Rick Perry vs. Barack Obama

[mwalimu02]

Found this video amusing. And here's an article on the same topic. While I agree that Paul is unlikely to win the GOP nomination, why do the media think they have the right to decide for whom we should vote? The media's job is to report what's going on, not to selectively edit reality to fit their own agenda.

 

I totally agree, funny video BTW!

[mike777]

1) Of course the media has the right to decide who we should vote for. Just like we all do.

 

2) Of course the media has the right to selectively edit reality to fit their own agenda. Just like we all do.

 

Just because you are media does not mean you dont have rights or you lose rights.

 

I totally disagree with you guys about rights.

[Winstonm]

I once saw David Copperfield make an entire 747 disappear on t.v. and was impressed, but this is a jaw-dropper!

 

Gingrich Makes Entire Nation Disappear!

 

In an interview released today by The Jewish Channel (TJC), Republican Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich sought to court the pro-Israel vote by claiming that not only do the Palestinians not deserve a state, but that they are an “invented people” made up simply to make things tough on Israel

 

I wonder if he has an "N" scar on his forehead?

[luke warm]

do you have a link for that quote? that's not exactly what he said

[hrothgar]

do you have a link for that quote? that's not exactly what he said

 

"Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we've have invented the Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and are historically part of the Arab community, and they had the chance to go many places. These people are terrorists. They teach terrorism in their schools. They have textbooks that say, if there are 13 Jews and nine Jews are killed, how many Jews are left? We pay for those textbooks through our aid money. It's fundamentally time for somebody to have the guts to stand up and say, enough lying about the Middle East."

[Winstonm]

GOP Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is proposing a massive tax cut aimed at the highest earning American households. Gingrich’s plan would add about $1 trillion to the federal deficit in a single year.

[PassedOut]

GOP Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is proposing a massive tax cut aimed at the highest earning American households. Gingrich’s plan would add about $1 trillion to the federal deficit in a single year.

Even worse than the Paul Ryan Free Lunch Plan.

[luke warm]

GOP Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is proposing a massive tax cut aimed at the highest earning American households. Gingrichs plan would add about $1 trillion to the federal deficit in a single year.

hmmm, not bad... that's less than the approx 3 year, $4T increase under obama, eh? of course, it goes without saying that bush/cheney (under whose watch the deficit rose $4.9T in EIGHT years) was the reason

[hrothgar]

hmmm, not bad... that's less than the approx $4T under obama, eh? of course, it goes without saying that bush/cheney was the reason

 

Who said you can't teach an idiot new tricks?

Jimmy may have actually learned something...

Be still my beating heart.

[JLOGIC]

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

[cherdano]

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

Hmph. While in some ways Ron Paul is the only sane candidate, his insanities are just too mind-boggling. I mean, a president's power is limited and he can't prevent a recession. Implementing Ron Paul's ideas would certainly cause one, however.

[luke warm]

Who said you can't teach an idiot new tricks?

not me... i've seen you learn lots of new tricks

[blackshoe]

Hmph. While in some ways Ron Paul is the only sane candidate, his insanities are just too mind-boggling. I mean, a president's power is limited and he can't prevent a recession. Implementing Ron Paul's ideas would certainly cause one, however.

 

Are you 100% certain of that? Why?

[hrothgar]

not me... i've seen you learn lots of new tricks

Jimmy, jimmy, jimmy

 

When someone insinuates that you are an idiot "no you are" isn't a particularly effective response.

Nor is a posting history which is (essentially) restricted to one line posts using one or two syllable words.

 

In all seriousness, when was the last time that you even tried to make a positive contribution to a thread?

Why do you bother to visit a stick around on a site where you do nothing but post pissy little comments?

 

Is your life really so empty that this passed for entertainment or masquerades as a social life?

[kenberg]

Not exactly on the presidential race but I am stewing about the probable non-event of the government shutdown on Friday.

My view:

Not only is the government not to be shut down on Friday but we are never again to reach a Wednesday where it is unclear whether the government might be shut down on Friday. Every member of the House and the Senate should make a short speech apologizing to the nation, acknowledge that they are clearly not up to the demands of their job, and announce that they will not be running for re-election. All this macho let's see who blinks first stuff is getting really old.

[Cthulhu D]

Are you 100% certain of that? Why?

 

Unless you buy into the Austrian school of economics, which most analysis does not, his proposal to ban fractional reserve banking is either unworkable or insane. For example - he's proposing the government would ban you from borrowing $10 from one friend, then lending $10 to another - which is not workable and certainly in conflict with the rest of his stated ideals. However, if he did implement this, the resultant credit crunch would be of unimaginable proportions. It's almost impossible to ascertain what the impact of this would be, but it would likely require withdrawing in excess of $1 trillion from the economy, and likely much more than that (up to $6 trillion). The deflationary impact and credit crunch would be vast. It would almost certainly cause a recession, but it's hard to say for certain because no-one has considered doing anything this big ever.

 

However, the funniest part of his record is that he published a news letter entitled "Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" which shows a considered lack of judgement at best. Also publishing something under your name where it is suggested that you'll never be able to catch a purse snatcher because 'black men are so fleet of foot' is equally poorly judged whether you wrote it or not. Same for publishing a headline under your name: 'Animal's take over the D.C. Zoo.' This is an extremely poorly judged choice of words when talking about predominately black urban unrest in the D.C. area.

 

As an Australian I'm all in favour of ron paul getting elected and the no doubt hilarious consequences.

[blackshoe]

For example - he's proposing the government would ban you from borrowing $10 from one friend, then lending $10 to another - which is not workable and certainly in conflict with the rest of his stated ideals.

 

I stopped reading right there, because I don't believe this for one second.

[Cthulhu D]

I stopped reading right there, because I don't believe this for one second.

 

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

 

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

[Winstonm]

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

 

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

 

Technically, this isn't quite right. On a very simplistic model, the bank takes a $10 deposit from person A and then can use that $10 reserve to lend persons b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i, and j $10 each, reserving only a fraction of the money lent.

 

They can do this because not all of the reserve deposits will ever be pulled out all at once (a bank run) and therefore they can charge interest which allows them to pay interest instead of charging you to keep your money in the bank.

 

The problems with banking are not related to fractional reserve lending, which is a plus to depositors. The problems have been the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which allowed depositor banks to merge with investment banks to make too big to fail enterprises that gambled with investments but still held deposits that were FDIC insured, and then the Fed allowing some of those to gamble recklessly by removing the 12-1 leverage limit on their investments, creating situations were places like Bear-Stearns and Lehman Brothers were leveraged 30-1 or 40-1, and allowing derivatives to be traded without regulation and oversight, allowing AIG to take on counterparty risk while failing to maintain adequate loss reserves (which would happen in the insurance business, which is essentially what AIG was selling with its credit default swaps.)

 

The fractional reserve argument is a strawman the gold bugs produce. Gold is nothing more than a shiny metal. Money is a representation of labor, either intellectual or physical.

 

The two are often confused, especially by some pseudo-Austrians.

[hrothgar]

I stopped reading right there,

 

BTW, I am still waiting for a response on the following:

 

Why should the regulatory state step in and prevent banks from engaging in fractional reserve lending?

 

Surely you, as an independent investor, have the ability to discern between banks that engage in fractional reserve lending and those who don't. Moreover, you can certainly choose not to invest your hard earned dollars in banks that engage in this type of risky behavior.

 

In what way does this type of government interference in the free market further liberty?

 

Or, alternatively, perhaps there isn't anything wrong with government intervention so long as you're intervening in the "right" sort of way.

 

Intervening to deal with externalities like pollution = bad

Intervening in favor of crank Austrian theories about business cycles = good

[hrothgar]

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

 

I'm definitely not a Ron Paul fan.

 

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

 

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/recuse-yourself-chris-wallace.html

[blackshoe]

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

 

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

 

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

[hrothgar]

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

 

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

 

1. The evolution of banking in (essentially) all of the developed world

2. The way a wide variety of other industries do business

 

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

 

Fractional reserve banking is what allows banks to pay interest for your deposits.

(If banks can't lend funds they have no source of income with which to pay interest)

Without fractional reserve banking people would need to pay bankers to store / safeguard their funds.

 

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

 

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

 

For example, insurance companies don't maintain large enough reserves to pay out each and every policy holder if everything goes bust all at once.

Airlines regularly oversell seats on airlines.

(I can go on and on and on...)

 

These companies base their entire business models on managing uncertainty.

This is part and parcel of the modern world.

And the reason that this is here (and other systems aren't) is that this works better than the alternatives.

 

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

 

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

 

In this example you are insisting that the evil regulatory state knows better than the individual...

The state needs to ban fractional reserve banking because individuals can't be trusted to resist fat interest payments on their checking accounts.

 

What makes this case so special?

[Winstonm]

I'm definitely not a Ron Paul fan.

 

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

 

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/recuse-yourself-chris-wallace.html

 

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

[Winstonm]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

American Exceptionalism - don't leave home without it.