What do you think of Ron Paul?

[Jedi8246]

Just an aside, the stronger federal government hasn't exactly neutralized corporate influence.

An amen to that.

[San Espara]

"Population shift is returning to Mexico. If it reaches a certain point, the US government may act to force people to stay." Seriously? Americans are not fleeing to Mexico. Corporations won't remove physical assets, they'll transfer funds and sell what they can. How much Kool-Aid have you drunk?

http://flourishingincrisis.wordpress.co ... g-the-usa/

All you posted was a fluff piece of opinion from some blogger. Do you have any empirical data to suggest that American's are migrating to flee this nefarious Big Government you apparently fear so much? If someone truly rich wants to leave the US, they will do so rather easily and no fence will stop them.

[AiliailiA]

One of my objections to pushing federal functions back to the states, is that states would raise taxes to fund them. But the taxes they have already are regressive (actually regressive, worse than flat tax) whereas Federal taxes are overall progressive (because income tax is such a large component of it).

There is also some peril in jurisdictions that are smaller than corporations economically. I see it as a problem already (big employers can play small states off against each other to get conditions which suit them) and devolving federal functions would make it worse.

You're assuming that states would raise the needed revenue via sales tax alone, if federal income taxes were lowered then states now have room to raise their own income taxes.

That's a fair point. Much lower federal income taxes would give states leeway to raise their state income taxes. But I don't think that's the only tax they would raise (note that some states don't even have an income tax now).

There's also the idea put forward by Jeffery Sachs (among others) of pushing some functions back to the state and local level but still collectingt he revenues at the national level and funding them with block grant type programs.

Not bad. Avoids widening the gap between rich-states and poor-states by keeping the federal redistribution function.

That can help mitigate some of the interstate competition for industry. The adage about making decisions at the lowest level of competence still holds true.

I get it.

Just an aside, the stronger federal government hasn't exactly neutralized corporate influence.

If big money can influence Washington (widely held opinion that it does) then a state would be like a mouse to it.

[AiliailiA]

http://flourishingincrisis.wordpress.co ... g-the-usa/

All you posted was a fluff piece of opinion from some blogger.

It's not a bad read actually. But it is quite speculative, only briefly mentioning reports of out-migration. I think it's the opinion of the book (which that blogger is reviewing) that the "welfare state" will cause out-migration; the blogger is more going on about what the effects of putative out-migration would be.

If you're demanding a source, you'd be right to reject that as one. I'm just saying I read it and it was interesting.

I'm not sure though. There's been a fuckton of out-migration from Europe over the last two centuries. It doesn't seem to have ruined them.

[San Espara]

All you posted was a fluff piece of opinion from some blogger.

It's not a bad read actually. But it is quite speculative, only briefly mentioning reports of out-migration. I think it's the opinion of the book (which that blogger is reviewing) that the "welfare state" will cause out-migration; the blogger is more going on about what the effects of putative out-migration would be.

If you're demanding a source, you'd be right to reject that as one. I'm just saying I read it and it was interesting.

I'm not sure though. There's been a fuckton of out-migration from Europe over the last two centuries. It doesn't seem to have ruined them.

The migration that's more likely are illegal immigrants returning to Mexico if jobs dry up in America due to legislation or continued economic weakness. I'm still unsure how this mythical border fence will keep really wealthy people from leaving if they felt like it. Thev have the resources to hire mercenaries to blow the thing up if they wanted.

[Jedi8246]

http://flourishingincrisis.wordpress.co ... g-the-usa/

All you posted was a fluff piece of opinion from some blogger. Do you have any empirical data to suggest that American's are migrating to flee this nefarious Big Government you apparently fear so much? If someone truly rich wants to leave the US, they will do so rather easily and no fence will stop them.

The Big Government was a hypothetical. Neither myself, nor Ron Paul was suggesting that it is currently occurring. But it is a possibility. A possibility it would be foolish to ignore.

Here is an article about a man who wrote a book on Americans leaving:

http://www.expatica.com/es/lifestyle_le ... 25819.html

[AiliailiA]

It's not a bad read actually. But it is quite speculative, only briefly mentioning reports of out-migration. I think it's the opinion of the book (which that blogger is reviewing) that the "welfare state" will cause out-migration; the blogger is more going on about what the effects of putative out-migration would be.

If you're demanding a source, you'd be right to reject that as one. I'm just saying I read it and it was interesting.

I'm not sure though. There's been a fuckton of out-migration from Europe over the last two centuries. It doesn't seem to have ruined them.

The migration that's more likely are illegal immigrants returning to Mexico if jobs dry up in America due to legislation or continued economic weakness.

I guess.

I'm still unsure how this mythical border fence will keep really wealthy people from leaving if they felt like it. Thev have the resources to hire mercenaries to blow the thing up if they wanted.

I've found the blog entry that that blog was in reply to. And that's changed my mind from "it's an interesting read" to "it is mostly bollocks". That idea that "the welfare state" will collapse the economy so badly that there would be huge out-migration of wealth is all Kevin M's idea ... and not a valid reply to Charles Hugh Smith's blog.

[Wikkiwallana]

he is an honest man who remains consistent in his beliefs and has never lied to the american people. while there are things i disagree with him on i do love his beliefs in true freedom and small government. he made a very good point about drugs. if they legalized heroin, would you do it simply because it was leagal?

You know, I really wanted to stop spamming this pic, but I'm just not getting through, it seems.

[Wikkiwallana]

Yes, but he never would be able to. (Thanks congress)

That, and he's not an internationalist. Internationalists do not want to build fences on national boarders.

He doesn't want to build a fence. He specifically called the idea of border fences silly.

The people that want big fences and guns, sure, we could secure the border. A barbed wire fence with machine guns, that would do the trick. I don’t believe that is what America is all about.”

Every time you think about this toughness on the border and ID cards and REAL IDs, think it’s a penalty against the American people too. I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in. In economic turmoil, the people want to leave with their capital and there’s capital controls and there’s people controls. Every time you think about the fence, think about the fences being used against us, keeping us in.

And yet he voted for them anyway.

[Wikkiwallana]

He'd be a fine President....if it was 1875.

I personally favor pushing some federal functions back to the states, I don't like some of the more Big Brotherish stuff that's occured since 9/11, and I'm all for a more rational fiscal policy, but he's just silly with some of his ideas. he has a fundamental understanding of real economics and his weird obession with the Fed is annoying. Combine that with the fact that so many of his supporters are such obnoxious asses and that he's a favored candidate of such bastions of sanity as Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura and it's a bad combination.

The Fed is really bad news for the US economy though. It help created the housing bubble and is destroying our currency with fiat money. Even former Chairman of the Fed Greenspan wrote that commodity backed currency is better. The "obsession"as you call it is not weird at all.

Furthermore, he is supported by more sane people than insane people. Not that it matters. Your support base doesn't make the candidate's ideas any better or worse.

Greenspan was an Objectivist, and royally fucked us up trying to implement Rand's ideas. Commodity back currency sucks:

I like my currency to not be a fast-cycling bipolar. A steady but slow inflation rate is a small price to pay for it to not go up and down like a caffeinated pogo stick.

[UNA]

Gotta love a graph that predates the US founding by over a hundred years..

[Revolutopia]

Gotta love a graph that predates the US founding by over a hundred years..

We did use a currency when we were still colonies, something we were for around hundred years before our foundation as a nation-state.

[The Rich Port]

Gotta love a graph that predates the US founding by over a hundred years..

We did use a currency when we were still colonies, something we were for around hundred years before our foundation as a nation-state.

Ironic that a guy using a pre-U.S. flag doesn't know that.

[UNA]

Listen, the title of the damn chart is "U.S. Historical Inflation Rate". Considering there was no U.S. before the late 1700s, I think it makes it a bit suspicious. Yes people lived in a place that would eventually be called the U.S., but if that's what we're trying to show a graph of that isn't an accurate title.

The entire thing is bogus anyway, there are periods of time when the US didn't used the gold standard within that chart. Greenbacks anyone? Nevermind that the government SET the price of gold, and artificially controlled it by many means.

[Revolutopia]

Listen, the title of the damn chart is "U.S. Historical Inflation Rate". Considering there was no U.S. before the late 1700s, I think it makes it a bit suspicious. Yes people lived in a place that would eventually be called the U.S., but if that's what we're trying to show a graph of that isn't an accurate title.

The entire thing is bogus anyway, there are periods of time when the US didn't used the gold standard within that chart. Greenbacks anyone? Nevermind that the government SET the price of gold, and artificially controlled it by many means.

How is it not an accurate title they trying to list the rate of inflation throughout American History, a classification that includes the colonial period according to most American History texts. Also, if you really want to just ignore everything before 1776.

Greenbacks were backed by Gold, thus they still fall under the gold standard.

[UNA]

Greenbacks were backed by Gold, thus they still fall under the gold standard.

Nope

[Revolutopia]

Greenbacks were backed by Gold, thus they still fall under the gold standard.

Nope

Greenbacks were only fiat during the Civil War, following which Congress returned to the gold standard until 1971. And saying that Greenbacks( United States Notes) lasted until 1971 they must have fallen under the Gold Standard for the majority of their existence.

[Grave_n_idle]

We did use a currency when we were still colonies, something we were for around hundred years before our foundation as a nation-state.

Ironic that a guy using a pre-U.S. flag doesn't know that.

Not really. Anyone who actually paid any attention to American history would be well aware of why most libertarian arguments are not only wishful thinking, but discredited bullshit.

[Anti-Obamaland]

Your support of Ron Paul is a waste of time, too, but here you are. No, I don't want one, but not because I think "the Government" will use it to keep citizens from leaving the country with their assets.

Think what you want of my support of Ron Paul.

And you don't? Well let's take a look at some common sense. You don't think individuals and corporations wouldn't want to take their capital out of the country if the US economy started going down? It's already begun. Population shift is returning to Mexico. If it reaches a certain point, the US government may act to force people to stay. If it had a border fence, it would certainly help.

....fence it off 100 meters shy of the actual border and mine what is in between. Snipers posted every 400 meters along the continguous border to keep the troops busy between deployments.

[The Black Forrest]

Ironic that a guy using a pre-U.S. flag doesn't know that.

Not really. Anyone who actually paid any attention to American history would be well aware of why most libertarian arguments are not only wishful thinking, but discredited bullshit.

Liar!

All liberts are Constitutional historians and scholars. *nods*

[Farnhamia]

Not really. Anyone who actually paid any attention to American history would be well aware of why most libertarian arguments are not only wishful thinking, but discredited bullshit.

Liar!

All liberts are Constitutional historians and scholars. *nods*

From birth.

[Revolutopia]

Liar!

All liberts are Constitutional historians and scholars. *nods*

From birth.

Well for Ron Paul it was from conception.

[Farnhamia]

From birth.

Well for Ron Paul it was from conception.

Good point.

RP's mother's ovum: Hey! Hey! What are you guys doing? I think my rights are being violated! Help! Statists!

[The Black Forrest]

From birth.

Well for Ron Paul it was from conception.

Ron Paul is goa'uld?

[Revolutopia]

Well for Ron Paul it was from conception.

Good point.

RP's mother's ovum: Hey! Hey! What are you guys doing? I think my rights are being violated! Help! Statists!

His damn statist mother violated his rights by force feeding him in regards to his connection by the umbilical cord.