[hrothgar]

JLOGIC, on 2011-December-14, 13:28, said:

ONE TIME RON PAUL! I will even register to vote if that is a possibility.

I'm definitely not a Ron Paul fan.

With this said and done, Andrew Sullivan (who just endorsed Paul) raises some interesting points in the following piece:

http://andrewsulliva...is-wallace.html

[blackshoe]

Cthulhu D, on 2011-December-14, 21:39, said:

Okay, but that is how fractional reserve banking works - the bank takes a deposit from person A, then lends the money to person B. Then Person B buys some beer from Person A, who then deposits the money with the bank. Now the bank has another $10 which it lends out. Of course it's the same $10 they actually took on deposit orginally, but according to Ron Paul "$10 has been created" and this is bad.

If you're going to ban Fractional reserve banking (what ron paul wants to do), you have to crack down on people doing exactly that. Otherwise the banks will just restructure as a partnership or whatever and continue as before. The US gives a corporation many of the same legal rights as a person. The fact you don't belive it doesn't make it any less true.

What I don't believe is that Ron Paul would ban transactions between private individuals. A bank, however it is structured, is not a private individual. And I know how fractional reserve banking works. You're talking nonsense. Banks, or individuals, or corporations, doesn't matter, cannot be allowed to say to depositors "oh, you want your money that you deposited here back? Sorry, we don't have it. You lose."

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-15, 12:02, said:

Banks, or individuals, or corporations, doesn't matter, cannot be allowed to say to depositors "oh, you want your money that you deposited here back? Sorry, we don't have it. You lose."

This is an interesting theory; however, it runs completely contrary to:

1. The evolution of banking in (essentially) all of the developed world
2. The way a wide variety of other industries do business

Let's start with the first line item: The world has standardized on fractional reserve banking because it increases economic efficiency.

Fractional reserve banking is what allows banks to pay interest for your deposits.
(If banks can't lend funds they have no source of income with which to pay interest)
Without fractional reserve banking people would need to pay bankers to store / safeguard their funds.

Moreover, when you or I go and deposit our money into the bank, we do so with full knowledge that the bank is engaging in fractional reserve lending. If we have an objection to this practice, we always have the option not to deposit our money or to go off and search for a bank that doesn't engage in this kind of nefarious activity. Personally, I'm fine with fractional reserve lending. I like getting interest and I know that the FDIC will protect me against bank runs, failure, etc.

Let's turn to item 2. An enormous range of companies engage in the same type of activities.

For example, insurance companies don't maintain large enough reserves to pay out each and every policy holder if everything goes bust all at once.
Airlines regularly oversell seats on airlines.
(I can go on and on and on...)

These companies base their entire business models on managing uncertainty.
This is part and parcel of the modern world.
And the reason that this is here (and other systems aren't) is that this works better than the alternatives.

In all seriousness, show me real world banking systems that aren't based on fractional reserve lending. (I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that some exist. I don't know the fine details of the Swiss private banks or the Isle of Mann or the Grand Caymans). Prove to me that these sorts of banks are able to survive in a free market economy because - as far as I know - they aren't.

BTW, I am still waiting for an answer explaining why fractional reserve banking is the exception to your normal Libertarian principles.

In this example you are insisting that the evil regulatory state knows better than the individual...
The state needs to ban fractional reserve banking because individuals can't be trusted to resist fat interest payments on their checking accounts.

What makes this case so special?

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2011-December-15, 09:42, said:

I'm definitely not a Ron Paul fan.

With this said and done, Andrew Sullivan (who just endorsed Paul) raises some interesting points in the following piece:

http://andrewsulliva...is-wallace.html

I like Ron Paul's ideas on foreign policy but that is as far as it goes for me.

[Winstonm]

Winstonm, on 2011-December-13, 20:30, said:

GOP Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is proposing a massive tax cut aimed at the highest earning American households

While we're cutting taxes for the wealthy, I suppose we'll pay for it by removing social safety nets so these types of bums won't steal any of our money:

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) — Squeezed by rising living costs, a record number of Americans — nearly 1 in 2 — have fallen into poverty or are scraping by on earnings that classify them as low income.

The latest census data depict a middle class that's shrinking as unemployment stays high and the government's safety net frays. The new numbers follow years of stagnating wages for the middle class that have hurt millions of workers and families.

American Exceptionalism - don't leave home without it.

[blackshoe]

Every time the government, or people speaking for the government, talks about tax revenues as being "our" money, I remember the myriad of scenes in various tv shows where some poor schmuck finds a bag full of money, and ends up chased by the criminal who stole it, who wants "his" money back.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-16, 09:15, said:

Every time the government, or people speaking for the government, talks about tax revenues as being "our" money, I remember the myriad of scenes in various tv shows where some poor schmuck finds a bag full of money, and ends up chased by the criminal who stole it, who wants "his" money back.

And those damnable credit card companies asking for "their" money just because we happened to run up a huge bill with them. The government and the credit card companies: two peas in a pod.

[jonottawa]

Winstonm, on 2011-December-15, 18:40, said:

I like Ron Paul's ideas on foreign policy but that is as far as it goes for me.

Guess what President Paul would have control over.

Foreign policy.

He'd also force the 2 parties in congress to work together since there will be a lot of Paul vetos to override.

Is he the perfect candidate? No. But he's the most honest and principled candidate by a country mile. It would be nice to try having someone like that as president JUST ONE TIME.

[PassedOut]

jonottawa, on 2011-December-16, 12:40, said:

Is he the perfect candidate? No. But he's the most honest and principled candidate by a country mile.

Although I disagree with some of their positions, I don't see Bachmann, Santorum, or Huntsman as dishonest or as unprincipled.

[hrothgar]

jonottawa, on 2011-December-16, 12:40, said:

Guess what President Paul would have control over.

Foreign policy.

He'd also force the 2 parties in congress to work together since there will be a lot of Paul vetos to override.

Is he the perfect candidate? No. But he's the most honest and principled candidate by a country mile. It would be nice to try having someone like that as president JUST ONE TIME.

My understanding is that Ron Paul wants to (immediately) cut one trillion dollars from the federal deficit...
I think that this would be an unmitigated disaster...

Admitted, the budget process is one of those areas where congress can (completely) ignore the President.
Even so, I really worry what Paul might do with the veto trying to get his budget through

I also (really) worry about electing a 76 year old.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on 2011-December-16, 13:00, said:

Although I disagree with some of their positions, I don't see Bachmann, Santorum, or Huntsman as dishonest or as unprincipled.

Bachmann is too stupid to be dishonest.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2011-December-16, 13:24, said:

My understanding is that Ron Paul wants to (immediately) cut one trillion dollars from the federal deficit...
I think that this would be an unmitigated disaster...

Admitted, the budget process is one of those areas where congress can (completely) ignore the President.
Even so, I really worry what Paul might do with the veto trying to get his budget through

I also (really) worry about electing a 76 year old.

Yes, one Reagan was more than enough for a lifetime but we got him twice, and in two differest stages of Alzheimer's.

[blackshoe]

I suppose you'd rather have elected FDR for a fifth term.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-17, 19:07, said:

I suppose you'd rather have elected FDR for a fifth term.

Roosevelt was born in 1882
He died in 1945
Sees to me that makes him roughly 63 years old at the time of his death...

Reagan was, what? 70 when he started his first term?

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-17, 19:07, said:

I suppose you'd rather have elected FDR for a fifth term.

As a teenage and influenced by my family, I hated LBJ and his Great Society. Now, as an elderly adult, I think other than the monumental mistake about Vietnam that LBJ may have been the best of them all.

[blackshoe]

Best of what all? Welfare statist presidents?

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-18, 03:12, said:

Best of what all? Welfare statist presidents?

Can you begin to imagine what the U.S. elderly population would look like without Medicare?

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-18, 03:12, said:

Best of what all? Welfare statist presidents?

How cute, Ed has devolved into the crotchety old man stage of senescence...

No attempts are any kind of positive argument, just bitter rambling, blind antagonism, and crackpot theories..

[blackshoe]

Yes, I can. So?

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-18, 12:19, said:

Yes, I can. So?

I was only wondering how the Civil Rights Act and Medicare create a welfare state. Or maybe the following simply don't fit in with the "let them eat cake" mentality of Ayn Rand acolytes?

Johnson accomplishments: Medicare; Medicaid; food stamps; civil rights legislation; equal employment opportunity; Civil rights Act 0f 1964

In contrast, Ronald Reagan cut domestic spending, reduced taxes on the wealthy, and dramatically increased defense spending to fight a strawman, a U.S.S.R. that was already collapsing of its own weight.

Quote

Federal expenditures for low-cost housing plunged during Reagan's watch from $32 billion in 1981 to just $7 billion in 1987.

At the same time, funding was slashed for a variety of social services, including public health, drug rehab and food stamps -- programs that were relied upon by the thousands of mentally ill people who'd been released from state facilities as a cost-cutting move.

Reagan nearly tripled the gap between the amount of money the federal government took in and the amount it spent. He did this by cutting tax rates by an average 25 percent, while aggressively increasing defense spending.

Yes, indeed I would choose Johnson again over Reagan - even a young Reagan.