Ron Paul Money Bomb 6/5/11

It's ironic when people blame and get mad at speculators for rising prices, but never when speculation leads to falling prices (which happens quite often as well).

According to the IEA, Speculation is *not* the cause of high oil/gas prices:

Oil price spike: Speculators aren't to blame - Chicago Tribune

"Wall Street's fanaticism with the bottom line compels companies to source production overseas to increase profit margins."

Outsourcing isn't necessarily a bad thing, and free trade benefits all in the long run. Protectionism does not. Outsourcing comes as a consequence of a labor wage bubble, partially driven by unions. This past recession is the only recession in US history in which wages continued to rise, not fall. That tells me wages are too high, and is also party of why unemployment is so high.
 


papajohn56 said:
Government made laws forcing banks to lend to unqualified borrowers just to artificially increase the rate of home ownership. Banks were not happy with this, and as such, default swaps and other scary securities were created to monetize the forced bullshit.
Click to expand...

Come on man. You don't really think 'banks were not happy with this.' Where do you get that? Some financial ceo sitting on a beach outside his ninth house in the Seychelles? You're going to believe a Wall Street fat cat who laughed all the way to the bank after their cronies Paulson and Bernanke basically blackmailed Congress? You make it sound like their hands were forced. 'Please don't make us profit and make money from these new regulations. We have nothing to do with it, we promise!'

It's the other way around man. Wall Street needs assets to feed into their speculative black hole. They push the government to deregulate their own industry so they can use these insane securities for whatever they want, including wage war on other countries by attacking their currencies through bond markets and elsewhere, which helps to prop up the dollar. CDSs are weapons of financial and economic warfare, used both domestically and internationally.

Then the banks pay for or usually just blackmail douchbags like Barney Frank to wave in front of people and spout the silly nonsense they spout so the people will have someone to be mad at.
 
papajohn56 said:
It's ironic when people blame and get mad at speculators for rising prices, but never when speculation leads to falling prices (which happens quite often as well).
Click to expand...

Point taken, although we haven't experienced an extreme to the opposite end of the spectrum in a long time, which is just as devastating to international trade.


According to the IEA, Speculation is *not* the cause of high oil/gas prices:

Oil price spike: Speculators aren't to blame - Chicago Tribune
Click to expand...

There is more oil available than the oil companies know what to do with. They couldn't keep up with supply if they quadrupled production. But of course they're not going to do that. They're going to continue capping wells, not building refineries, and telling people that China's taking all the oil.

And how convenient that the IEA is out shilling for the peak oil scam, keeping the justification for high prices alive for the oil cartel.
 
There are some misinformed opinions by intelligent folks in this thread. There are also emotionally driven opinions by stupid* people.

Regarding minimum wage, I'll drop a few links for anyone with time and interest:

Economics in One Lesson | Foundation for Economic Education

Mythology of the Minimum Wage - D.W. MacKenzie - Mises Daily

The Minimum Wage, Discrimination, and Inequality - Art Carden - Mises Daily



* I don't mean ignorant. I mean stupid. Ignorance can be cured by education. Stupidity should be ignored, for it's a waste of time.
 
papajohn56 said:
Government made laws forcing banks to lend to unqualified borrowers just to artificially increase the rate of home ownership. Banks were not happy with this,
Click to expand...

Why were banks not subject to these laws also doing the same type of lending?


copy and pasting myself from a few weeks ago :


Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That suggests it was a lot more complicated.

And according to this :

The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977. The CRA was weakened in the 2000s, yet subprime lending intensified. Mortgage companies beyond the reach of the CRA were doing most of the subprime lending.


"It's telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That's because CRA didn't bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA -- or any federal regulator. Law didn't make them lend. The profit motive did."
 
Scococo said:
What do you want, a fuckin cookie?

The simple facts are that social mobility in the US is among worst in the western world. Which in turn suggests getting "out da ghetto" isn't as simple as "durrr, just work hardz."

Government isn't just about welfare payments.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the type of nimrods making money over at digitalpoint lately? There's not many people here in the United States that couldn't go into their local library and turn their circumstances around. But they're not motivated to, because what they need is provided for them.

And we wonder here in the United States why our youth are so God Damn rude. It's because they've been brought up expecting people to give things to them. They should make it so that if you want to take any money from my paycheck, because you can't get a job, then you need to come over here and mow my fucking lawn.
 
It's funny because RP has already won. Even if he fails to get the nomination his ideas have reached so many people and are spreading like wildfire. He went from polling between 2-7% in the last primary to polling over 10% and within reach of the front runner. It doesn't matter if he wins, it's just one battle in a long war and he's already shown a lot of force.

And personally I don't care if there are misinformed people who think the Welfare state is the way to go. Fuck'm- there are plenty of people who have done their research and understand that moving away from big government is the only thing that will make this country strong again. And that number is growing exponentially because the ideas of RP are so incredibly sensible.
 
I tend to stay out of these political debates because I'm not a politician or an economist. But to me it comes down to a simple mentality. When I was growing up I was considered "poverty" level. My parents made a combined income of just $11,000 a year. We didn't have central air, a television, and the heater was an open flame gas unit in the living room of our 450sq ft house. My parents busted ass working below minimum wage jobs, 2 jobs each and still managed to support my brother and I. We ate hotdogs and beans 7 days a week because we couldn't afford anything more. Our clothes were hand me downs from 3 generations ago (I was wearing my granpa's old shirts.) Yet somehow, and no thanks to the goverment (we were above handouts because we were just poor, not disabled) we made it out of poverty because my parents worked hard, scrimped, and saved and would do anything for a better life. Keep in mind my parents weren't educated people, they didn't even have high school degrees ... both dropped out in the 10th grade .. but what they did have was a good work ethic and a feeling of shame for taking a hand out. They taught me to be an entrepreneur, and make money instead of sucking off everyone's tit. They taught me that everything I could ever want was in my reach if I put in the effort, lost the sleep, and made it happen. 10 years later they are upper middle class business owners.

Fast forward to today. I have several friends who are considered "poor" and "in poverty" by government standards. They live in a 3 bedroom 1300 sq ft home, although its a piece of shit house, it's mostly because they don't take care of it. They have 2 LCD televisions, cable tv, 2 late model vehicles, central air and they get a check from the government every single month rain or shine (thanks tax payers!). They always complain about money, tell me how lucky I am to "be rich" (because god blessed me, and I came out of the womb with fists full of dollars) and generally bitch and moan about their poverty stricken existence and how I have it so easy because my parents are "rich." I constantly try to get them to start businesses, offer to give them side work to help make extra money ... but the fact is they don't want it. To put it in the words of one of them ... "Man I don't wanna do anything when I get off work, I'd want to drink a cold beer and watch TV" (direct quote). And to quote another "If I make too much I won't qualify for my government benefits, I don't want lose my benefits" (direct quote). They have more than what they need, their life is taken care of ... they just want more on someone elses dime. They want what I have without putting in any of the effort. This is why I will vote Ron Paul every time regardless of whether he loses. This is why I consider myself I libertarian. The rich get richer because the poor are complacent. The rich work tirelessly to get richer while the poor work tirelessly to get poorer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: music4mic
cheshire said:
I tend to stay out of these political debates because I'm not a politician or an economist. But to me it comes down to a simple mentality. When I was growing up I was considered "poverty" level. My parents made a combined income of just $11,000 a year. We didn't have central air, a television, and the heater was an open flame gas unit in the living room of our 450sq ft house. My parents busted ass working below minimum wage jobs, 2 jobs each and still managed to support my brother and I. We ate hotdogs and beans 7 days a week because we couldn't afford anything more. Our clothes were hand me downs from 3 generations ago (I was wearing my granpa's old shirts.) Yet somehow, and no thanks to the goverment (we were above handouts because we were just poor, not disabled) we made it out of poverty because my parents worked hard, scrimped, and saved and would do anything for a better life. Keep in mind my parents weren't educated people, they didn't even have high school degrees ... both dropped out in the 10th grade .. but what they did have was a good work ethic and a feeling of shame for taking a hand out. They taught me to be an entrepreneur, and make money instead of sucking off everyone's tit. They taught me that everything I could ever want was in my reach if I put in the effort, lost the sleep, and made it happen. 10 years later they are upper middle class business owners.

Fast forward to today. I have several friends who are considered "poor" and "in poverty" by government standards. They live in a 3 bedroom 1300 sq ft home, although its a piece of shit house, it's mostly because they don't take care of it. They have 2 LCD televisions, cable tv, 2 late model vehicles, central air and they get a check from the government every single month rain or shine (thanks tax payers!). They always complain about money, tell me how lucky I am to "be rich" (because god blessed me, and I came out of the womb with fists full of dollars) and generally bitch and moan about their poverty stricken existence and how I have it so easy because my parents are "rich." I constantly try to get them to start businesses, offer to give them side work to help make extra money ... but the fact is they don't want it. To put it in the words of one of them ... "Man I don't wanna do anything when I get off work, I'd want to drink a cold beer and watch TV" (direct quote). And to quote another "If I make too much I won't qualify for my government benefits, I don't want lose my benefits" (direct quote). They have more than what they need, their life is taken care of ... they just want more on someone elses dime. They want what I have without putting in any of the effort. This is why I will vote Ron Paul every time regardless of whether he loses. This is why I consider myself I libertarian. The rich get richer because the poor are complacent. The rich work tirelessly to get richer while the poor work tirelessly to get poorer.
Click to expand...


Well said and +rep. Out of all the people I know that the government would consider wealthy, only 1 is "old money." Everyone else has worked their asses off to achieve a goal or a dream.
 
Scococo said:
"Government is still the cause of why it's hard to get out of the ghetto"

Eh, no.

Under Ron Paul's world of liberty, where will these poorer kids get educated? It sure as hell isn't a state school. Seriously libertarians, how is privatisation of schools on impoverished areas going to help social mobility? Great start in life, they'll get out the ghetto fo sho!

If you think there will be a greater chance of anyone climbing the social ladder under a Libertarian "government" you're deluded.
Click to expand...


Last night, I accompanied a high school senior (who is a part of a youth program I volunteer for) to a scholarship dinner, because her parents are useless and she needed someone to be there in the place of her family.

Her mother is an addict, abusive, and does very little for her. Despite her shitty home environment, she gets straight A's and works her ass off in school. She was accepted into pretty much every school in the state. Because of this, she is rewarded with generous scholarships like the one she received last night.

Where does the money come from? Private businesses in the community.

Is every kid going to be able to pull that off? No. I'm sorry to say it, but not every kid should be sent off to college in the first place. In many cases they just end up accruing debt and end up working in occupations they could have started after high school or a trade school. Then they're not only in debt but also have to play catch-up.
 
Interesting philosophical discussion.

It is important to note that the state cannot do anything without taking from the private sector. So whether the state creates schools, or the private sector creates schools, in both circumstances, the private sector is paying for it.

The questions then become;

1. Is the government the ideal entity to create and manage schools?

2. Should educational institutions, theories and opportunities be competitive or one-size-fits-all?

And all of this presumes that formal education is useful for anything but being a great corporate monkey worker for some large company.

The way to help the poor is always to remove the barriers in the way. Public education and dependence on the state hurts the poor, and it is INTENDED to hurt the poor, because the state is fundamentally owned and operates for the elite, and reducing social mobility assists the elite class, of which politicians are one group. Competition is bad for the people in power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JakeStratham
I'm just waiting for the WF economists to get into public administration and start spreading their "insider knowledge" that the rest of global society apparently does not have.

Apparently socialist ideas can only work in CERTAIN countries, BUT DEFINITELY NOT HERE IN THE U.S....pure blasphemy. Nonsense commie stuff...just basic guys...CANNOT WORK HERE. and THAT IS THAT folks. Nothing to see here, go over to them friken other developed countries ya socialists....

Americaaaaah...YEAAHHHHH. We don't need no stinkin handouts!

Gotta love different viewpoints, especially when they go against everything happening in our current everyday reality in TONS of developed nations. Interesting stuff here. So should we liberals just take your guys insider knowledge on the subject and accept that you do indeed know what is good and/or right for people in low income areas/minorities, etc?

You are stating that you do in fact know for sure WHAT IS THE RIGHT AND CORRECT THING TO DO. While at the same time, calling other people "ignorant". Could by chance, you libertarians etc POSSIBLY be incorrect in your assumptions about the what is the best direction for this country?

I don't quite understand where the whole "SURE BET"/"SURE THING"/general arrogance on the issue comes from, from people on the libertarian side of things. Why does your beliefs and personal experiences/living situations/working situations/beliefs based on your academic background/work background/etc have to be the best thing for other people in situations across this nation that you don't know? You guys should run for public office if you are so sure of your beliefs and their effects on our society here in the U.S., seriously...help a lot of less fortunate folks out....of course we don't want to give them handouts or anything though....don't want to ultimately be detrimental or anything.
 
Also, do any of you guys HONESTLY believe that the U.S. will not eventually "socialize" A LOT of areas that we don't currently? I'm not asking whether or not you agree with it...

Like, I legitimately do not see how it will NOT happen. People are waking up to the world around them in this country, and I'm not referring to the Tea Party gatherings.

Also, what do you guys think about all of the leaders/academics/admin etc in some of these more socialized developed countries? Are they just IGNORANT to the overall effects of their socialist policies and how they're ultimately detrimental to their lower-income/impoverished citizens? Is that your honest belief?

I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from, so maybe I can understand your "general arrogance" about these issues whenever they come up on here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom