speculation.

Well, then, let the nukes fly!

 

[G-Max]

A few newborn middle eastern democracies are already run by hard-line Islamists. Nobody here sees this as a Very Bad Thing.

Remember, "hardline Islamist" does not mean "America-hating terrorist state".

 

[amadeus]

Are you really this dense, forcing me to hold your hand while leading you through the rational for why a large war in an unstable part of the world that would lead to the collapse of several governments -and seeing them replaced with hard-line Islamists- would be a Very Bad Thing for us?

It would be bad for us because constantly interfere in the Middle East.

Is Iran's government a very bad thing for Switzerland or Sweden?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I'm sure they have lots of cash in Swiss banks... so depending upon what they do... yeah.

 

[Cutlass]

Federal Reserve Notes are the exact opposite of sound money.

It's one of the soundest moneys the world has ever seen. It's certainly about as good as it gets at the moment.

You only say that because you have a strawman understanding of libertarian economic policy.

No, I have a real understanding of the flaws of what a subset of libertarians think is economics.

You never said "routine" before. This is a logical fallacy known as "moving the goalposts"

It's called clarifying. You cannot get routine medical care at emergency rooms. Only emergency services. When a lot of people try to get routine care, the emergency rooms don't have the resources to serve all the people.

Well, there's no doubt about that. Of course, I blame the soaring costs of health care on government meddling, so...

So even though the private sector is driving costs, it's all the government's fault.

"Failure to properly enforce the regulations that most libertarians would have actually agreed with" is not the same as "deregulation". Of course, if there had been no bubble and no burst, and we were actively combating fraud (remember: libertarians hate fraud with a burning passion), it's hard to say that much of note would have happened.

There was both formal deregulation and informal failure to enforce regulations. But it was still the private sector that created the bubble and the financial collapse. As for what libertarians would and would not enforce, that depends on which one you ask. Many would not enforce any.

 

[G-Max]

You know, it's kind of funny how several people identified the housing bubble and predicted the global financial clustermess... and they were all libertarians. And you really think they're the ones who don't understand economics. That's hilarious.

It's one of the soundest moneys the world has ever seen. It's certainly about as good as it gets at the moment.

And that's why other countries are abandoning it?

No, I have a real understanding of the flaws of what a subset of libertarians think is economics.

It's called clarifying.

Call it what you want, you still moved the goalposts.

So even though the private sector is driving costs, it's all the government's fault.

Yeah, I'm sure the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act does not at all have the unintended side effect of making emergency rooms charge higher prices for the people who can pay in order to cover the people who can't. I'm sure the FDA-mandated approval process, which tosses out plenty of drugs that are safe for humans because they're toxic to nonhumans, has nothing to do with the cost of prescription drugs. Nope, it's all the private sector's fault

it was still the private sector that created the bubble

No, it was the Community Reinvestment Act.

Many would not enforce any.

Yeah, probably. But a lot would also ban fractional-reserve banking, arguing that it is a form of fraud and that it is a major cause of inflation (this is, in fact, part of the official platform of the Constitution Party, which is like the Libertarian Party's far-right cousin). Without FRB, financial panics are nearly impossible, though growth is also dramatically slowed.

 

[Cutlass]

You know, it's kind of funny how several people identified the housing bubble and predicted the global financial clustermess... and they were all libertarians. And you really think they're the ones who don't understand economics. That's hilarious.

They weren't all libertarians. And the libertarians got more wrong than right.

And that's why other countries are abandoning it?

Name one that is.

You think all libertarians think the same thing?

Call it what you want, you still moved the goalposts.

It's not my fault you didn't read it.

Yeah, I'm sure the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act does not at all have the unintended side effect of making emergency rooms charge higher prices for the people who can pay in order to cover the people who can't. I'm sure the FDA-mandated approval process, which tosses out plenty of drugs that are safe for humans because they're toxic to nonhumans, has nothing to do with the cost of prescription drugs. Nope, it's all the private sector's fault

Or, you could follow the personal responsibility route and make health care affordable.

No, it was the Community Reinvestment Act.

Since I happen to believe in personal responsibility, I'm not going to go and blame a law that's unrelated to the results.

Yeah, probably. But a lot would also ban fractional-reserve banking, arguing that it is a form of fraud and that it is a major cause of inflation (this is, in fact, part of the official platform of the Constitution Party, which is like the Libertarian Party's far-right cousin). Without FRB, financial panics are nearly impossible, though growth is also dramatically slowed.

Without FRB (which is the free market in action, strange how any but communists want to stamp that out) capitalism is impossible. Why would an economic libertarian want to destroy capitalism?

 

[G-Max]

They weren't all libertarians. And the libertarians got more wrong than right.

Sources?

Name one that is.

I'll give you two: China and Russia.

You think all libertarians think the same thing?

No, but you seem to be basing your understanding of libertarian economics on what only a few of them believe.

It's not my fault you didn't read it.

I did. You made an erroneous comment about health care, and when I proved you wrong, you claimed to have been talking about "routine" health care. You moved the goalposts. That's a foul, three-point penalty.

Or, you could follow the personal responsibility route and make health care affordable.

Ah, see, now you're thinking like a libertarian!

Since I happen to believe in personal responsibility,

For yourself, maybe, but not for others if you advocate entitlement programs.

I'm not going to go and blame a law that's unrelated to the results.

You're denying the link between the CRA and the housing bubble? Total disconnect from reality, man.

Without FRB (which is the free market in action, strange how any but communists want to stamp that out) capitalism is impossible.

It's not impossible, it just moves more slowly. Personally, I'd just set a pretty safe mandatory minimum reserve ratio, as I realize that the abolition of mandatory ratios contributed to the Global Financial Clustermess.

 

[Cutlass]

Sources?

You have any?

I'll give you two: China and Russia.

But they're not, are they?

No, but you seem to be basing your understanding of libertarian economics on what only a few of them believe.

No, I don't. But there is no one "libertarian economics". There's that lunatic Ron Paul stuff, and then there are a lot of people who are barely different from progressives.

I did. You made an erroneous comment about health care, and when I proved you wrong, you claimed to have been talking about "routine" health care. You moved the goalposts. That's a foul, three-point penalty.

Believe what you want.

Ah, see, now you're thinking like a libertarian!

I don't often encounter libertarians who believe in personal responsibility.

For yourself, maybe, but not for others if you advocate entitlement programs.

If you believe in personal responsibility, then you believe in entitelment programs.

You're denying the link between the CRA and the housing bubble? Total disconnect from reality, man.

It's a personal responsibility issue. CRA wasn't more than trivially involved. Those people who oppose personal responsiblity keep trying to shift the blame.

It's not impossible, it just moves more slowly. Personally, I'd just set a pretty safe mandatory minimum reserve ratio, as I realize that the abolition of mandatory ratios contributed to the Global Financial Clustermess.

Banks still have mandatory reserve ratios. Non bank actors were allowed to take more leverage.

 

[G-Max]

I don't often encounter libertarians who believe in personal responsibility.

If you believe in personal responsibility, then you believe in entitelment programs.

This is like claiming that water is dry. You can play the opposite game all you want, but don't expect me to play along. I'm done debating you on this.

 

[Crezth]

This is like claiming that water is dry. You can play the opposite game all you want, but don't expect me to play along. I'm done debating you on this.

Quick! Shut the door before any of that introspection can get in!

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

I hate it when Ron Paulians make a big deal that he once said that the Euro was a flawed currency, almost as if he was the Cassandra who nobody listened to. The reality is that in the 80's and 90's British and American (called Anglo-Saxon economist in econ lit) on both sides of the political spectrum predicted this. The only shock was that it took this long and Greece for it to happen.

 

[Antilogic]

What about the predictions of ruinous inflation or a lack of confidence causing the going rate on bonds to increase drastically? Neither of those predictions has come true.

Didn't we just have another thread where the CRA came up?

 

[useless]

You know, it's kind of funny how several people identified the housing bubble and predicted the global financial clustermess... and they were all libertarians. And you really think they're the ones who don't understand economics. That's hilarious

Or indeed the race war between blacks and whites!

That happened.

...Right?

Right?