Started By
Message
locked post

Nutjob Ron Paul on this bailout mess

Posted on 11/27/08 at 8:20 pm
Posted by 8thyearsenior
Centennial, CO
Member since Mar 2006
4280 posts
Posted on 11/27/08 at 8:20 pm
quote:

We must remember that governments do not produce anything. Their only resources come from producers in the economy through such means as inflation and taxation. The government has an obligation to be good stewards of these resources. In bailing out failing companies, they are confiscating money from productive members of the economy and giving it to failing ones. By sustaining companies with obsolete or unsustainable business models, the government prevents their resources from being liquidated and made available to other companies that can put them to better, more productive use. An essential element of a healthy free market, is that both success and failure must be permitted to happen when they are earned. But instead with a bailout, the rewards are reversed – the proceeds from successful entities are given to failing ones. How this is supposed to be good for our economy is beyond me.


LINK

Damn good thing we didn't elect this guy President, his ideas make way too much sense.
Posted by TheDoc
doc is no more
Member since Dec 2005
99297 posts
Posted on 11/27/08 at 8:25 pm to
yeah that guy is such a kook



the media has a crazy amount of control over who gets elected.
Posted by Cash
Vail
Member since Feb 2005
37635 posts
Posted on 11/27/08 at 9:02 pm to
He has some good ideas.
Posted by Colonel Hapablap
Mostly Harmless
Member since Nov 2003
28791 posts
Posted on 11/27/08 at 9:07 pm to
The problem with Paul is that he goes straight past the problem and over the cliff of kookdom. Yes he thinks the bailouts were bad - and they are - but his ultimate solutions are stupid and/or unworkable.
Posted by Rivers
Florida
Member since Nov 2008
3256 posts
Posted on 11/27/08 at 9:24 pm to
And more from Ron Paul...as he points out, few congress critters understand the economy...most were trained in law and spend lots of their time on the next election. Congress has abdicated it's oversight. The Treasury/Fed are flying solo.

'At least 90% of the cause for the financial crisis can be laid at the doorstep of the Federal Reserve. It is the manipulation of credit, the money supply, and interest rates that caused the various bubbles to form. Congress added fuel to the fire by various programs and institutions like the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, FDIC, and HUD mandates, which were all backed up by aggressive court rulings.

Except for a rare few, Members of Congress are unaware of Austrian Free Market economics. For the last 80 years, the legislative, judiciary and executive branches of our government have been totally influenced by Keynesian economics. If they had had any understanding of the Austrian economic explanation of the business cycle, they would have never permitted the dangerous bubbles that always lead to painful corrections.'
Posted by prplhze2000
Parts Unknown
Member since Jan 2007
58334 posts
Posted on 11/27/08 at 10:35 pm to
Reagan, Armey, Gramm.

all had something in common. guess what it is.
Posted by clamdip
Rocky Mountain High
Member since Sep 2004
21710 posts
Posted on 11/27/08 at 10:45 pm to

I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, but the quote you provided is nothing but common sense. That is a rarity on Capitol Hill.
Posted by TigerinATL
Member since Feb 2005
62446 posts
Posted on 11/28/08 at 8:01 am to
quote:

the media has a crazy amount of control over who gets elected.


Forget his presidential aspirations, where has he gotten air time since all this unfolded besides CSPAN?
Posted by Rivers
Florida
Member since Nov 2008
3256 posts
Posted on 11/28/08 at 8:05 am to
I don't agree with all of his political concepts but I think he, for the most part, right about the economy.
Posted by chopsigep
Port City
Member since Sep 2006
274 posts
Posted on 11/28/08 at 10:34 am to
he didnt even get much airtime during the primary.
I love how we are spoonfed the media annointed candidates each year
Posted by Gridiron Guru
Lafayette
Member since Nov 2007
1441 posts
Posted on 11/28/08 at 11:53 am to
quote:

The problem with Paul is that he goes straight past the problem and over the cliff of kookdom. Yes he thinks the bailouts were bad - and they are - but his ultimate solutions are stupid and/or unworkable.
Normally Colonel I agree with your posts. In this case, however, you are totally wrong. The only reason Paul's solutions are unworekable now is because we have already gone over the cliff economically as a nation. It is only a matter of time now before the whole monetary system of the US is depleted & the defaults on US treasury bonds begins to take place. We are taking all the money that other world banks & our owm citizens retirement, pension, & 401k plans are now hiding in & using it to prop up failing mismanaged institutions. When this default begins & it will, the dollar will very quickly become worthless. This is all due to a knee jerk reaction by congress, the Fed & our Treasury Dept.
Posted by kfizzle85
Member since Dec 2005
22022 posts
Posted on 11/28/08 at 1:09 pm to
The US will not default. Our debt is in dollars. Might we have to monetize? Yes, but unless the Treasury agrees to sell non-dollar denominated bonds, we won't actually default. I completely agree with Colonel, and Paul's solutions are as equally unworkable in a booming economy as they are in a deteriorating one. The bottom line is that he is an Austrian purist. Minimizing government intervention/effects on economic transactions/decisions is great, but you can't eliminate the government altogether. There's a word for that, it's called anarchy.
Posted by Gridiron Guru
Lafayette
Member since Nov 2007
1441 posts
Posted on 11/29/08 at 12:52 am to
quote:

The US will not default
quote:

I completely agree with Colonel, and Paul's solutions are as equally unworkable in a booming economy as they are in a deteriorating one.
What a genius you are. First you say the US will not default, By what logic do you guarantee this stupid arse statement? Is it because we have so much debt we are quickly approaching the point where we will not even be able to pay the interest on our debt even at a one percent yield? Now I don't know what you consider default, but if you can't even pay the interest on your debt & you get a margin call as a nation & other countries want their own money back or gold in return for what you owe & you can't pay, therefore they refuse to send goods or commidities for trade any more, that is what I consider default. It can happen & if we do not stop the rediculous spending it will definitely happen.
Posted by Gridiron Guru
Lafayette
Member since Nov 2007
1441 posts
Posted on 11/29/08 at 1:02 am to
quote:

Paul's solutions are as equally unworkable in a booming economy as they are in a deteriorating one
Which solutions? The ones where everyone pays their debt or the one where the government quits stealing our retirements & seling us down the drain to prop up failing institutions that will only fail & bring us all down with them? Since you are sucn a financil genius can you give us some examples of how this is unsound management?
Posted by Gridiron Guru
Lafayette
Member since Nov 2007
1441 posts
Posted on 11/29/08 at 1:08 am to
quote:

Paul's solutions are as equally unworkable in a booming economy
Of couse they are. That's because of idiots like you who saw no need to address our debt while the economy was booming. That was exactly the time to address our debt. Instead we kept letting the banks leverage themselves beyond any means of protecting themselves & use that money to lend to the least able or interested in our society to pay it back.
Posted by kfizzle85
Member since Dec 2005
22022 posts
Posted on 11/29/08 at 5:36 am to
quote:

By what logic do you guarantee this stupid arse statement?


See: debt denominated in dollars.

quote:

Is it because we have so much debt we are quickly approaching the point where we will not even be able to pay the interest on our debt even at a one percent yield?


No, its because our debt is denominated in dollars. Until that fact changes, the U.S. will not default. This is pretty simply economics man.

quote:

Now I don't know what you consider default, but if you can't even pay the interest on your debt & you get a margin call as a nation & other countries want their own money back or gold in return for what you owe & you can't pay, therefore they refuse to send goods or commidities for trade any more, that is what I consider default.


You really need to go look up what the significance is of having the dollar as the worldwide reserve currency and why that is important to a possible U.S. default.

quote:

Which solutions? The ones where everyone pays their debt or the one where the government quits stealing our retirements & seling us down the drain to prop up failing institutions that will only fail & bring us all down with them?


The ones where the government has 0 intervention and the country can collapse because of a financial mishap. If he had his way, there would be not Fed and no FDIC. That would not have prevented the current problems, but you can bet your arse it would be a hell of a lot worse if there wasn't something to prevent bank runs and insure bank deposits.

quote:

Since you are sucn a financil genius can you give us some examples of how this is unsound management?


I have no idea what this means. No one suggested that paying off personal debt was "unsound management," or that government bailouts are inherently good things. If you can slow your roll for a second and read my post, you will clearly see that I agree with his opinion on government bailouts (I've never met a person who thinks bailouts are good to begin with) The point about paying off debt is fricking common sense, if you needed Ron Paul to tell you that, you've got other issues.

He is too ideological. I don't want to give Citigroup a bailout, but the downside risk of letting them implode is much worse alternative. I'd rather pay for peoples' frickups rather than spiral into chaos, but that's just me.

quote:

That's because of idiots like you who saw no need to address our debt while the economy was booming.


You mean like some kind of oversight of the non-depository banking system/shadow banking system that created the bulk of the subprime and alt-a mortgages? Right?

quote:

Instead we kept letting the banks leverage themselves beyond any means of protecting themselves



So you're saying that we should have regulated those institutions better, and not allowed them to lever so far out of control, right?

Given Paul's stance on regulation (also known as government intervention), I would imagine he would disagree with you.
This post was edited on 11/29/08 at 5:41 am
Posted by Colonel Hapablap
Mostly Harmless
Member since Nov 2003
28791 posts
Posted on 11/29/08 at 8:39 am to
I'm mostly referring to stupid shite like going back to the gold standard or eliminating the federal reserve.

The ideas of things like reducing spending to balance the budget are sound policy. But as I said before, he takes that stuff and runs with it over a cliff into the stupid shite mentioned above.
Posted by Fat Man
Gotta Luv Cov ... ington
Member since Jan 2006
7155 posts
Posted on 11/29/08 at 11:17 am to
quote:

The US will not default. Our debt is in dollars.


Does this mean we would simply print our way out of it, thereby devaluing our currency to nil.

quote:

Might we have to monetize?


I don't know what this means. Is there a simple answer or a link to explain.

quote:

Yes, but unless the Treasury agrees to sell non-dollar denominated bonds,


What't to stop them? Seems to me anything is possible. Soc Sec, bankrupt. Medicare, bankrupt. Bears Stearns, dead. Niedermeyer, dead.

A small minority of a society being taxed to provide services for a large majority appears to where we're headed, if not already there.

My real interest here is: IF we're headed for defaults on treasuries, where should one place a percentage of one's assets?

Posted by kfizzle85
Member since Dec 2005
22022 posts
Posted on 11/29/08 at 1:47 pm to
quote:

Does this mean we would simply print our way out of it, thereby devaluing our currency to nil.


Unfortunately. Yes, this is what monetization of debt is. LINK ][LINK]

quote:


What't to stop them?


Nothing, but we'd have to agree to it first, and I doubt the Treasury is going to start offering bonds in yen just because Japan asks them to (and they have). They're not going to give up the advantage they have. Right now there is strong demand, both domestic and foreign, for treasuries, agencies, and fdic backed bank debt, so it isn't an immediate concern. In May or June, after they've issued another couple hundred billion, that may be a different story, but a decrease in demand wouldn't mean a default, it would just make the issuance that much more expensive.

quote:

My real interest here is: IF we're headed for defaults on treasuries, where should one place a percentage of one's assets?



Although I am apparently a financial genius, I don't think there is an answer to this. The world is in an economic and monetary race to the bottom. I am of the opinion that China is much more likely to default or revalue the RMB before the U.S. or the EU does. LINK ][LINK]
Posted by Fat Man
Gotta Luv Cov ... ington
Member since Jan 2006
7155 posts
Posted on 11/29/08 at 2:10 pm to
quote:

Although I am apparently a financial genius,


simply a prerequisite to post on this Board.

quote:

I don't think there is an answer to this.


Neither did I. just thought I'd ask.

quote:

The world is in an economic and monetary race to the bottom.


I guess that pretty much sums it up.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram