Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Discussion in 'Politics' started by p51mustang23, Sep 26, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Indie



    We have discussed this before - I have, and I’ve read many articles by both there supporters and opponents. I’ve written many posts explaining my opposition to neoliberal economic thinking.

    But I’ve yet to see any rational or reasonable argument from you in defence of those economic ideas.




    I’m not asking you to restate them I’m asking why are you incapable of defending them against their critics who have pointed out the flaws in their ideas.

    You seem to see them as some type of sacred text that contain ‘truths’ that cannot be questioned – they’re not they are just theories and ideas many of which other people find flawed.



    LOL – been here many times before as well

    As I’ve said, ignoring criticism doesn’t make it go away it just seems to confirm its validity.

    You might not accept these criticisms but you don’t seem capable of defending your ideas from them.

    We might have differing views I’m happy and willing to defend mine and have done so – you seem completely incapable of defending yours.

     
  2. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Indie



    Sorry been through that and this doesn’t stand up – you’ve already said that unearned advantage is ok – that an individual that has done nothing to acquire something should be entitled to it anyway as long as it is legal to do so.

    The greatest effects on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. That can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure.



    But you do think that someone who -as you put it - has put nothing in is entitled to get something out.

    You have admitted as much in post 1532, where you say it is perfectly alright for people to get things they didn’t personally earn.

     
  3. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672

    Indie



    What is ‘natural’ about it?

    Also we have been through this many times – it comes up against the whole deserving / undeserving argument that you refuse to address.

    And as also pointed out many times private charity didn’t work and that is why state provision was fought for.



    Again this comes up against the deserving / undeserving argument that you refuse to address.

    Here it is repeated from Post 1375 -

    This also comes up against the old self serving con game of the deserving/undeserving.

    It was argued that the deserving are those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. And the undeserving are those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help.

    So it was plain - the argument went – that there was little or no reason to give assistance to the disadvantaged (see also the Social Darwinist argument above).

    The problem was that these people were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

    And as I pointed out this is very similar to the right wing argument often put forward today that if people are responsible and make “better decisions” they don’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and make “poor decisions” they don’t deserve assistance.

    The problem again being that the praised responsible people are often the same lambasted irresponsible people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

     
  4. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672

    Indie



    Yes I know your views but as your post highlight you seem to be incapable of defending them from criticism.

    I know you don’t have a problem with wealth and that’s why you would seem to want to increase its power and influence.

    I know you claim to want to limit wealth’s influence but the ideas you have presented would most like increase its power and influence and you have even suggested that wealth should have greater voting rights so that it could block or veto the votes of the majority.

    I know you talk about ‘federal level’ but yours is a dogmatic worldview and the criticisms of are the same whatever the level.

    I know you claim that ‘government’ has moved to the left but as pointed out you seem incapable of explaining why you think that in any rational or reasonable way.

    I know you claim that ‘social programs’ are the reason for the present financial crisis but as seen many times that viewpoint doesn’t seem to stand up to scrutiny. As explained the present financial problems of the US seem more down to neoliberal policies enacted over the past 30 years ago and a hegemonic foreign policy.



    Again comes up against the deserving / undeserving con mentioned just above.

    Also as pointed out above the idea that unemployment benefits increases unemployment doesn’t seem to hold water.
    Myth of the Day: Benefits Make People Lazy

    http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/76001/myth-the-day-benefits-make-people-lazy
    Also try
    Eight Great Myths About Welfare


     
  5. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Indie



    But you have argued against democracy and even suggested that wealth be given more voting right so they can block or veto the votes of the majority while promoting ideas that would seem to increase the power and influence of wealth.



    LOL and once again with the socialist jibe – and as pointed out a Republic could be socialist and a democracy, it could be an autocracy or an oligarchy or a theocracy, a republic can be many things.

    It seems to me that you views would make the US more oligarchic and plutocratic in nature.

     
  6. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672

    Indie

    As your last post to me reveals you are once again just repeating stuff we have already covered and for which you still have not addressed the criticisms leveled at them.


     
  7. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    Bal,

    Wealth can take many forms, and since we equate money as capital, it too is a form of wealth. Many other items are much more sound forms of wealth, but generally our transactions with one another take place by the exchange of money. If you don't borrow money, you avoid debt and the associated interest involved. If everyone lived within their means no one would ever become indebted. But in the modern world we have available so many things which are the result of the labors of a great many persons, all of whom add to the costs of production, that it would take a long time for an individual to acquire the means to purchase so many people go in debt as the means of acquiring their wants which results in the lender requiring some additional payment in return. I see nothing wrong with that, but obviously you do.

    Granny Smith puts her money in the bank not simply to park it, but also to acquire some interest as a reward for allowing the bank and its borrowers to make use of her money. If banks were to pay no interest on the money people deposit, few would likely make use of banks at all.

    Is it beneficial to society for regulators to require banks to provide loans to persons who would otherwise be denied loans based upon the probability that they would likely default on repaying the loans?

    Not claiming that some regulations are necessary, but when government regulations force banks to take greater risks than they would otherwise, they are put in the position of finding ways to reduce or limit those risks as best they can within the laws that exist.

    I have no debts at all, does that mean I am not a capitalist?

    You're making no sense at all, capitalism is the means by which we exchange our goods and services with one another. Obviously a chicken farmer would find it difficult to purchase a new car with the chickens raised, so the chickens are exchanged for money, and the money is used to purchase the car. The barter system simply would not work in todays world, although in some rare instances it can.

    Actually Bal, I simply refused to participate in the world wide financial disaster, and sp have a great many others who live responsibly.

    You can apply labels if you wish, but the problem is simply a spending problem no matter what label you wish to apply.

    Well, if you've read from who I suggested and still have learned nothing of value from them, it would simply be a waste of my time to restate them in my own words as they have already done a much better job than I could have done. As for flaws in their ideas, I've found none of any significance, and have seen none other than emotional claims presented from you.

    Advantages can be earned or unearned, why do you spend so much time dwelling on that as being unfair or unjust? Is it unfair or unjust that some people are born with height, learning, strength, or aesthetic advantages?

    Actually, in my opinion the greatest effect on a persons life is how they put it to use.

    You are entitled to receive what you are given by the givers free choice, are you not? Your property should be yours to distribute as you wish.

    What's unnatural about charity?

    You seem to have no problem claiming those who are born into wealth to be undeserving. Control your envy.

    I don't remember claiming that those who don't ask for help are deserving, and those who do are not, that sounds a little like one of your rewordings of something I wrote to fit your purpose of argument. I do believe that the individual(s) providing assistance have a right to expect some signs of positive results at some point of time within reason. If you find that money given someone to help feed their children is being spent on liquor, drugs, or gambling, and the kids remain unfed, it might be cause to instead provide food instead of money, or as a last resort make a report to family services that the children are not being cared for adequately.

    Like you say the circumstances are quite important, and that is best determined by those closest to the source, not by a government organization far away.

    Yes, I have no problem with wealth of others, but again where did you see me state that I wish to increase its power and influence? The votes we cast have little effect in changing anything, and we'd probably be much better served by picking names at random to represent us in government.

    I speak of government at the Federal level trying to make a point of how our government is supposed to work, a government of laws, not men. The people are the sovereign most entities of our society, with the Federal government having only the powers allowed by the people. The people have long lost control of our government and the perpetual government directed class warfare keeps us divided among ourselves.

    Do you have difficulty determining left from right?

    Democracy is of little use if all it allows is the choice of who will lead you down the road to economic collapse. The Constitution which is the basis of how our government should operate is where we need to focus some attention.

    It's become quite obvious to me that things as they seem to you are quite different than they really are.

    If we've covered this previously, why then are you wasting time addressing it anew, and in such length, knowing that I am quite content with my responses given before, even if you are not. Am I to assume that you do not like the U.S. Constitution and the form of government it would provide if adhered to?
     
  8. NewAgeHippie92

    NewAgeHippie92 Member

    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not all three of them all want the same thing.
     
  9. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    Of course not, but none the less the three are all involved.
     
  10. NewAgeHippie92

    NewAgeHippie92 Member

    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    You implied that only one of those entities has the power to govern the banks. Technically, the government as the law of the land has the ability to oversee bank activity, and banks are capable of overseeing themselves obviously, so both of them have that ability, but the public doesn't. The government and the public want to change the banking system, but the banks don't. See what I meant by that now?
     
  11. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    To try and clarify what I stated previously, only one of the entities has the power to mandate through regulations, or coercion, the operations of the banking system. Government can apply force to make banks do things they would rationally avoid, such as making loans available to persons they consider high risk, and more likely to default. Banks can, within the limits placed upon them by government rules and regulation oversee themselves, but then again so can the public, also within the the rules and regulations imposed upon them.

    The only problem I have with the banking system is when loans are made that are not repaid in full, and government bails them out rather than allowing them to fail. I'd much rather make changes in our government than our banks.
     
  12. RooRshack

    RooRshack On Sabbatical

    Messages:
    11,036
    Likes Received:
    550
    Individual, banks will not naturally act rationally, because they are not a single body and/or mind, just like any company or corporation. They get hijacked by individuals, and when this happens those individuals do the wrong thing to get rich, and throw their institution under the bus.

    The proof of this is easy to find-for example, banks COULD operate on higher or FULL cash reserves, but they CHOOSE not to, simply because no one makes them.
     
  13. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    Roo, I fail to see how banks were not acting rationally considering the government mandates imposed upon them.

    Banks, like any business have to compete with each other, and the choices they make are not simply of their own design, but have to take into consideration government regulations which require an undesirable amount of risk which may result in taking actions that would otherwise not be necessary.

    Government regulations set the required reserve ratio, not the banks themselves.
     
  14. 56olddog

    56olddog Member

    Messages:
    410
    Likes Received:
    3
    RooR:

    Actually some banks WILL and do act rationally -- usually the smaller ones with local stockholders and board members -- operating with higher than required cash reserves and making better decisions on loans.

    It seems plausible that the larger banks would also find it necessary to act more rationally and responsibly if there were no such thing as a bailout for them.

    A big problem for all lending institutions are the regulations derived from the FHAct and the ECOA (and other similar legislation) which encourage or even mandate loans to those less than or only marginally qualified and likely incapable of repayment of the loan. Such mandate has cost the US taxpayer billions without even considering the bailouts: loans to those less than fully qualified and incapable of repayment are many (if not most) times insured by an agency (pick one of several) of the federal government who, in cases of default and subsequent foreclosure, have been left holding a property worth less than what was owed on it, and finally disposing of it at even less than that. Making loans of the type mentioned also allows an institution to lower it's actual cash (liquid) reserves since any loss from such loan will be repaid by the government and, as such, may still be considered a "liquid" asset when in default.

    While not advocating a total lack of government regulation for banks and/or other lending institutions -- the mandating of loans to those incapable of repayment is one aspect of banking that the government should NOT be involved in.

    It should also be considered that the Federal Reserve actually encourages banks to operate at only the required minimum cash reserve as a means of "increasing" the money supply.

    As of March 2012, the EXCESS cash reserve of the US banking industry was approximately $1.5 trillion.

    FHA (Federal Housing Administration) which insures more than a trillion dollars in home mortgages, is required to keep a cash reserve of 2% of it's "projected loan LOSSES" -- in the last few months FHA reported that it's reserve was down to 0.24%.

    How does the federal government really need to be involved in the business of loaning money?
     
  15. RooRshack

    RooRshack On Sabbatical

    Messages:
    11,036
    Likes Received:
    550
    Yes, this in true, I don't think my local banks have any troubles at all. But that's because the larger something grows, the less accountable it becomes, and very rapidly so.

    I do agree that government should not mandate that loans be made to people who can't repay them, but the guys at the top all held hands to cause our current economic crisis an they got (and are still getting) rich on it. Politicians can "force" their banker friends to do things that make tremendous personal profits in the short term but ruin the country in the long term, and both can blame the other, while keeping some dialogue open about how the cooperation of the other is necessary.

    Individual, I understand that the government sets the limits, but if the bank is pushing the limits, that's evidence that we need MORE restrictions, not LESS restrictions. We did just establish that smaller institutions are often more accountable, but would you (being in favor of less regulation, and this being the ultimate regulation) favor a rule simply limiting the size of whatever given type of institution? Because when they get big they do push it because it benefits the guy making the call more, and he can jump clear more easily.
     
  16. 56olddog

    56olddog Member

    Messages:
    410
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ah.... yeah! But, isn't that what's wrong with most "MORE restrictions", i.e. more regulation -- it adds to the bureaucracy?


    :D
     
  17. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    Roo:

    I agree with you that "the larger something grows, the less accountable it becomes, and very rapidly so.", and that would be true of government also, if not more so.
     
  18. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672

    Indie



    No that is a money based system, you could have a communist system where money was used as a means of exchange.

    Look I’m not saying that debt/investment is the only characteristic of capitalism but it is one of the major characteristics, it is the basis by which it operates. It is about the use of capital, so if you loan or receive a loan you are part of that debt/investment capitalist system, if nobody lends or wants to borrow the system collapses. It would be difficult if not impossible for an entrepreneur that wasn’t rich to set up a company and it would be difficult or impossible for a company to grow and so on.



    As I’ve said it is not about you restating what they say it me wondering why you hold on to ideas that you are completely incapable of defending from criticism?

    Oh and again ignoring criticisms does not mean they go away – I and others have seen flaws in these ideas - not addressing those criticisms does not mean they go away.



    LOL you’ve tried to throw the ‘emotional’ claim at me many times and its always fallen flat on its face when looked at. But OK I never get tried of seeing someone fall flat on their face so again why are my ideas ‘emotional’?
     
  19. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672

    Indie



    You seem confused – it is you that claims that advantage must be earned that it is the responsibility of each individual citizen to acquire by their own efforts their needs and wants.

    It is a ‘natural’ process people with advantage earned that advantage and so deserve it and so are justified in having it and likewise those that find themselves in hardship deserve that position also because they too ‘earned’ it.

    This argument falls apart if advantage or disadvantage is unearned. If some people get advantages they didn’t earn and others are burdened with disadvantages they didn’t ‘earn’ then it isn’t a ‘natural’ system it is a structural system, an artificial system.

    Now such systems can be beneficial or harmful and can be changed to make them more beneficial or more harmful. It seems to me that you would want the system more harmful for the majority of people while I’d like to make it more beneficial.


     
  20. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672

    Indie



    Oh come on we have been through this many times – but here something I posted for letlovin above –

    Oh the Social Darwinist approach (you do know that Social Darwinism is a pseudoscience, in other words quackery, don’t you?)

    It argued that a person’s or groups social position had nothing to do with complex socio-economic factors and was simply a matter of ‘natural selection’. The disadvantaged were meant to be disadvantaged because they were inferior human beings and the advantaged were meant to be advantaged because they were superior to others.

    It was ‘natural’ just as in a baseball game the seven foot person would have the advantage over the shorter person. The socially advantaged were just the socially seven foot giants in a society made up mainly of pigmies.

    It was an idea much favoured and promoted by wealth and the wealthy because it seemed to justify their position and ideas.

    The argument went on that since it was ‘natural’ nothing could be done to help the disadvantaged rise from their ‘natural’ position; it was therefore no use spending tax money on social programmes meant to help them since they couldn’t be helped. This lead to the view of some that nothing should be done to hinder this ‘natural selection’ that the disadvantaged should be allowed to die out naturally rather than having their lives artificially extended through social programmes or healthcare, of course some go further and think that what they see as inferior people or groups should just be eliminated.

    So let us take what I said earlier about infant mortality and health, from the Social Darwinist standpoint the reason for higher levels of infant mortality and poor health amongst the lower classes compared to those at the top has nothing to do with socio-economic factors but is all down to the lower groups being of inferior stock.

    Of course Social Darwinism is hogwash, throughout history the advantaged have claimed some reason for their position, from it being down to divine will or better ‘breeding’.

    My view is that the ‘baseball game’ of life is between players of roughly the same potential, but that one always has the advantage of scoring into a basket that is much lower to the ground that the others. The game is rigged in favour of one group.

    That it is not a natural advantage but a structural advantage - which the advantaged do their best to keep.

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice