We are living with the tyranny of a "free market" that never was. It is in fact highly managed and benefits the few.The free market is no more a reality than the communistic system. Neither one of these failed ideas take human nature into account. Greed and power mongering will always be with us. Communism doesn't work because some will always want more. Free markets don't work because everyone needs to live in the framework of laws and not hover above laws. Everyone needs some limits!
In the meantime the stock market (gold and silver, really) is the only game in town. We used to have choices on how to make our money grow. CD's and savings accounts used to offer interest rates above inflation. You can watch your money grow and then disappear. Those with the super computers get the money.
In trade, only the owners of the means of production are making a killing. TPP will totally sell us out and we will lose more jobs. Maybe that's why we're fixing to get into a larger arena: Mideast war…
"If there is no regulation there are no checks and balances to stop monopoly, and crony capitalism."
Funny, we do have regulation and these things still exist.
"In other words those on the right are fighting the idea of government but have failed to point out what fascism means and when the government sees the special interests as clients. (instead of we the people)"
Fascism is the merger of the state and corporations.
"Just saying that government should not provide a safety net is easy, but in fact RP's political manager from his first run for president died of pneumonia in his 40's at a time that he was going through a divorce and wasn't paying into health insurance. This is a tragic death that didn't have to happen."
Ron Paul believes that your need does not give anyone the right to force others to provide for that need. Certainly this person had friends who he could of asked for help, there's more to this story than we are seeing here.
"Imagine a first world country that has widespread diseases that anyone could get and all kinds of conditions we haven't seen in generations because we don't see ourselves as in a shared society."
A shared society, another pretty word for moral cannibals.
"The fact is we have people on the top that have profits guanteed to them."
By who?
The sovereign welath funds that Morgan Chase arranged for wealthy arabs on our hhighways and parking meters are guranteed to make a profit and yet we are not to be guarnateed on our social safety net that we pay for with every check we earn."
WTF?
"The libertarian thinking is too simplistic."
Yes, not forcing people to do things is so simple.
At the same time Lloyd Blankfein was being interviewed by a gaggle of reporters on the street and he turned around and said, "The American people will have to live without their entitlements"
You are not entitled to anything, each person should take care of themselves and not force others through govt to supply their needs. Of course there are people who need help, friends and family would be a good place to start, then voluntary private charity, and if you are so unlikable that no one will help you then what's the point of living?
As it turns out, Paul was not speaking purely in hypotheticals. Back in 2008, Kent Snyder — Paul's former campaign chairman — died of complications from pneumonia. Like the man in Blitzer's example, the 49-year-old Snyder (pictured) was relatively young and seemingly healthy* when the illness struck. He was also uninsured. When he died on June 26, 2008, two weeks after Paul withdrew his first bid for the presidency, his hospital costs amounted to $400,000. The bill was handed to Snyder's surviving mother (pictured, left), who was incapable of paying. Friends launched a website to solicit donations.
http://gawker.com/5840024/ron-pauls-campaign-manager-died-of-pneumonia-penniless-and-uninsured
Looks like he still recieved medical care but died anyway and left the bill for others to pay.
I see you don't see throught he ideology. Lloyd Blankfein thinks he's "entitled" to change laws catch up with Matt Taibbi's articles and he thinks ss and medicare should be privatized. He most likely thinks that GS should be managing the ss trust.I keep wonderinig who are the entitled? Those who have paid all their lives into an insurance for their golden years? or those who have turned govt. into their benefactor. When I see wealthy congressman farmers who get govt. susbidies arguing against the pittance that the poor receive—sorry I think that's just disgusting in very simple terms.
Sorry but just saying you're on you own is too simple. You can't keep firing people in the Romney mode and expect them to pay their way while housing, food and energy costs keep mounting ever higher. It can't be done! You can't have these two things going on at the same time. Either those on top have to accept less than 400% profit over thiir employees and hire more people or it's going to collapse.
I strong recommend you read Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" the rise of disaster capitalism.
This is the first time I've seriously considered dropping my membership. If I really wanted to hear this kind of stuff, I could save a few bucks, turn on the radio, and simply listen to Glenn Beck or someone equally removed from reality.
[quote=t.tanner]This is the first time I've seriously considered dropping my membership. If I really wanted to hear this kind of stuff, I could save a few bucks, turn on the radio, and simply listen to Glenn Beck or someone equally removed from reality.
[/quote]
Could you elaborate on what you disagree with? I'm sincerely interested in your point of view.
Wow! You and I live in very, very different mental worlds, Gregroberts. That's like saying a regulated free society is an oxymoron - ie a society with laws can't be free. In fact, laws are an absolute necessity to create a balanced environment that supports the most individual freedom and justice for all, aren't they, rather than domination and blatant theft and extortion by the most powerful, as exists now in financial markets?It's always been a tough balance. But then, that is exactly the problem and usually the end of conversation with libertarians for me - they never see that. For me, their view is way too simplistic and doesn't correspond to history or current reality. The idea that things would be great if we eliminated laws that regulate what people can do - and particularly in business & markets - just seems absurd. The problem is that real and fair regulations don't exist now. Libertarians seem to argue that this situation should be made worse by just cutting regulation much more, and become like the wild west - and somehow courts defending individual rights would take care of things. Courts? The wealthy love the courts - money burning time sumps that take forever to do the most basic things, assuming they aren't just bought and paid for in a lawless world. Libertarians in finance complain, for example, that people want to regulate derivatives, insider trading, high-speed trading, etc. I don't get it.
" For me, their view is way too simplistic and doesn't correspond to history or current reality". I would imagine that during the time when slavery was "the law of the land" in this country the slave owners felt this way about the people who were against slavery. Who's going to pick the cotton?
…and we have…crickets.
Unfortunately when you have an interview with a (ex)politician, this is the back and forth circular arguments you get. That would be my guess as to what ttanner is sick of. Another reason might be the fear of co-option. I expressed this concern to Chris once. As the message from this site and others becomes more mainstream, I think there is a potential for and fear that the message to be co-opted by a political party or the system.
gregroberts, I could argue you point for point on the libertarianism and poke many holes in your arguments, just as you are doing to others, but for what purpose? Does that mean I'm on some other side? Does that mean I don't recognize some of the good that comes from the libertarian ideology? In my opinion, there is not one ideology that is complete. All of them are only partially based in "reality." There are many realities (economic class, ethnicity, gender, geographic location, etc) which is why no one ideology fits them all. I posted awhile back that Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence off the backs of slaves. There is hypocrisy built into every ideology and reality. It doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for ethics and morals that are intrinsic to these ideologies, but we have to acknowledge there are also intinsic balances and tradeoffs between things like the individual/community, economic growth/environment, cognition/experience, etc.
The discussion needs to be larger than ideologies, but also include them. One question that Grover recently posted that I think would be a great point of discussion is… when is enough enough? When do we have enough of anything and how do we accept that limit?
Happy Father's Day
Sure thing. I have a couple of serious issues with Ron Paul.
He’s a racist. One example: ”We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”
He’s completely wrong on energy & climate. He’s voted against removing oil & gas exploration subsidies, he voted against raising CAFE standards, he’s tried to repeal weatherization assistance for low income U.S. residents, he’s voted against regulation of greenhouse gases. http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Energy_+_Oil.htm He wants to remove restrictions on oil & gas drilling, he wants to eliminate the federal gas tax, he supports using more coal, he wants to eliminate the EPA. http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Environment.htm
He believes the Federal income tax rate should be 0%. http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Tax_Reform.htm
He’s afraid that fences built to keep illegal immigrants out will actually be used to keep Americans from leaving the U.S. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/28/10-outrageous-ron-paul-quotes.american-concentration-camp.html
He wants to abolish the CIA, the FBI and the IRS because “because you know, most of our history, we didn't have those institutions.” http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2011/12/20/why_ron_paul_can_never_be_president_in_12_quotes/page/full
Now to my earlier post. I’m not saying that folks don’t have a right to support the politicians of their choice. They do - and that includes someone as far out in left field as Ron Paul. But when Chris promotes Mr. Paul - who I find morally bereft and intellectually challenged - I believe it reflects poorly on his judgement, and on this site. I read PP because I feel it typically offers a reasoned, rational look at our economy, our energy situations and (at least some aspects of) our environment. By tacitly endorsing Ron Paul, Chris is steering PP toward the shoals of partisan politics. If that continues, I’ll be canceling my membership - and I suspect I won’t be the only one.
is a virtue.
One of our biggest threats is not being able to have a discussion without a group of people getting upset. We must remember that we are all the same and different in many ways. We all eat, breath the air and drink the water. So we must come to some kind of agreement on how to best make that work for everyone fairly. We can make this work but only together!
I think Ron Paul's interview was great. Do I agree with everything he stands for? No but he at least appears honest and is headed in the correct direction. I can not imagine the pressure and temptations that someone in his position has endured. The reason I came to this site is I could not find anyone else that tied all our problems together. I want to hide my head in the sand just thinking about one or two problems let alone hundreds. I give anyone credit who can talk about these things every week and not fall apart.
Thanks T.Tanner for the explanation.I concur with your objections, but of course, I also think no harm done when intelligent arguments can be made and people might actually make sense when they're made to looks at something logically.
The idea of imposing austerity on the multitudes while Ceos, bankers and monopolies in defense, argriculture, health and pharma and insurance go totally unchecked is one of our biggest problems. The very issue of NSA big data feeds into this and so I think RP would have to make comment on these entitlements too. The fact that he doesn't leaves a gaping hole in his arguments. Yes, he is an ideologue and that's why he named his son Rand (Ayn Rand).
I understand why CM thought RP was good for an interview in lieu of the NSA wire-tapping, but if we don't see power in the hands of very undemocratic corporations as an equal problem to government, then we are truly focussing on the wrong things.
RP's main point, imho, is a smaller fed government, as defined by the constiturtion. That certainly does not prohibit large states (e.g., MA, CA, NY, etc) from doing the rest. Large local goverment is the best way to mainting control in that you can attend the town hall meetings and help direct the community. Isn't that the basis of the communities that are being proposed at this site?
MM
I like the idea of town meetings and local involvement in politics that would go from the bottom up. Americans should be much more involved in politics which would allow them to counter Corporatism, but they have to understand the issues and not just listen to easy answers or buy into ideology.The problem with paring down Fed govt would make the US weaker in today's global theater, even if we weren't so aggressive as in "We never saw a war we didn't like…" We could get carved up by other nation states that …ahh want to be nation states. (unlike our elite).
I mentioned a few posts back that Morgan Stanley sold Sovereign Wealth funds to cover costs in the midwest of parking meters and some highways. Who owns these funds for 80 years? Wealthy arabs, who are get this one, guarenteed a profit. That means we are not free ot build a rail system nearby, lest it creates competition because the monopolies hate competition.How many Americans would choose paying less taxes or selling infrastructure to Arabs? Put that way, maybe we will have a different dialogue. That's why I recommend people read Matt Taibbi's "Griftopia".
And…, think about how huge local taxes would be, if you shrunk the Fed govt.? The Federal govt has the GDP of $15 Trill.approx. Someone's gotta pay for infrastructure etc. It's a fool's paradise to think that you can run this show without taxes. In fact, the more people pay into the system the cheaper govt services are. You can't compare the costs. Privatized industries who are in the stock market will charge the Govt (we the people) far more than govt services. Just a fact of life.
What does being a strict constitutionalist mean?
I'm sure it means different things to different people, but for me, like RP, we don't need federal departments for everything. Education, HHS, HUD are a few of the worse and are used as vote buying machines. In my state, MA, the state runs education, urban development, and health services.
The constitution was designed for the federal goverment to provide defence of the nation as its number one piority and even RP does not propose to change that. Maybe scale back the overreach and become a more protectionist nation. Are we preventing WWIII or provoking one? I think constitutionalist related to the freedom to live in a big goverment state (MA) or a small one (UT) without excessive overreach by the feds.
Carreer politicians are the problem. They run their bugets like a private business, employing family and friend in return for votes. Reduce taxes at the federal level and raise them at the local level and choose the community you want.
"Yes, he is an ideologue and that's why he named his son Rand (Ayn Rand)."Randal Howard Paul (You meant Ayn Randal didn't you?)
the novelist Ayn Rand was not the inspiration for his first name; he went by "Randy" while growing up.[9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul
I have followed Peak Prosperity for quite some time now and I very much appreciate the ideas presented. I finally felt compelled to register specifically to comment on this topic as I think that this discussion is a good one.
Not everyone has to agree with all of Dr. Paul’s political policies to appreciate the true beauty of what he has accomplished. Dr. Paul has awakened more people from their drunken consumerist, materialist, commercialized, entertainment-driven stupor than any other individual in recent history. By publicly challenging the status-quo, Dr. Paul has empowered people to do their own research on the problems facing society today rather than trusting the mainstream media talking heads to do the research for them.
While a majority of Americans are still stuck in the egocentric/ethnocentric mindset that says that “my car is better than yours” and “my country is better than yours” and “my football team is better than yours”, there are many young folks out there who are developing a more comprehensive worldview because someone on the national stage was willing to stand up and call out the status-quo.
A common criticism of Dr. Paul is that he does not go far enough and I do agree that he does not press hard enough on certain topics and he does not touch certain topics. But how far do we think this one man should go? Why is it his responsibility to cover everything? I would suggest that those who think that Ron falls short in certain areas should take it upon themselves to carry the banner for those causes.
There is plenty of injustice out there for each of us to speak out against our own prioritized issues.
It seems to me that there are two schools of thought presented in this discussion. The first appears to be that massive multi-national corporations have co-opted too much power over governments and individuals and that this is our most pressing problem. The second appears to be that a massive unconstitutional federal government has acquired too much power and it poses the greatest threat to each of us.
From my perspective, I think these two probably go hand in hand and they are both a major problem.
But I think that there is only one place to start if we are serious about coming up with a solution to each of these problems simultaneously.
And that place to start is sound money. It seems to me that both the federal government and the MNCs have gotten so large and have acquired so much power due mostly to the inflationary money regime that exists in America and most other developed nations. The MNCs have nestled up next to government right beside the money spigots and so they, along with governments, get the privilege of spending the new money before its purchasing power has been debased.
Without this one major advantage, I do not think that governments or MNCs could be so big and powerful and sound money would eliminate this advantage.
Sound money may not be a panacea, but I think that it is the only logical place to start. We could talk about laws all day long and we could argue about whether we need better regulations or no regulations but at the end of the day I don’t think any of it matters until we have a sound monetary system where the money supply cannot be inflated at will.
You are going to be inspired by this lovely Irish Lass.
You go girl.