He is no kryponite.. those fallacies have been debunked time and time again. Sorry, but I don't give any credit to these fiat loving Keynsians who blame "free markets" as the problem.. It's the height of delusion.
If anyone thinks we have a true free market, they are living in a fairy tale. The Federal Reserve sets the interest rate and secretly picks winners and losers in the market, bailing out whomever they wish, with money THEY print! These guys like Krugman and Roubini are just gatekeepers for the elite who shriek 'regulation!' as a guise for a solution. Did SEC regulate Madoff? No, it not. Does the FDA regualte Monsanto? No, it protects them and punishes thier smaller competition. THAT is why the shout 'regulation!' as an answer, its a tool to control their market and kill their competition.
Ron Paul called the housing bubble in 2002 along with every other Austrian economist. But our bought and paid for corportist press never said a word about it! Roubini is just another Krugman except he uses ad hom attacks which completely expose the fact that his theories and arguments are without substance and merit.
The free market itself is a fairy tale. All markets have rules of some sort. Some rules are just better than others. And none of the economists you mention is in favour of favouritism. They just understand how the system actually works. The fallacy is believing that a reduction in rules always leads to better outcomes (for all). There is no proof whatsoever for this anywhere in the history of human civilisation. Better rules, yes (and that may entail less rules overall, indeed often will because many rules are designed to confuse instead of regulate), but claiming that less regulation (whether through more or less rules) necessarily creates better outcomes is the biggest fairy tale of all times! Markets are playgrounds for tradables that are created by separating them from the rest of our human activities - through rules. Without those rules, markets wouldn't exist.
The article I posted was not by Nouriel Roubini; the article just seemed to me to confirm with facts the Roubini quote that HoneyBearKelly posted...
I understand why you are not familiar with Roubini, because he is kryptonite to libertarians... he caught both my eyes several years ago, and I find him very interesting... he is an Iranian Jew who grew up in Italy, got his doctorate at Harvard, and teaches at New York University... I agree with him completely that we need some serious re-regulation as described in this article—
....it was triggered by the failure of laissez-faire, unregulated capitalism and free markets.
I vividly remember when this next article appeared... many people had been hooting at Roubini ever since his comments in 2006, and then it turned out that Roubini was right about everything... this is all really profound and interesting stuff—
He is no kryponite.. those fallacies have been debunked time and time again. Sorry, but I don't give any credit to these fiat loving Keynsians who blame "free markets" as the problem.. It's the height of delusion.
If anyone thinks we have a true free market, they are living in a fairy tale. The Federal Reserve sets the interest rate and secretly picks winners and losers in the market, bailing out whomever they wish, with money THEY print! These guys like Krugman and Roubini are just gatekeepers for the elite who shriek 'regulation!' as a guise for a solution. Did SEC regulate Madoff? No, it not. Does the FDA regualte Monsanto? No, it protects them and punishes thier smaller competition. THAT is why the shout 'regulation!' as an answer, its a tool to control their market and kill their competition.
Ron Paul called the housing bubble in 2002 along with every other Austrian economist. But our bought and paid for corportist press never said a word about it! Roubini is just another Krugman except he uses ad hom attacks which completely expose the fact that his theories and arguments are without substance and merit.
I've never heard of this Noureil guy, but when someone resort to the ad hom attacks and the race card, they've lost all credibility.
It is so sad when people like Noureil actually support a cartel of banks called the Federal Reserve who have a license to counterfeit money. It's begs the question, are they that ignorant, or just corrupt?
The article I posted was not by Nouriel Roubini; the article just seemed to me to confirm with facts the Roubini quote that HoneyBearKelly posted...
I understand why you are not familiar with Roubini, because he is kryptonite to libertarians... he caught both my eyes several years ago, and I find him very interesting... he is an Iranian Jew who grew up in Italy, got his doctorate at Harvard, and teaches at New York University... I agree with him completely that we need some serious re-regulation as described in this article—
The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protest movement in the United States represents the arrival of a global wave of social and political turmoil. According to economist Nouriel "Dr. Doom" Roubini, this turmoil stems largely from high unemployment and stagnant wages, and it was triggered by the failure of laissez-faire, unregulated capitalism and free markets.
Roubini, a New York University professor who four years ago accurately forecast the global financial crisis, said the current global economic system — capitalism — will remain in its current crisis, a crisis that economist Karl Marx predicted more than a century ago, until major systemic reforms are implemented...
I vividly remember when this next article appeared... many people had been hooting at Roubini ever since his comments in 2006, and then it turned out that Roubini was right about everything... this is all really profound and interesting stuff—
Dr. Doom by Stephen Mihm The New York Times August 15, 2008
On Sept. 7, 2006, Nouriel Roubini, an economics professor at New York University, stood before an audience of economists at the International Monetary Fund and announced that a crisis was brewing. In the coming months and years, he warned, the United States was likely to face a once-in-a-lifetime housing bust, an oil shock, sharply declining consumer confidence and, ultimately, a deep recession. He laid out a bleak sequence of events: homeowners defaulting on mortgages, trillions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities unraveling worldwide and the global financial system shuddering to a halt. These developments, he went on, could cripple or destroy hedge funds, investment banks and other major financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The audience seemed skeptical, even dismissive. As Roubini stepped down from the lectern after his talk, the moderator of the event quipped, "I think perhaps we will need a stiff drink after that." People laughed - and not without reason. At the time, unemployment and inflation remained low, and the economy, while weak, was still growing, despite rising oil prices and a softening housing market. And then there was the espouser of doom himself: Roubini was known to be a perpetual pessimist, what economists call a "permabear." When the economist Anirvan Banerji delivered his response to Roubini's talk, he noted that Roubini's predictions did not make use of mathematical models and dismissed his hunches as those of a career naysayer.
But Roubini was soon vindicated. In the year that followed, subprime lenders began entering bankruptcy, hedge funds began going under and the stock market plunged. There was declining employment, a deteriorating dollar, ever-increasing evidence of a huge housing bust and a growing air of panic in financial markets as the credit crisis deepened. By late summer, the Federal Reserve was rushing to the rescue, making the first of many unorthodox interventions in the economy, including cutting the lending rate by 50 basis points and buying up tens of billions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities. When Roubini returned to the I.M.F. last September, he delivered a second talk, predicting a growing crisis of solvency that would infect every sector of the financial system. This time, no one laughed. "He sounded like a madman in 2006," recalls the I.M.F. economist Prakash Loungani, who invited Roubini on both occasions. "He was a prophet when he returned in 2007."...
Paul's Iowa chair, Drew Ivers, recently touted the endorsement of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, a pastor at the Dominion Covenant Church in Nebraska who also draws members from Iowa, putting out a press release praising "the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul's approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs." But Kayser's views on homosexuality go way beyond the bounds of typical anti-gay evangelical politics and into the violent fringe: he recently authored a paper arguing for criminalizing homosexuality and even advocated imposing the death penalty against offenders based on his reading of Biblical law.
(...)
Reached by phone, Kayser confirmed to TPM that he believed in reinstating Biblical punishments for homosexuals - including the death penalty - even if he didn't see much hope for it happening anytime soon. While he said he and Paul disagree on gay rights, noting that Paul recently voted for repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, he supported the campaign because he believed Paul's federalist take on the Constitution would allow states more latitude to implement fundamentalist law. Especially since under Kayser's own interpretation of the Constitution there is no separation of Church and State.
Sounds like the reverend may be disappointed with his choice.
That's right. No matter what these smear, hit pieces say, Paul is pro gay rights all the way. I wouldn't support anything less.
Paul's Iowa chair, Drew Ivers, recently touted the endorsement of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, a pastor at the Dominion Covenant Church in Nebraska who also draws members from Iowa, putting out a press release praising "the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul's approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs." But Kayser's views on homosexuality go way beyond the bounds of typical anti-gay evangelical politics and into the violent fringe: he recently authored a paper arguing for criminalizing homosexuality and even advocated imposing the death penalty against offenders based on his reading of Biblical law.
(...)
Reached by phone, Kayser confirmed to TPM that he believed in reinstating Biblical punishments for homosexuals - including the death penalty - even if he didn't see much hope for it happening anytime soon. While he said he and Paul disagree on gay rights, noting that Paul recently voted for repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, he supported the campaign because he believed Paul's federalist take on the Constitution would allow states more latitude to implement fundamentalist law. Especially since under Kayser's own interpretation of the Constitution there is no separation of Church and State.
Sounds like the reverend may be disappointed with his choice.
I wish I could say that your theory was madness, but its not.
I liked RP. I was even going to vote for him. And then I figured out that his voting history shows him to be more religious than constitutional... he's all about the constitution until his religious beliefs disagree. Now, I admire his devotion to his beliefs. But don't sell yourself to me as a libertarian when you are really just Mitt Romney with a haircut and a liberal streak.
The constitution gives us all equal but not special rights, correct? Then why did he write (not just vote for but write) a bill with inflammatory, homophobic language in its text? Why does he seek to ban abortions?
He's too religious for me... not to mention he's starting to fray around the edges as they all do. But under his mask, I'm seeing a bigotted hypocrite who doesn't even have the balls to be honest about who he is... at the end of the day, he's just another spin doctor. And I can't vote for that. I wish there was a better option out there but I don't see one, at this point in the race. I may have to write in my vote and that may mean it won't count. But I refuse to vote for the least of all evils any more. Its still a vote for evil.
What bill specifically are you referring to?
He doesn't seek to ban abortions, he seeks to get the Federal govt out of it, and give that right to the states, but he does encourage a pro-life society, just not through force of law. It's an important distinction. He does not believe in authoritarian force.
Yes he is religious. I'm not really. But I'm not a guy like Bill Mahr who gets offended by it. I'm a live and let live kind of person, and so is RP. He doesn't wear or even campaign on his religion like the rest of the sorry GOP. He doesn't believe is laws that restrict it, or force it upon you. Just like the 1st Amendment says.
My main issue civil / economic liberty followed by central banking and war. And they are both very connected.
“It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.” – Ron Paul
This is very true, and those powers that be desire wars for power. If I had to pick one issue, that would be it. And the President has the power to end it, immediately, on his own! It's no wonder the troops support him 3 times more than ALL the other candidates combined and even more than Obama. It's because the majority want to come home. Talk a boost to our economy, that would be it. End the wars, bring them home, restore the family, defend our borders, give us a sound currency and protect civil liberties. Sounds good to me.
Luap Nor is a total non-starter for me. Was that way back in 2007-08. You're wasting your energies if you try to convert me! Media? I don't read much of the MSM spintastic crap.
You sure seem to use it when it suits your cause.
I'm not trying to convert you or anyone, but when you post a biased hit piece article, it needs to be countered with the truth. The fact is that Hamas was encouraged by Israel as a means to counter Yasser Arrafat. So Hamas was emboldened to destabilize his power however when election time came Hamas was swept into power. And this is nothing new, it's happened to us in the 80's when the US govt radicalized Osama and the Mujahideen to fight the invading Soviets. And also with Sadam when we sold him weapons to attack Iran and he then used them on his own people. We can't pretend like we aren't creating Frankenstein's and then become surprised when we experience blowback. It's not a prudent foreign policy, but that is the NeoConservative procedure. The one that's got us in this awful mess.
Washington Republicans and political pundits keep depicting Paul as some kind of ideological mutation, the conservative equivalent of a black swan. They're wrong. Ask any historically-minded conservative who the most conservative president of the 20th Century was, and they'll likely say Calvin Coolidge. No president tried as hard to make the federal government irrelevant. It's said that Coolidge was so terrified of actually doing something as president that he tried his best not even to speak. But in 1925, Silent Cal did open his mouth long enough to spell out his foreign policy vision, and what he said could be emblazoned on a Ron Paul for President poster: "The people have had all the war, all the taxation, and all the military service they want."
Small government conservatism, the kind to which today's Republicans swear fealty, was born in the 1920s not only in reaction to the progressive movement's efforts to use government to regulate business, but in reaction to World War I, which conservatives rightly saw as a crucial element of the government expansion they feared. To be a small government conservative in the 1920s and 1930s was, for the most part, to vehemently oppose military spending while insisting that the US never, ever get mired in another European war...
Dwight Eisenhower worked feverishly to scale back the Truman-era defense spending that he feared would bankrupt America and rob it of its civil liberties. Even conservative luminaries like William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater who embraced the global anti-communist struggle made it clear that they were doing so with a heavy heart. Global military commitments, they explained, represented a tragic departure from small government conservatism, a departure justified only by the uniquely satanic nature of the Soviet threat...
Given this history, it's entirely predictable that in the wake of two disillusioning wars, a diminishing al Qaeda threat and mounting debt, someone like Ron Paul would come along...
There are certainly Republicans out there who support the Bush-Cheney neo-imperialist foreign policy vision. But they're split among the top tier presidential candidates. Paul has the isolationists all to himself. Moreover, his two top opponents—Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich—not only back a big-government foreign policy agenda, but have periodically backed a big-government domestic agenda as well. In other words, they personify the argument at the heart of Paul's campaign: that if you love a powerful Pentagon, you'll end up loving other parts of the government bureaucracy as well...
I feel like I'm going to have to become a one-issue voter. Voting for people who are "correct" on that one issue but might be a little more "pragmatic" once in office... that's killed me. I was all for Obama in the big picture, but the things that I thought would be done and settled in the first year or two are still dragging on*. Human rights at home, an actual health care system reform (not just insurance stopgaps), end of US wars... I see now that choosing one and getting it is a lot better than choosing 3 and not getting any, or getting 30% of each. If I decide war is my one issue, I'll vote for Ron Paul. Because I believe him when he says he'll get us out. The other issues might become conflagrations while he's in office but I don't think so. I tend to believe his PR about racial issues, gays, etc. so that might even improve. The fact that the president has more control over the war issue than the other issues pushes me toward him even more. And if the sonofabitch gets into office and doesn't immediately do what he's said for years that he would immediately do, I will go to Washington and kick him in the nards.
*I understand it's not his fault entirely, but he needs to do a little more nard-kickin' around the capitol.
I wish I could say that your theory was madness, but its not.
I liked RP. I was even going to vote for him. And then I figured out that his voting history shows him to be more religious than constitutional... he's all about the constitution until his religious beliefs disagree. Now, I admire his devotion to his beliefs. But don't sell yourself to me as a libertarian when you are really just Mitt Romney with a haircut and a liberal streak.
The constitution gives us all equal but not special rights, correct? Then why did he write (not just vote for but write) a bill with inflammatory, homophobic language in its text? Why does he seek to ban abortions?
He's too religious for me... not to mention he's starting to fray around the edges as they all do. But under his mask, I'm seeing a bigotted hypocrite who doesn't even have the balls to be honest about who he is... at the end of the day, he's just another spin doctor. And I can't vote for that. I wish there was a better option out there but I don't see one, at this point in the race. I may have to write in my vote and that may mean it won't count. But I refuse to vote for the least of all evils any more. Its still a vote for evil.
I don't feel like I do know where he stands. He claims to be all about the constitution, but if we're being honest, he's all about the constitution until it conflicts with his religious beliefs. Look back into his voting history and bill authorship... tells a much, much different story than his spin doctors do. I was going to vote for him, but now, I see him as nothing more than a religious fanatic in libertarians clothing.
I feel like I'm going to have to become a one-issue voter. Voting for people who are "correct" on that one issue but might be a little more "pragmatic" once in office... that's killed me. I was all for Obama in the big picture, but the things that I thought would be done and settled in the first year or two are still dragging on*. Human rights at home, an actual health care system reform (not just insurance stopgaps), end of US wars... I see now that choosing one and getting it is a lot better than choosing 3 and not getting any, or getting 30% of each. If I decide war is my one issue, I'll vote for Ron Paul. Because I believe him when he says he'll get us out. The other issues might become conflagrations while he's in office but I don't think so. I tend to believe his PR about racial issues, gays, etc. so that might even improve. The fact that the president has more control over the war issue than the other issues pushes me toward him even more. And if the sonofabitch gets into office and doesn't immediately do what he's said for years that he would immediately do, I will go to Washington and kick him in the nards.
*I understand it's not his fault entirely, but he needs to do a little more nard-kickin' around the capitol.
I don't either, but with the tricks that are pulled in Congress, along with being out on the campaign trial, I can see how a missed vote might happen. We know where he stands, that's what's important to me.
I don't feel like I do know where he stands. He claims to be all about the constitution, but if we're being honest, he's all about the constitution until it conflicts with his religious beliefs. Look back into his voting history and bill authorship... tells a much, much different story than his spin doctors do. I was going to vote for him, but now, I see him as nothing more than a religious fanatic in libertarians clothing.
As an interested observer of US foreign policy, I'm well aware of the phrase 'blowback'. That you seek excuses or explanations for Ron Paul's very own words says a bunch.
Of course one of us is reality-based. The other continues to guzzle the Kool-Aid.
You might be aware of the phrase, but try research how it's been applied to real life situations. The truth might surprise you if you can uncover it.
But I suggest researching the full stories in proper context instead of drinking the media's Kool-Aid when they serve up their edited and distorted spin full of bias and agenda.
The Patriot Act supports the people? The TSA supports the people? New wars in Libya, Syria and Iran support the people? Do you think the country should look like a police state?
Obama is just a different flavor of NeoCon, that's all.
There is definitely a difference between Obama and the others, and it lies in his attitude of what our country should look like. He still is a politician, but he has a different vision, one that supports The People. I have hopes for his second term.
The Patriot Act supports the people? The TSA supports the people? New wars in Libya, Syria and Iran support the people? Do you think the country should look like a police state?
Obama is just a different flavor of NeoCon, that's all.
I don't read much of the MSM spintastic crap.
