Ron Paul Rises

[Demosthenes11]

I'd say it has to do with that he believes in stopping wars, which a number of corporations make big money on, as well as ending the fed.

I mean, how many really believed any of those candidates have a chance? Huntsman doesn't have a chance and he's got 12.

mormon, former governor of Utah...

[Kerberoz]

lol @ thinking anyone who isn't fucking retarded donates their hard-earned money to candidates based on morals

[Dantrag]

I love how many evangelicals say morals are more important than policy.

[archibaldcrane]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-05I46QVWt0...llionaires.jpg

I'm glad you've come around on the idea that Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance in a general election, much less a primary.

Constitutional amendment banning corporate political speech anyone?

I'm sure Ron Paul is against that.

[Dantrag]

Did anyone get to listen to Mitt's warm welcoming in New Hampshire?

[guartz]

I'm glad you've come around on the idea that Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance in a general election, much less a primary.

Constitutional amendment banning corporate political speech anyone?

I'm sure Ron Paul is against that.

So true.

[Kuya]

Archi's post reminded me of a fascinating thing about libertarians in how they oppose government involvement in the economy to reduce rent seeking, but they are unwilling to do anything about the power and privileges that corporations have already obtained via rent seeking. In other words, RP says he opposes bailouts and he would probably never support one, but he won't do anything about breaking up the large banks.

[guartz]

Archi's post reminded me of a fascinating thing about libertarians in how they oppose government involvement in the economy to reduce rent seeking, but they are unwilling to do anything about the power and privileges that corporations have already obtained via rent seeking. In other words, RP says he opposes bailouts and he would probably never support one, but he won't do anything about breaking up the large banks.

oh you must have missed the part where he talked about getting rid of the fed. He hardly mentions it, so it's understandable.

[Churchill]

lol^

[Kuya]

oh you must have missed the part where he talked about getting rid of the fed. He hardly mentions it, so it's understandable.

You're gonna have to explain to me how getting rid of the fed is the same thing as breaking down large banks into smaller ones.

[guartz]

You're gonna have to explain to me how getting rid of the fed is the same thing as breaking down large banks into smaller ones.

You don't see any non-member banks getting a bailout, they were just allowed to fail. I mean, it's very simple, you got all national banks (big banks) who are all member banks of federal reserve, who are regulated by the fed and supplied liquidity by the fed, and the biggest competitive decision they have to make is who makes the funniest commercial and who has the most atms!

Without a central bank, each branch is state regulated and has to compete on local level, both for interest rates and liquidity.

[guartz]

^forgot to add, who has the least annoying website.

[Kuya]

Oh, so a variant of the free market efficiency argument with a smitch of anti-federalism.

You're saying with the fed gone, the big banks will be forced to compete. I don't know if you're saying this will constrain them or if you're saying this will be the same as forcefully breaken them down into smaller banks. In either case, i'm supposed to believe your argument is correct based on the supposition that the "free market" does not create or promote monopolies of any kind. And even if i were to use as an example the consolidation of media industry after it was deregulated, you'd probably, in true libertarian/capitalist fashion, tell me that it was actually because of government intervention that the consolidation of media companies happened. Because, of course, the efficiency of the free market is the theory that explains it all, including itself, therefore any problems that seemingly arise out of it, are naturally always explained as the fault of something else, based on the same supposition that the free market is efficient thus such a thing is impossible (monopolies and oligopolies). What i just said was that even if you get rid of the fed, you still have to reduce the size of the banks, which means government intervention, because i don't accept the argument that more competition will make them smaller by itself.

With all that in mind, this is the part where i ask you to provide me evidence that getting rid of the fed is a better idea for reducing the size of banks (and therefore reducing sistemic risk) than simply legislating limitations on them. I don't want arguments based on suppositions, i want hard facts.

[guartz]

Oh, so a variant of the free market efficiency argument with a smitch of anti-federalism.

You're saying with the fed gone, the big banks will be forced to compete. I don't know if you're saying this will constrain them or if you're saying this will be the same as forcefully breaken them down into smaller banks. In either case, i'm supposed to believe your argument is correct based on the supposition that the "free market" does not create or promote monopolies of any kind. And even if i were to use as an example the consolidation of media industry after it was deregulated, you'd probably, in true libertarian/capitalist fashion, tell me that it was actually because of government intervention that the consolidation of media companies happened. Because, of course, the efficiency of the free market is the theory that explains it all, including itself, therefore any problems that seemingly arise out of it, are naturally always explained as the fault of something else, based on the same supposition that the free market is efficient thus such a thing is impossible (monopolies and oligopolies). What i just said was that even if you get rid of the fed, you still have to reduce the size of the banks, which means government intervention, because i don't accept the argument that more competition will make them smaller by itself.

With all that in mind, this is the part where i ask you to provide me evidence that getting rid of the fed is a better idea for reducing the size of banks (and therefore reducing sistemic risk) than simply legislating limitations on them. I don't want arguments based on suppositions, i want hard facts.

If we are talking about Ron Paul specifically, he wrote a book called End the Fed. He was pretty clear on why he thinks banks got so big, and one of the reasons was because (and this is a fact) banks participate in a system where their failures are automatically rescued. And yes, killing the fed wouldn't automatically reduce the size of the banks, it would just change the way they behave. Too big to fail wasn't a direct problem being large, it was a problem of risk management.

[Dantrag]

If we are talking about Ron Paul specifically, he wrote a book called End the Fed. He was pretty clear on why he thinks banks got so big, and one of the reasons was because (and this is a fact) banks participate in a system where their failures are automatically rescued. And yes, killing the fed wouldn't automatically reduce the size of the banks, it would just change the way they behave. Too big to fail wasn't a direct problem being large, it was a problem of risk management.

DEREGULATE ALL THINGS!

[Kuya]

If we are talking about Ron Paul specifically, he wrote a book called End the Fed. He was pretty clear on why he thinks banks got so big, and one of the reasons was because (and this is a fact) banks participate in a system where their failures are automatically rescued. And yes, killing the fed wouldn't automatically reduce the size of the banks, it would just change the way they behave. Too big to fail wasn't a direct problem being large, it was a problem of risk management.

Ah, of course, so like i said:

Archi's post reminded me of a fascinating thing about libertarians in how they oppose government involvement in the economy to reduce rent seeking, but they are unwilling to do anything about the power and privileges that corporations have already obtained via rent seeking. In other words, RP says he opposes bailouts and he would probably never support one, but he won't do anything about breaking up the large banks.

And no, risk management and size are both problems. If the bank is too big, and when it fails, we then have to deal with the unfortunate decision of whether to bail it out or not or else suffer damage to liquidity. Having smaller banks helps deal with that problem, and that problem requires government intervention that no libertarian, much less an anarcho-capitalist will provide, because they're more concerned with rigid ideology over the needs of people in the real world.

[Dantrag]

The problem is I don't foresee either side being willing to break up any of the banks in the near future.

[test123]

3-WAY TIE

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-u_0Kal82fi...s1600/iowa.PNG

[Dimmauk]

That video, of McCain speaking for Romney and he says Obama's name instead and they have to run in a correct him, is fucking golden. He was almost president!

[archibaldcrane]

3-WAY TIE

RON'S #1! RON'S #1!

As you've seen, the last thing you should want in this primary is to be #1.

Although I'd be surprised if Ron cracks the top 2 in any other state.