Cnbc "Ron-Paul-a-Holics"

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
And they couldn't of done it without the Federal Reserve.
The fed did encourage this frenzy, no doubt. But they weren't the ones who prevented these financial products from being regulated. That was congress, George Bush, and Bill Clinton. The fed was taken out of the equation entirely when it came to making sure these loans were what they were safe reliable investments.

Eliminating the fed would not have solved the problem. Stricter regulations and a actually haven't the government regulate them at all would have.
 

deprave

New Member
ok, but just a warning, I can not present a meaningful argument in sound bite/talking point form. I must go into a certain amount of detail to outline the logical flaws. I'll try and keep it as short as possible.

My main beef with Ron Paul is that he's an extremist when it comes to economic issues. He is a free market purist. There has yet to be an industrialized country in the history of the word that has had an economic system to the right of where Ron Paul would like to take us.

Corporations are a business tool. Like a saw's purpose is to cut wood, the purpose of a corporation is to make a profit. The purpose of a corporation is not to look out for the best interests of the people or the planet, it's to make money at all costs.

I don't think that is a bad thing or that corporations are evil or any nonsense like that. I just believe that corporations are a tool with a specific purpose. Because of what corporations are they must be regulated in order to provide a net benefit to society. If they are not regulated, corporations will turn to any means to create a profit. That includes screwing over the people they are supposed to benefit.

The financial collapse is a perfect example of that. Financial corporations found a way to exploit a huge profit margins buy bundling bad mortgages together and disguising them as solid investments. They were not breaking the law by doing this because the laws that prevented them from screwing us all over were eliminated. That was a financial regulation we needed, but people preaching deregulation as a way to increase profits threw those regulations out without thinking about the long term consequences.

Ron Paul is a free market fundamentalist who believes that a good way to make a buck is to remove all the financial regulations that are designed to protect the people. Well he's right, that is a good way to make a buck. It's also extremely harmful to the people of this country.

Ron Paul believes that the free hand of the market will eventually sort everything out on it's own and therefor regulating it is unnecessary. He's right. It will. But the flaw in his logic is that he isn't thinking through the costs of letting the free market sort itself out.

He also doesn't think about who a free market would ultimately benefit. The eventual result of a free market are winners and losers. Unfortunately over a long enough time span, there are fewer winners scoring greater wins while everyone else suffers. The evidence of that is the lack of social mobility in America compared to European countries with more moderate mixed economies. If you look bad to 1880's America you see the result of a long period of time with two few economic regulations. We had the Rockefellers, JP Morgan, the Carnegies, and then we had the majority suffering so they could make extreme profits. Today we are not far from that. The wealthy control more now than they have since the time of the robber barons. The middle class is disappearing.

Back in the 1940s-1960s (the most prosperous time in our history) our economy was thriving. Back then when you got a certain amount of wealth, you paid a high tax rate that went to making our country great. People still made money. There were still rich people. The profit motive and capitalism worked fine. In fact with all the strict financial regulations and high tax rates we had back then, this country and capitalism worked even better than it does today because so much of that money went back to investing in our communities. Now our cities and infrastructure are falling apart, we are debating doing terrible things like cutting education, infrastructure spending, and health care for tax cuts to the people who need it least.

Ron Paul wants to take us in the opposite direction from the time in our history the country was most successful. I think that's wrong. I think capitalism is just great, but you can't let corporations just make money however they want because that hurts the people economic success is supposed to benefit. You see evidence of that today. Look at the stock market. It's almost completely recovered to pre-recession levels. But look how high the unemployment is. The corporations have recovered, but they've recovered in a way that does not employ Americans. They are not doing what we need them to do, employ people. We can regulate them in a way where it becomes more profitable to employ Americans or we can deregulate them even further to where they are making profits at the expense of the American people.

Some people will call me a socialist/communist/marxist for thinking this way. But I'd argue that my views are basically in line with the republican party in the 1950s-1970s. It isn't me moving to the left as much as the country moving too far to the right economically. It just isn't healthy or in our best interest to move too far to the right or left economically. An extreme free market purest like Ron Paul is not the answer.

Good post overall dan but I have to disagree with you on every line that is an opinion of Ron Paul, respectfully, not a bad conspiracy theory you got going there :)


So your a Social Capitalist, that doesn't mean you are a socialist. I will label you here from the text I read from you, let me borrow your crystal ball, ok thanks, I see it wait I see your about as conservative as Hillary Clinton.


let me correct you on a few things once again, ron paul has said he will go after the big guys and secondly he has a record of going after big corporations.



anonymous said:
I wish I had the time and energy to undertake a Ph.D. – level analysis of the state of economic and financial regulation operant over the past 20 years or so. A cursory survey, in the form of merely counting the number of volumes required to contain the U.S. Code and the Federal Register for that period might greatly surprise those blaring the misrepresentation that “laissez faire” was the order of the day. Presently, for instance, the Federal Register contains 70,000 pages devoted to economic and financial regulation. If that is what we all agree to call a free market, so much the worse for us. We have, in reality, never seen one. My hypothesis is that the bad behavior we have witnessed – and reflexively named greed – likely resulted from efforts to get around layer upon layer of absurd and meaningless regulations and still conduct a profitable business. When the layers became so complex that they were beyond comprehension by anyone, values became unknowable and things fell apart – in a system which had accrued heretofore unimaginable levels of debt – personal – business – and especially government – which simply can never be repaid. There is and will be insufficient wealth (not paper) to pay it back. If you do not understand the difference between money and wealth, please learn some economics and then see a psychiatrist. The latter will be required when you gain the understanding of the amount and meaning of our cumulative debt.

The next question is, “Do markets always work?” The answer is simple and unsatisfying. “Yes, they always work in that they are by their very nature self-correcting. Most transactions are win-win and promptly and clearly so. The time course of corrections of systematic imbalances where zero-sum and lose-lose events intrude, however may be unpleasant – as in the present instance. And they may be protracted.

The biggest lie taught that the federal government’s job is to take care of all of your needs, and that it is competent to do so (as a practical matter and under the terms of the Constitution) regardless of what effort you yourself make. There is little actual evidence for the assumed practical or legal competence to finance and direct most of our major financial institutions.


You can not help but to blame the fed for its involvement in the financial crisis, infact every finacial crisis, if the fed did not support the bankers, if checks and balnces where in place on the fed it would stop these criminals in their tracks.


I believe it is the type of Ron Paul Litterature below which aid in leading you to your conclusion, ultimately a conspiracy theory of sorts you must admit at least that.


When you champion regulation as the method by which we enjoy competition and innovation is to deny the moral hazard that exists as a result of such regulation, to say nothing of the oppressive burdens such.


It is important to understand that regulators are not omniscient. It is not feasible for them to anticipate every possible thing that could go wrong with whatever industry or activity they are regulating. They are making their best guesses when formulating rules. It is often difficult for those being regulated to understand the many complex rules they are expected to follow. Very wealthy corporations hire attorneys who may discover a myriad of loopholes to exploit and render the spirit of the regulations null and void. For this reason, heavy regulation favors big business against those small businesses who cannot afford high-priced attorneys.

problem is the trust that people blindly put in regulations, and the moral hazard this creates. Too many people trust government regulators so completely that they abdicate their own common sense to these government bureaucrats. They trust that if something violates no law, it must be safe. How many scams have “It’s perfectly legal” as a hypnotic selling point, luring in the gullible? Many people did not understand the financial house of cards that are derivatives, but since they were legal and promised a great return, people invested. It is much the same in any area rife with government involvement. Many feel that just because their children are getting good grades at a government school, they are getting a good education. After all, they are passing the government-mandated litmus test. But, this does not guarantee educational excellence. Neither is it always the case that a child who does NOT achieve good marks in school is going to be unsuccessful in life.
Is your drinking water safe, just because the government says it is? Is the internet going to magically become safer for your children if the government approves regulations on it? I would caution any parent against believing this would be the case. Nothing should take the place of your own common sense and due diligence.
These principles explain why the free market works so much better than a centrally planned economy. With central planning, everything shifts from one’s own judgment about safety, wisdom and relative benefits of a behavior, to the discretion of government bureaucrats. The question then becomes “what can I get away with,” and there will always be advantages for those who can afford lawyers to find the loopholes. The result then is that bad behavior, that would quickly fail under the free market, is propped up, protected and perpetuated, and sometimes good behavior is actually discouraged.
Regulation can actually benefit big business and corporate greed, while simultaneously killing small businesses that are the backbone of our now faltering economy. This is why I get so upset every time someone claims regulation can resolve the crisis that we are in. Rather, it will only exacerbate it.
anonymous said:
When you ELIMINATE “RISK” ,you need regulation…SIMPLE, in a free, no interventionist market…OUR markets have been intervened in & compromised into crisis mode…SIMPLE Common Sense
The point is RON PAUL IS ANTI-CORPORATIONS, He has continually voted on the side of the people against corporations. Since you are aware the corporations arent our friends then it should be noted that neither is government, they don't have all the answers, I was once contracted to pickup up a single old newspaper off the floor for 300$ the project took 6 months to get in accomplish. This story would not surprise someone who has worked for the government.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
I wish I had the time and energy to undertake a Ph.D. – level analysis of the state of economic and financial regulation operant over the past 20 years or so. A cursory survey, in the form of merely counting the number of volumes required to contain the U.S. Code and the Federal Register for that period might greatly surprise those blaring the misrepresentation that “laissez faire” was the order of the day. Presently, for instance, the Federal Register contains 70,000 pages devoted to economic and financial regulation. If that is what we all agree to call a free market, so much the worse for us. We have, in reality, never seen one. My hypothesis is that the bad behavior we have witnessed – and reflexively named greed – likely resulted from efforts to get around layer upon layer of absurd and meaningless regulations and still conduct a profitable business. When the layers became so complex that they were beyond comprehension by anyone, values became unknowable and things fell apart – in a system which had accrued heretofore unimaginable levels of debt – personal – business – and especially government – which simply can never be repaid. There is and will be insufficient wealth (not paper) to pay it back. If you do not understand the difference between money and wealth, please learn some economics and then see a psychiatrist. The latter will be required when you gain the understanding of the amount and meaning of our cumulative debt.

The next question is, “Do markets always work?” The answer is simple and unsatisfying. “Yes, they always work in that they are by their very nature self-correcting. Most transactions are win-win and promptly and clearly so. The time course of corrections of systematic imbalances where zero-sum and lose-lose events intrude, however may be unpleasant – as in the present instance. And they may be protracted.
When you are quoting someone you should use the quote feature or put quotation marks around what you're saying otherwise people might think you're trying to pass off Ron Paul's words as your own. I'll respond to the content tomorrow.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-11-10/ron-paul-why-more-regulation-makes-things-worse/
 

deprave

New Member
No thats a typo, what is disingenuous is to equate opposition to regulation with promoting fraud. Fraud is illegal, as it should be, and Ron Paul stands for this same position. Also, to support regulation of fraud goes against the basic ideals of our legal system – as in innocent until proven guilty – and as Ron Paul states, this is burdensome on small business. You must ask yourself how does this help? you will find on many levels it is self-destructive. How do we determine what to regulate and what not to regulate - there are almost limitless actions that could be required of businesses in order to prevent fraud.To widen the debate, supporting this type of regulation is what leads to huge corporations thriving with little competition like we have now and ultimately it gives them massive wealth and power, they are able to lobby for their interest easily, they have little to no competition, and sometimes they even treat their employees like cattle. As you said, a corporation has only one goal and that is to make money, regardless of social and environmental consequences.


Please excuse me while I write another check to government from my struggling business because my sign was using Times new roman point font and is 6 inches too wide.
 

sync0s

Well-Known Member
I was going to respond, but I simply cannot follow that. Good post.

Interesting that he mentioned schools. I believe the no child left behind act is a very accurate demonstration of how regulation fails us.

Other point above about the lawyers and loopholes, there is a good ole saying for that: If there is a will there is a way.


Sidenote: deprave, I tried to add to your rep on that post however it wouldn't let me because I up your rep too much, lol. I must agree with you to much.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member

Good post overall dan but I have to disagree with you on every line that is an opinion of Ron Paul, respectfully, not a bad conspiracy theory you got going there :)


What conspiracy?

I will label you here from the text I read from you, let me borrow your crystal ball, ok thanks, I see it wait I see your about as conservative as Hillary Clinton.


No. The Clintons are far to the right of me. They believe in free trade too.

let me correct you on a few things once again, ron paul has said he will go after the big guys and secondly he has a record of going after big corporations.
Saying he will go after the big guys while promoting corporate deregulation is saying one thing and doing another. You can't have it both ways. Promoting deregulation is exactly what multinational corporations and Wall st wants. Either you support protecting people from corporations or you support deregulation. You've got to pick one.

What you are saying would be like someone saying "I support the environment by refusing to recycle and driving an SUV".

Presently, for instance, the Federal Register contains 70,000 pages devoted to economic and financial regulation. If that is what we all agree to call a free market, so much the worse for us. We have, in reality, never seen one.
Yeah, the economy is complicated. Not everything can fit in a coloring book. Occasionally things aren't that simple.

Notice he says that it is bad to have regulations, but doesn't say why they are bad. He just states it's a lot of reading. I guess a lot of reading is bad for conservatives.

He claims we have never seen a free market. That is correct. Why haven't we seen one? Because without regulations Wall St and large corporations would rip us off.

The evidence of that is periods in our history when we've had very few regulations. Look at the 1880's and 1920's. We had very few regulations, and yes, people made a shit load of money. But that didn't help the American people, it hurt them. It concentrated the countries wealth in the hands of the very few and in the 20's led to Wall St scams that caused the great depression. FDR then regulated Wall St so we wouldn't have a repeat of the great depression. That law was called Glass-Steagal. It worked too. For 60 years we didn't have a run on the banks. Then in the 1990's we deregulated the financial industry so bankers could make more money. And guess what the result was? Another run on the banks that was only stopped by massive bail outs. Ron Paul supported deregulating the banks and repealing Glass-Steagal. At the time of the debates for deregulating Glass-Steagal Ron Paul is quoted as saying "Why can't we just end Glass-Steagal?".

And there ya go. That's what is called presenting evidence to support your argument. You and Ron Paul should learn how to do that. You and Ron Paul both like to state things as facts with nothing factual to back them up. Just stating things like "we have 70k pages of regulation and that is bad" doesn't make what he is saying true. It's an assumption, not a fact. That's what people need to be careful of when listening to Ron Paul. He states things as facts with absolutely nothing to back them up. It sounds right, just a long as no one questions it. You don't question what Ron Paul is saying, so it sounds true to you. But that is why Ron Paul is a joke ad no one takes him seriously.

My hypothesis is that the bad behavior we have witnessed – and reflexively named greed – likely resulted from efforts to get around layer upon layer of absurd and meaningless regulations and still conduct a profitable business. When the layers became so complex that they were beyond comprehension by anyone, values became unknowable and things fell apart
Once again here. Ron Paul offers nothing to back up the assumptions he's making. He offers no proof that there is a significant amount of "absurd and meaningless regulations". He offers no evidence to support his hypothesis. He just states it and people like you believe him without asking yourself "is what he's saying true?".

The next question is, “Do markets always work?” The answer is simple and unsatisfying. “Yes, they always work in that they are by their very nature self-correcting.
Now take a look at this statement. While what he's saying is correct, he doesn't consider the effects of those corrections. It's fortune cookie wisdom. And while yes, markets work, we have to consider who they are working for. Do we want the markets to work for the top 1% or the majority of the American people? Simply having the markets work is not enough. We need the markets to work in a way that benefits the people.

If you ask the question "Do markets always work in the best interests of the majority?" The answer to that question is no. They do not work for the best interests of the people unless you develop a set of rules that forces the market to work that way. That set of rules are referred to as regulations. And Ron Paul is against them. He's against manipulating the market to serve the best interests of the people. It's good enough for Ron Paul that the markets work, even if they are only working for the top 1%.

Like most of Ron Paul's ideas, the only seem like a good idea if you don't think about the downside. That's fortune cookie wisdom. It sounds real good in soundbite form, but in reality what he's advocating would be a disaster.

Most transactions are win-win and promptly and clearly so.
Again, Ron Paul makes a statement and offers no evidence that what he's saying is true. This is why I think Ron Paul is a hack. It's also why most people even in his own party think he's a hack. It isn't because the mainstream media told us to think that way or because there are forces of evil controlling us. It's because on a regular basis he mixes in statements of fact with assumptions that he presents as facts with no evidence to back them up. Also because he completely ignores what the consequences of what he advocates would be on the American people.

We don't work for the market. The market is supposed to work for us. Simply having a market that works isn't good enough. It has to work for the people.

The biggest lie taught that the federal government’s job is to take care of all of your needs, and that it is competent to do so (as a practical matter and under the terms of the Constitution) regardless of what effort you yourself make.
That's garbage political rhetoric. No one is teaching anyone that it's the government's job to provide for all our needs. That's invented bullshit. It's like when George Bush said "terrorists hate us for our freedom". It's just garbage that sounds good as long as you don't ask yourself "is this true?".

What I do expect government to do is protect the people from predatory business practices and attempt to create an environment where the American dream is more than just a fantasy. Someone who grows up poor and works hard should have a chance at making it in the world. Social mobility is extremely low in this country when compared with Europe.

We used to lead the world in social mobility back in the 1950s-1960s. That's one of the reasons why I support going back to the economic policies of the Eisenhower administration.

There is little actual evidence for the assumed practical or legal competence to finance and direct most of our major financial institutions.[/B]


That's not true at all. There is a ton of evidence for it. Look at American between 1940-1980. That's 40 years where we did a pretty good job of it. It wasn't until Reagan and the 30 years of deregulation that followed where we had serious problems regulating.

Once we decided we had to make government as small as possible and prevent it from doing it's job, only then did we become incapable of regulating the financial industry and large corporations. Before then, we were doing a pretty good job. Your only proof that regulating doesn't work comes from a time period where we broke the regulatory system. You can't break something then complain it doesn't work.

There is plenty of evidence that says you're wrong. That evidence is the American economy from 1940-1980.

You can not help but to blame the fed for its involvement in the financial crisis, infact every finacial crisis, if the fed did not support the bankers, if checks and balnces where in place on the fed it would stop these criminals in their tracks.


ok. Now I'm going to do what you should be doing when Ron Paul states something as fact. I'm going to ask you, is this true? If it is true, please provide some evidence to support what you are saying. How did the fed support bankers in a way that made the financial crash possible? What could the bankers not have done on their own?

The Fed can make a problem better or worse, but they did not create the problem. Deregulation created that problem. I believe I have proved my case that is a fact that financial deregulation caused the financial crisis. The fact that you nor anyone else disputed any of the evidence I presented proves my case.

If you think I'm wrong, tell me exactly which facts I was incorrect about. I made a very long winded post about it with plenty of evidence to support my case and you did not dispute any of it. Saying "no you're wrong! it was the fed!" doesn't present anything that disputes the facts and evidence I presented.

I believe it is the type of Ron Paul Litterature below which aid in leading you to your conclusion, ultimately a conspiracy theory of sorts you must admit at least that.
No. I don't admit that. There is no conspiracy. I don't understand why you think there is a conspiracy theory. Calling it a conspiracy theory doesn't make that true. Tell me what you're talking about.

Regulation can actually benefit big business and corporate greed, while simultaneously killing small businesses that are the backbone of our now faltering economy. This is why I get so upset every time someone claims regulation can resolve the crisis that we are in. Rather, it will only exacerbate it.
Again, Ron Paul is stating something as a fact with absolutely nothing to back it up at all. Simply stating something doesn't make it true. Ron Paul supported eliminating Glass-Steagall. Tell me how that benefited the people in any way? The only people it benefited were some greedy bankers who nearly destroyed our economy.

The point is RON PAUL IS ANTI-CORPORATIONS, He has continually voted on the side of the people against corporations
Do you have any evidence to back that up?

Why would Ron Paul be anti-corporations? Being anti-corporations is the true mark of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. Corporations are just business tools. Why would he or anyone else be against them?

I'm not anti-corporations. I think they do what they are supposed to just fine. I just think we need to make sure that what they are doing is in the best interests of the American people.

Since you are aware the corporations arent our friends then it should be noted that neither is government, they don't have all the answers,
Government seemed to keep a stable economy right up until Reagan started doing everything he could to break it in order to prove it didn't work. So government may not be the solution now, but what's wrong with going back to policies that did work?

You can't dispute the economic power of America in the 1950's and 1960's. So what's wrong with going back and adopting economic policies that have proven to be successful?
 

sync0s

Well-Known Member
I'm not going to comment on all of your post, cause I'm simply to lazy today. Just quoting:

Reagan's policies are widely recognized as bringing about the longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history, surpassed in duration only by the 1990s expansion that began under George H. W. Bush in 1991.[10][11] During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988 (in constant 2005 dollars),[12] which reduced the unemployment rate by 1.6%, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988, but with peaks of around 9.5% in 1982 and 1983.[13] A net job increase of about 21 million also occurred through mid-1990. Reagan’s administration is the only one not to have raised the minimum wage.[14] The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988, which was achieved by applying high interest rates by the Federal Reserve (peaked at 20% in June 1981).[15] The latter caused a brief recession in 1982: unemployment rose to 9.7% and GDP fell by 1.9%. Reagan significantly increased public expenditure, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this number in 4 different years. All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973.[16] In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%.[17] The federal deficit fell from 6% of GDP in 1983 to 3.2% of GDP in 1987.[3] The Federal deficit in Reagan's final budget fell to 2.9% of GDP.[2] The rate of growth in Federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan.[2] As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.[18] This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[19] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[20]
The number of Americans below the poverty level increased from 29.272 million in 1980 to 31.745 million in 1988, which means that, as a percentage of the total population, it remained almost stationary, from 12.95% in 1980 to 13% in 1988.[21] The poverty level for people under the age of 18 increased from 11.543 million in 1980 (18.3% of all child population) to 12.455 (19.5%) in 1988.[22] The share of total income going to the 5% highest-income households grew from 16.5% in 1980 to 18.3% in 1988 and the share of the highest fifth increased from 44.1% to 46.3% in same years. In contrast, the share of total income of the lowest fifth fell from 4.2% in 1980 to 3.8% in 1988 and the second poorest fifth from 10.2% to 9.6%.[23] And during Reagan's first term, homelessness became a visible problem in America's urban centers, leading many to blame Reaganomics.[24] In the closing weeks of his presidency, Reagan told the New York Times that the homeless "make it their own choice for staying out there." [25] Political opponents chided his policies as "Trickle-down economics", due to the significant cuts in the upper tax brackets.[26]
Tax receipts

During the Reagan administration, federal receipts grew at an average rate of 8.2% (2.5% attributed to higher Social Security receipts), and federal outlays grew at an annual rate of 7.1%.[27][28] According to a 1996 report of the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress, during Reagan's two terms, and through 1993, the top 10% of taxpayers paid an increased share of tax revenue to the Federal government, while the lowest 50% of taxpayers paid a reduced share of the tax revenue.[29]
According to a United States Department of the Treasury economic study,[30] the major tax bills enacted under Reagan, in the short term, increased total tax revenue and reduced the tax burden on the economy (~-1% of GDP). The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 resulted in a reduced tax burden on the economy (~-3% of GDP) but a decrease in total tax revenues (the largest tax cuts ever enacted).[31] while other tax bills had neutral or, in the case of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, a (~+1% of GDP) increase in revenue as a share of GDP. It should be however noted that the study did not examine the longer-term impact of Reagan tax policy, including sunset clauses and "the long-run, fully-phased-in effect of the tax bills".[30] The fact that tax receipts as a percentage of GDP fell following the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 shows a decrease in tax burden as share of GDP. Total tax revenue from income tax receipts increased during this time. The economic growth and increase in GDP outpaced the increase in tax receipt revenue, resulting in a slightly reduced tax burden as a percentage of GDP for the economy.
Good read, author cites plenty of references http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

Dan Kone said:
Do you have any evidence to back that up?
[video=youtube;z6FVpZ3nKHA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6FVpZ3nKHA[/video]
[video=youtube;q4jKNTvD53o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4jKNTvD53o&feature=related[/video]
[video=youtube;cl8vP9L6Imo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl8vP9L6Imo&feature=related[/video]
sorry for all the videos, one more:
[video=youtube;w7XpUEIfUz8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7XpUEIfUz8&feature=related[/video]
 

deprave

New Member
Dan, Half the quotes you took and labeled them Ron Paul is not Ron Paul just so ya know they are mislabeled in your post just an FYI they are anonymous comments, I really have no idea why you are hung up on the 'not presenting facts' and 'nothing to back it up' crap, Im not going to write you a research paper and cite all my sources on a internet forums sorry, I am speaking my view on things and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and then you say the same thing about Ron Paul, that he makes statements with nothing to back it up? Well may I ask what you have to back it up with? over 20 years of service to your country in the military and congress? How many PHD's do you have? Ron paul has something you lack dan and that's common sense.

How is your post any different from mine? wheres your sources? you wrote an opinion piece as did I. Do you want to do a fancy flow chart and some bar graphs and start spitting out statistics or something? Opinion is Opinion, Its your opinion, I respect your opinion, Please respect mine and don't get so offended if I say your "wrong" :)

Please answer my previous post and explain Why/How do you equate opposition to regulation with promoting fraud?
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Dan, Half the quotes you took and labeled them Ron Paul is not Ron Paul just so ya know they are mislabeled in your post just an FYI,
I just doubled checked. They are all Ron Paul quotes.

I really have no idea why you are hung up on the 'not presenting facts' and 'nothing to back it up' crap
It's not "crap". You and Ron Paul state things as if they are facts with no evidences what so ever to back them up. You can't just say things and have them become facts. It's not a fact that more regulations = bad. That's an assumption. I think regulations are good, so to back up my claim I presented you evidence. You do not. You seem to just decide things are facts because they sound good. That's not how it works.

Im not going to write you a research paper and cite all my sources on a internet forums sorry,
Yet you demand I do exactly that.

I'm not asking for a research paper. I'm not even necessarily asking you for solid proof. I'd just like to see some evidence that what you're saying is true.

For example when I say "deregulation is bad!" I can point to the late 1920's and 1880's as examples of when having too few regulations did serious harm and then I can point to the 1940s-1960s when we had a lot of regulations and the country was very successful. That isn't writing a research paper nor is it properly citing sources. It's just showing simple examples of evidence to back up what I'm saying.

Why is that so hard? Oh yeah, it's because what you state as fact has no historical examples. You know what an unproven fact is? I's a theory. It's fine to have theories. Just don't confusing them with facts. You and Ron Paul both seem to have that problem.

I am speaking my view on things and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that,
Actually all you're doing is speaking Ron Paul's views on things and excepting them as facts without doing any real thinking for yourself at all.

and then you say the same thing about Ron Paul, that he makes statements with nothing to back it up? Well may I ask what you have to back it up with?
wtf? I've provided historical evidence behind virtually every single position I've taken. Yeah, you can ask. I have history and facts to back me up. If you had an attention span long enough to actually read my posts you'd know that.

over 20 years of service to your country in the military and congress?
And how is that proof that his extremist economic views would be successful?

How many P.H.D's do you have?
Just as many as Ron Paul.

Ron paul has something you lack dan and that's common sense.
So because I'm not gullible enough to believe everything someone says I don't have common sense? lol

How is your post any different from mine?
My post is full of independent thought with evidence to support my opinions and proof to support my facts. Your posts are full of opinions stated as fact with absolutely nothing to back them up. Also your posts show that you've made the choice to abandon free thought and just believe everything a politician tells you to believe.

wheres your sources? you wrote an opinion piece as did I
No problem with opinions. I wasn't writing a paper either, just explaining why you and Ron Paul are both wrong. This isn't school, I don't need sources. I'm not regurgitating things other people have wrote. My thoughts are my own. Too bad you can't say the same thing.

I've noticed you haven't actually disputed any of my reasoning or explanations for why Ron Paul is wrong. You seem to direct your attention away from reasoning and evidence and instead just go after me. I guess that explains why you're a Ron Paul supporter.

Do you want to do a fancy flow chart and some bar graphs and start spitting out statistics or something? Opinion is Opinion, Its your opinion, I respect your opinion, Please respect mine and don't get so offended if I say your "wrong" :)
I'll respect your opinion when you actually have your own opinions.

When you make assumptions that I think are not based in reality, I'll ask to see something that backs up what you're saying. That's called thinking for yourself.

You've disputed none of the reasoning and evidence I've thrown out there now you're getting upset with me for asking questions. If you are right and I am wrong, how come you can't dispute my logic and don't like it when I question yours? It seems like your logic doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Sounding good in talking points and soundbites isn't always enough. If those talking points don't hold up to simple questions, then all you've got is false fortune cookie wisdom.

Ask questions and think for yourself. If you do that then you'll understand why I disagree with Ron Paul. Right now you're just accepting that everything that comes out of his mouth is truth, and it isn't.
 

sync0s

Well-Known Member
George H Bush economics:
Near the end of the 101st Congress, the president and congressional members reached a compromise on a budget package that increased the marginal tax rate and phased out exemptions for high-income taxpayers.[12] Despite demands for a reduction in the capital gains tax, Bush relented on this issue as well.[12] This agreement with the Democratic leadership in Congress proved to be a turning point in the Bush presidency; his popularity among Republicans never fully recovered.[12]

Coming at around the same time as the budget deal, America entered into a mild recession, lasting for six months.[11] Many government programs, such as welfare, increased.[11] As the unemployment rate edged upward in 1991, Bush signed a bill providing additional benefits for unemployed workers.[12] 1991 was marked by many corporate reorganizations, which laid off a substantial number of workers. Many now unemployed were Republicans and independents, who had believed that their jobs were secure.

By his second year in office, Bush was told by his economic advisors to stop dealing with the economy, as they believed that he had done everything necessary to ensure his reelection.[11] By 1992, interest and inflation rates were the lowest in years, but by midyear the unemployment rate reached 7.8 percent, the highest since 1984.[12] In September 1992, the Census Bureau reported that 14.2 percent of all Americans lived in poverty.[12] At a press conference in 1990, Bush told reporters that he found foreign policy more enjoyable.[11]
NAFTA
Bush's administration, along with the Progressive Conservative Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, spearheaded the negotiations of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which would eliminate the majority of tariffs on products traded among the United States, Canada, and Mexico, to encourage trade amongst the countries.[65] The treaty also restricts patents, copyrights, and trademarks, and outlines the removal of investment restrictions among the three countries.[65]
The agreement came under heavy scrutiny amongst mainly Democrats, who charged that NAFTA resulted in a loss of US jobs.[11] NAFTA also contained no provisions for labor rights;[66] according to the Bush administration, the trade agreement would generate economic resources necessary to enable Mexico's government to overcome problems of funding and enforcement of its labor laws.[66] Bush needed a renewal of negotiating authority to move forward with the NAFTA trade talks. Such authority would enable the president to negotiate a trade accord that would be submitted to Congress for a vote, thereby avoiding a situation in which the president would be required to renegotiate with trading partners those parts of an agreement that Congress wished to change.[66] While initial signing was possible during his term, negotiations made slow, but steady, progress. President Clinton would go on to make the passage of NAFTA a priority for his administration, despite its conservative and Republican roots – with the addition of two side agreements – to achieve its passage in 1993.[67]
The treaty has since been defended as well as criticized further. The American economy has grown 54 percent since the adoption of NAFTA in 1993, with 25 million new jobs created; this was seen by some as evidence of NAFTA being beneficial to the US.[68] With talk in early 2008 regarding a possible American withdrawal from the treaty, Carlos M Gutierrez, current United States Secretary of Commerce, writes, “Quitting NAFTA would send economic shock waves throughout the world, and the damage would start here at home.”[68] But John J Sweeney of The Boston Globe argues that "the US trade deficit with Canada and Mexico ballooned to 12 times its pre-NAFTA size, reaching $111 billion in 2004."

How about Clinton. Interesting article by the bbc http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1110165.stm
Just thought I'd post a little about some of the past presidents economic policies.
 

deprave

New Member
@Dan Kone
right so should I'll go watch so more "lame stream media"..right my opinions are totally not based in reality and yours are and I am blindly following ron paul sure you got me pegged...your post is opinion as is mine, because you used an example of history once your somehow more credible? I provide historical examples in my writing on here all the time and do back them with facts. I am discussing the present and future above and its entirely opinion as are your posts above and I do talk about factual events as do you, the financial crisis and current situation is a great example of how out of control regulation is bad, I think that's a little more relevant to the discussion then 1950...just a little.

Again, Please explain Why/How do you equate opposition to regulation with promoting fraud? by responding to this post I made above:

what is disingenuous is to equate opposition to regulation with promoting fraud. Fraud is illegal, as it should be, and Ron Paul stands for this same position. Also, to support regulation of fraud goes against the basic ideals of our legal system – as in innocent until proven guilty – and as Ron Paul states, this is burdensome on small business. You must ask yourself how does this help? you will find on many levels it is self-destructive. How do we determine what to regulate and what not to regulate - there are almost limitless actions that could be required of businesses in order to prevent fraud.To widen the debate, supporting this type of regulation is what leads to huge corporations thriving with little competition like we have now and ultimately it gives them massive wealth and power, they are able to lobby for their interest easily, they have little to no competition, and sometimes they even treat their employees like cattle. As you said, a corporation has only one goal and that is to make money, regardless of social and environmental consequences.


Please excuse me while I write another check to government from my struggling business because my sign was using Times new roman point font and is 6 inches too wide.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
How about Clinton. Interesting article by the bbc http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1110165.stm
Just thought I'd post a little about some of the past presidents economic policies.
I think Clinton did terrible irreparable damage to the economy. Sure, what appeared to be a short term gain out of it, but most of those gains turned out to just be the result of a bubble. All he really did is send jobs overseas so the wealthy could gain even more wealth at the expense of American workers.

I object to the economic policies of every president since Reagan. I support the economic policies of Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, and Truman. How was the American economy doing when they were president?
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
And they couldn't of done it without the Federal Reserve.
Correct. Although Dan Kone gives it his best shot at finding the culprit responsible for the crash and subsequent depression the real culprit is indeed the Fed. After all it was the Fed who set such low interest rates that enabled people to get the loans in the first place. Without the low interest rate loans none of it would have even been possible. The Fed did this on purpose to goose the economy after 9/11, but the boost was so successful that they couldn't stop doing it. Alan Greenspan Knew there was a bubble, he called this "Irrational Exuberance". When the price to borrow money is less than the rate of inflation you have a vacuum that develops that sucks all the capital out of markets and into the bubble in one form or another. The fractional reserve banking system must grow constantly, or the ever accruing interest will destroy the system. The system MUST grow or it will be destroyed.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Correct. Although Dan Kone gives it his best shot at finding the culprit responsible for the crash and subsequent depression
I've yet to hear anyone dispute any of the logic or evidence I posted. Only people pronouncing me wrong with no explanation for why what I said that was false.

the real culprit is indeed the Fed. After all it was the Fed who set such low interest rates that enabled people to get the loans in the first place. Without the low interest rate loans none of it would have even been possible. The Fed did this on purpose to goose the economy after 9/11, but the boost was so successful that they couldn't stop doing it.
If you eliminate the FED from the equation altogether these loans would have been slightly less attractive for buyers, but banks would have still be handing them out like candy because they were not liable if people defaulted on them. People would have still been buying up bundled bad mortgages because they would have still had the misleading AAA rating.

So no, you're incorrect. The FED made the problem worse, but they were not the root cause of the problem since the problem would have still existed with or without these low interest rates.

Now if you take the deregulation of the financial services industries that happened in the late 1990s-2004 out of the equasion, then it would not have been possible to bundle these mortgages and give them an AAA rating. If they were not rated as safe investments then the banks would not have been able to sell them off. If banks would not have been able to sell them off, then they would have been responsible if the loans defaulted rather than passing off the risk to investors. If the banks were liable for bad loans they would not have handed out loans to people who couldn't afford them. Without these loans defaulting, the crisis would not have been possible.

Basically, you can point to the fed for making the problem worse. But they were not the ones who allowed banks to hand out loans risk free nor were they responsible for regulating for allowing these loans to be bundled and sold off as safe investments.

Do you know who was responsible for regulating that? No one! We deregulated that market! That's how this whole thing happened and no one noticed. It's also why no one went to jail. When you deregulate these things then Wall St is allowed to regulate themselves so they can pull these scams without committing a crime.

So please tell me, how did deregulating that market work out for us?
 

sync0s

Well-Known Member
Just give up on Dan Kone. I provided a full detailed paper on the financial collapse as per the real estate bubble. His response:

Dan Kone said:
lol. what load of crap. They are isolating the effects of the defaulting loans themselves without factoring in the effects it had on the economy as a whole, job loss, the run on the banks, the drop in consumer confidence, the financial institutions collapsing, etc.

Sure if you isolate one effect you can make the claim that the subprime mortgages didnt' cause the recession. But you'd have to be extremely gullible to believe the effects of those loans defaulting didn't cause the problem.

Come on now....


He continually says other people are merely saying "no, you're wrong" and not countering with any disputed logic or evidence. Yet his response above is exactly what he is countering us with. Besides, I referenced the entire paper, and I will again, and he only commented on my quoted conclusion of the paper, without ever bothering to read it. So I give, you're right.

http://today.uci.edu/pdf/subprime_lending_08.pdf University of California
http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr318.pdf If you would like to see the Government's report on it. Although, written by John Ashcroft, whom it's pretty widely believed he was quite the corrupted man http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/02/john-ashcroft-behind-indi_n_224821.html

By itself, credit scoring couldn't have fostered the rapid growth of nonprime lending. Banks lack the equity capital needed to hold large volumes of these risky loans in their portfolios. And lenders of all types couldn't originate and then sell these loans to investors in the form of residential mortgage-backed securities, or RMBS—at least not without added protection against defaults.
[video=youtube;bxLXaiWmFB4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxLXaiWmFB4[/video]
 

budlover13

King Tut
I think Clinton did terrible irreparable damage to the economy. Sure, what appeared to be a short term gain out of it, but most of those gains turned out to just be the result of a bubble. All he really did is send jobs overseas so the wealthy could gain even more wealth at the expense of American workers.

I object to the economic policies of every president since Reagan. I support the economic policies of Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, and Truman. How was the American economy doing when they were president?
i like that Kennedy announced he was dismantling the Fed because it was a menace to our country. Then he got shot. i fear for Dr. Paul when he gets this going.
 

Parker

Well-Known Member
I've yet to hear anyone dispute any of the logic or evidence I posted. Only people pronouncing me wrong with no explanation for why what I said that was false.



If you eliminate the FED from the equation altogether these loans would have been slightly less attractive for buyers, but banks would have still be handing them out like candy because they were not liable if people defaulted on them. People would have still been buying up bundled bad mortgages because they would have still had the misleading AAA rating.

So no, you're incorrect. The FED made the problem worse, but they were not the root cause of the problem since the problem would have still existed with or without these low interest rates.

Now if you take the deregulation of the financial services industries that happened in the late 1990s-2004 out of the equasion, then it would not have been possible to bundle these mortgages and give them an AAA rating. If they were not rated as safe investments then the banks would not have been able to sell them off. If banks would not have been able to sell them off, then they would have been responsible if the loans defaulted rather than passing off the risk to investors. If the banks were liable for bad loans they would not have handed out loans to people who couldn't afford them. Without these loans defaulting, the crisis would not have been possible.

Basically, you can point to the fed for making the problem worse. But they were not the ones who allowed banks to hand out loans risk free nor were they responsible for regulating for allowing these loans to be bundled and sold off as safe investments.

Do you know who was responsible for regulating that? No one! We deregulated that market! That's how this whole thing happened and no one noticed. It's also why no one went to jail. When you deregulate these things then Wall St is allowed to regulate themselves so they can pull these scams without committing a crime.

So please tell me, how did deregulating that market work out for us?
I think you've pretty much got the mess sorted. But to place the blame go back as far as you can to see who started the mess.
It may be semantics but it wasn't deregulation, it was manipulation with the free market. No way the banks would lend that kind of money out in free market conditions. Lower the interest rate to them and tell them their losses are covered it's a different matter. Low interest rates gives the car keys to the drunks. You don't want to rely on unreliable people to pay back loans so you can make money. Too risky.

All of a sudden someone with a lower than avg ability to make payments, who normally wouldn't get a loan UNLESS they had a very high down payment, could now get a mortgage rather easily with a low down payment. That is reckless.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
I think you've pretty much got the mess sorted. But to place the blame go back as far as you can to see who started the mess.
It may be semantics but it wasn't deregulation, it was manipulation with the free market. No way the banks would lend that kind of money out in free market conditions. Lower the interest rate to them and tell them their losses are covered it's a different matter. Low interest rates gives the car keys to the drunks. You don't want to rely on unreliable people to pay back loans so you can make money. Too risky.

All of a sudden someone with a lower than avg ability to make payments, who normally wouldn't get a loan UNLESS they had a very high down payment, could now get a mortgage rather easily with a low down payment. That is reckless.
I get what you're saying about the FED and the low interest rates making loans more attractive and easier to get. While I totally agree that made the problem way worse it's still not the cause.

What made the problem possible is that banks were not liable for the mortgages they were handing out so they didn't care who they were handing them out to and whether or not those people could pay them.

That was 100% due to deregulation for the reasons I've explained several times in this thread and no one has disputed.

There were a bunch of things that made the financial crisis way worse than it needed to be. And yes, the fed is one of those factors. But even if you take the fed out of the equation, this would have still happened because banks were not financially liable for the loans they were handing out.

Because this all still would have happened without the involvement of the fed, you can not say it was the root cause, only something that made a bad problem much worse.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
He continually says other people are merely saying "no, you're wrong" and not countering with any disputed logic or evidence. Yet his response above is exactly what he is countering us with.
You've got to be kidding me. I explained exactly why it was wrong and I've written more detailed explanations in this thread than everyone else combined.

Besides, I referenced the entire paper, and I will again, and he only commented on my quoted conclusion of the paper, without ever bothering to read it. So I give, you're right.
I did read it and then gave a reason why it was bullshit. It only counted one variable as if it happened in a box rather than considering all the effects.
 
Top