Rand Paul bashes McCain for pulling a Pelosi

[GhostWriter16]

\

Better for corporate interests and the 1%? Yes, I'll readily admit that, even if Cutlass doesn't have the balls to

The real question is why anyone on this forum would support that. By definition, the 1% are rare in the general population, and corporations tend not to spend time posting on video game forums. When they do, they tend to sock-puppet their products. I've got a whole roster of corporate shills tagged in RES on reddit - and I'm not even hunting for them.

I find it extremely dubious that someone posting on this forum would realize economic benefits under a ROAND/PAUL Administration.

Ignoring the lack of acknowledgement to laissez faire theory, I wasn't talking solely about economics, but the Presidencies as a macro whole. Surely avoiding 100,000 dead in Iraq is more important than any fiscal issue?

I didn't forget anything at all. I happen to know the economic history. The Great Depression was the Fed's fault.

Now, consider: An organization that has existed for 100 years now got it wrong once. Once.

What have you got to compare to that?

And how great were the consequences when they got it wrong?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Just about as severe as when the Free market gets it wrong every 15 years?

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Whether he is actually a racist or not, he has certainly never given colored people any reason to respect him at all.

Except people high up in his campaign circle.

[YOUTUBE-OLD]hqqbwqiDXcI[/YOUTUBE-OLD]

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Nobody who has an understanding of economics past grade school believes that crap.

How about Harvard educated historian Thomas Woods?

[YOUTUBE-OLD]541bajR4k8g[/YOUTUBE-OLD]

 

[Kyriakos]

I still think that Astinos reacted way better to the Rino


Link to video.

 

[Cutlass]

Except people high up in his campaign circle.

[YOUTUBE-OLD]hqqbwqiDXcI[/YOUTUBE-OLD]

3% of voters? I stand by what I said.

How about Harvard educated historian Thomas Woods?

[YOUTUBE-OLD]541bajR4k8g[/YOUTUBE-OLD]

So a political historian. Not someone who has ever studied economics.

 

[Ajidica]

You call what happened since its introduction stable?

Yes. Prior to the Fed we were seeing massive panics every 10-15 years. Afterwards, with two notable exceptions (I'm not familiar enough with the Great Depression but the recent recession is shared blame between the Fed and Government) we have enjoyed financial stability that rarely progressed beyond a recession and never to the same level of panic and collapse which was a regular phenomena in the pre-Fed days.

 

[peter grimes]

posters who pay taxes would

Penny wise, pound stupid.

Pay less in April, perhaps, but concomitant with that is a huge cut in services, programs, rules that reduce corporate malfeasance and abuse.

 

[Zarn]

Yes. Prior to the Fed we were seeing massive panics every 10-15 years. Afterwards, with two notable exceptions (I'm not familiar enough with the Great Depression but the recent recession is shared blame between the Fed and Government) we have enjoyed financial stability that rarely progressed beyond a recession and never to the same level of panic and collapse which was a regular phenomena in the pre-Fed days.

The two worst were both post Federal Reserve. We have had numerous recessions, since the Federal Reserve was introduced.

Economies change. The way to deal with recssions is to adjust to the different circumstances. Building up old comapnies that refuse to change only enlongates the problems.

 

[Rashiminos]

I'm not sure what Paul is getting at by just talking about arming one side. That's fait accompli.

 

[Ajidica]

The two worst were both post Federal Reserve. We have had numerous recessions, since the Federal Reserve was introduced.

At the time of the Great Depression very little practical research had been done into how economies function and Keynesian theories were just getting distributed. The current crisis can only be blamed on the Fed in that they kept interest rates low which comprises at most 25% of the blame. The overwhelming majority of blame rests on bankers who made overly risky loans and several other problems that if you really want I can go into. The Fed had a lot of problems coping with this because the traditional response to an economic recession is to drop interest rates; something that couldn't be done because we were keeping interest rates low to promote growth during the Clinton/Bush years and for a whole host of other rather complicated reasons relating to both the use of the US Dollar as a reserve currency and the need to finance our deficit.
If you look at the economic turmoil following WWII and when Keynesian ideas began understood we have really seen only two substantial economic crises- the Stagflation of the 70's and 80's which were in large parts caused by the limits of Keynesians (which to some extent improved monetarist theories has rectified) or by a complete disregard and dismantling of established economic theory.
If you look before the creation of the Fed we were seeing massive economic crises every decade or so. Sure, things may have recovered quickly but having sharp drops and rises like that is not considered to be a healthy state of affairs. In smoothing out the dips and crests of economic growth the Fed has done an admirable job. If, however you feel the economy should have those dips and crests that is an entirely different discussion divorced from whether the Fed has done well at carrying out their mission.
Oh yeah, don't give me any of that "Keynesianism sucks" crap. Keynesian thought with over half a century of research and added theories still forms the core of established economic thought.

Economies change. The way to deal with recssions is to adjust to the different circumstances. Building up old comapnies that refuse to change only enlongates the problems.

Unless, of course, the collapse of a company is so catastrophic as to dry up world credit and prevent the establishment of these new industries the 'changing economies' need. Argue about the auto maker bailouts all you want, had the banks collapsed we would have been in a real craphole as opposed to the tepid-but still existent- economic growth we are seeing.

 

[Zarn]

The banks were not going to collapse, anyway. The Federal Reserve set up this problem with fake currency being it's worst implementation.

 

[Ajidica]

The banks were not going to collapse, anyway.

I may have been a bit overdramatic but had the US government not bailed out the banks and the Fed undertaking several very beneficial policies we would be experiencing a very nasty situation with very little credit floating around.

The Federal Reserve set up this problem with fake currency being it's worst implementation.

Huh?
Not to sound like an arrogant self-appointed savant, but what level of education do you have in economics?

 

[Zarn]

When we got off the gold standard, the Federal Reserve had pumped a lot of 'money' into the system. That has significantly hurt the economy, except for the corporations (including banks) that it benefitted.

 

[Ajidica]

When we got off the gold standard, the Federal Reserve had pumped a lot of 'money' into the system. That has significantly hurt the economy, except for the corporations (including banks) that it benefitted.

How about no.
Her is an interview with Paul Krugman (Nobel Award winning economist) on why the Gold Standard isn't what people make it out to be.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/06/paul-krugman-on-why-david-stockman-is-a-crank.html

Paul Solman: There were great depressions before the 1930s?

Paul Krugman: Sure. They were not as great as the 1930s -- that was a unique worldwide event -- but you look at the aftermath of the Panic of 1873 or the Panic of 1893, and you see that they were really pretty bad, and the Panic of 1907 was averted only because J.P. Morgan acted as a sort of personal version of the Federal Reserve. That's what led to the creation of the Fed. Because we said, "Hey, we won't always have J.P. Morgan around to rescue the banking system." So the idea that we had calm and that we didn't have terrible periods of economic dislocation until the Federal Reserve came along -- again, I think represents a blindness to the realities of our history.

By moving away from the Gold Standard it allowed the government to exercise greater control over monetary policy and use it in an expansionary way that didn't just help a select few wealthy investors to the detriment of the average American. Or, as William Jennings Bryan puts it:

"You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."

Additionally, how has moving away from the Gold Standard harmed the economy? Since we ditched the Gold Standard America, and the world, saw one of the longest periods of economic growth and increases in living standards in history.
At times a Gold Standard can be handy, but in a modern nation with a highly developed credit industry a gold standard is useless and downright counterproductive!

 

[peter grimes]

When we got off the gold standard, the Federal Reserve had pumped a lot of 'money' into the system. That has significantly hurt the economy, except for the corporations (including banks) that it benefitted.

What do you imagine that money has done since it was 'pumped in'?

I'm not economist, but I'll bet you that the poorest americans are doing much better today than their pre-fiat-currency counterparts. I'll also bet that the median income is higher - or at least has greater purchasing power.

I could be wrong - I did a 2 minute google search and couldn't find anything to support or refute this.

Remember - those with money have an easier time getting more and keeping more. Those with less have a much MUCH harder time getting even the bare minimum. Going back onto a resource-capped wealth system would hurt the poor and middle class far more deeply than the very wealthy.

I don't care what an ideologically pure position says about this - if something is going to directly harm a whole bunch of people to a significant degree, then I don't think it's a moral or ethical thing to do. Ideology can jump off a bridge.

 

[Cutlass]

The two worst were both post Federal Reserve. We have had numerous recessions, since the Federal Reserve was introduced.

Economies change. The way to deal with recssions is to adjust to the different circumstances. Building up old comapnies that refuse to change only enlongates the problems.

2 worst? The Great Recession is 10% of an average pre-Fed recession.

 

[GhostWriter16]

posters who pay taxes would

I don't yet and I still think I would. Especially under Ron since I'd only end up throwing half as much of my future income for SS that I'll never receive anyway.

Rand Paul, somewhat aggravatingly to me, won't say he wants to get rid of entitlements. But he can't if he wants to get elected. Even still, cutting back on the imperial foreign policy and getting rid of the Fed would still help a lot...

 

[peter grimes]

I don't yet and I still think I would. Especially under Ron since I'd only end up throwing half as much of my future income for SS that I'll never receive anyway.
...

Why do you think SS won't disburse to you what you're owed?

 

[Formaldehyde]

So a political historian. Not someone who has ever studied economics.

You mean like JerichoHill?

You may very well disagree with Dr Paul's opinions on economics, but he does know what he is talking about despite having some unconventional views.