patrick.net

@Peter P,

How can RP be seen as “racist” ?

This is how: http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/ron-pauls.html

Anything to discredit an anti-war, anti-globalist, I suppose.

Well, apparently referring to crime statistics make one a racist, yet believing in "global warming" statistics makes one a good guy.

The fact that neo-cons and the extreme left are both maligning Ron Paul, is proof enough that they are scared of the ideas he represents.

And that is good enough for me.

proof enough that they are scared of the ideas he represents

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
--T. S. Eliot

One factor in BB's decision making is secondary gain, meaning, what does BB get out of all this. Assuming he's no altruistic Ghandi, which I think is a fair assumption, his decisions are powered by (a) a need to leave a positive legacy in the history books as Fed chair, and (b) the need to a job at the least, and lots of cash more likely after he's done at the Fed. This means either private sector consulting, or going back to academia. Given history, he's likely to go into consulting, meaning that he needs to keep the wheels greased on Wall Street for his post-Fed career.

Legacy-wise, that may be one reason he has not completely capitulated to WS and slashed and burned rates. Those guys clearly knew about the lousy CPI data before their rate decision vote. They couldn't risk slashing 50bp or more in light of bad inflation data. in that sense, it would make no sense for him to want to tank the US economy. He's really hosed, with no good options.

Not that they are doing that well now… Besides, consumer advocacy groups can do similar things at fraction of the cost.

I am a pragmatist at heart. If private companies can do it better/cheaper, let them do it. If the government can do it better/cheaper, let the government do it. However, there are some 'good' things private companies will do *only* if it's mandated by government, mainly because it's expensive and no company wants to 'go first' and be at a competitive disadvantage to other companies (e.g., pollution controls, product safety testing, etc.). And there are some 'bad' things they will do if it's not explicitly outlawed (e.g., using slave/child/illegal labor, >forcing 40-hour work weeks, unsafe working conditions, etc.).

And there are some ‘bad’ things they will do if it’s not explicitly outlawed (e.g., using slave/child/illegal labor...

If it is not outlawed then no one can hire illegal labor. ;)

I see what you are saying.

I agree with the assetion that any country with a credible milatary can tell any other nation to stuff their debt. However, the US sells its debt as Treasury Bonds and there is no way to say, "We are not honoring YOUR T-Bills, but we are honoring our own domestically owned T-Bills." Which is to say we can't affect the same options as places like Russia without facing a great deal of internal strife.
I kinda see the currency thing as pretty funny. China has set up a manufacture for export economy, partnered with the US and then pegged the yuan to our dollar. We buy goods today, then devaule our dollars effectively giving ourselves a big discount after the fact. China has as options to sell elsewhere or (more importantly) to sell more domestically. However, that means they need to pay themselves more and their formerly exported inflation becomes good 'ol domestic inflation. That is going to have a rather interesting negative effect on investment flowing to China.
Much like the articles that say "This bank is too big to fail" the US itself is too big for the world to allow to fail. For now. The foreign rescue dollars are flowing into our discounted industries (financials) because they must. If we go insolvent, woa to the world.
I would say that the rescue of the US will be currency devaluation, inflation, and 'the next big thing.' At a guess I would say that is more military sales, more super-computing tech sales, or something very interesting in bio-medical. Even Milken sees the cure to cancer as worth a few trillion. Vat-grown replacement organs can mean a lot to repatriating US dollars.
So, I am going to have to disagree. The day of the US economic hegenomy is not yet over. But we do need to close our wealth gap, we need MUCH better leadership, and let me throw in a pet favorite of mine, tort reform. The day US companies started spending mre money on lawsuit defense compared to R&D was a sad day indeed.

I donated to Ron Paul yesterday as well.

Imagine, for the next election, if the choices were Huckabee and Hillary. That is a very scary thought!

Those guys clearly knew about the lousy CPI data before their rate decision vote. They couldn’t risk slashing 50bp or more in light of bad inflation data.

That was exactly my reaction to the 25bp cut ! I was expecting at least 50bp, and much more for continued 'shock and awe' therapy. The 25bp clearly telegraphed a nasty CPI report. Even BB wouldn't like a basket of eggs splashed on his face.

I was also surprised that the Govt is allowing CPI to be reported as high. Shouldn't they be changing the calculation method now ?

I am with OO and HARM on the Ron Paul issue. He is completely impractical. I like Ayn Rand books, I agree to a lot of arguments. But I would never vote for someone so ... naive ... if you will. Political leaders should be pragmatic and shrewed.

Political leaders should be pragmatic and shrewed.

Naive?

What about devising policies as if human activities can really change the climate?

Oh BTW, Paulson supports Freddie mac and Fannie Mae buying jumbo loans

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aax4zzPqV9dk&refer=home

Apparently, he is proudly on the same page as Bendover Ben.

I think Ron Paul is very pragmatic and shrewd. SIBA, it is one thing to disagree but why do you indicate that you agree but think he is not shrewd or pragmatic?

Sriram :

SIBA, it is one thing to disagree but why do you indicate that you agree but think he is not shrewd or pragmatic?

This is from Wikipedia on Ron Paul
Having pledged never to raise taxes, he has long advocated ending the federal income tax and reducing government spending by abolishing most federal agencies; he favors hard money and opposes the Federal Reserve.

Ending federal tax ? Ending fiat money ? Why shouldn't I consider him impractical ? (NOTE : I am not arguing in favor or against his views.)

SIBA,

There are a lot of things that RP has stated that he believes in that he will not do as the highest priority once in power. He has been very open about that too.

He has said that once he becomes president he will focus on reforming the foreign policy, save money there - so that we will be actually able to afford the domestic spending.

For the various domestic programs, he understands that there are people who depend on them so we cannot get rid of them immediately but would give the option to opt-out for younger citizens.

And so on.

Also, he is just going to be the president, not the entire government. He will veto spending bills but congress and he will be in a deadlock most of the time, which is good.

His principles are sound. And if you read about how he plans to execute his policies, you will find them to be far more practical than you think.

Again, I don't agree with all he says but at this stage, this country needs a real change.

Also, for example, he might not be able end fiat money. But if he can curb all this money that is being created out of thin air, that itself would be a huge benefit to the economy.

@Duke,

Your idea that biotech can save us and give us a big export is good. I don't see however how we can advance our technology and science with the radical christian right stopping engineers and scientist, like myself, at every turn. Stem cells is a good modern example of an age old problem as old as man itself. We saw it with gallileo, Darwin, Einstein, Franklin, and Roslin Institute, all faced resistance from the "devine" right.

I believe in secularism! I don't think the rise of our Western Civilization was the result of Democracy or any other force. I believe it was the result of a secular society that asked lots of questions and was able to accept new ideas/thinking.

Until we control our American Taliban, we will never make fast advances in science/technology.

@Harm

Our military will be used to maintain the status quo, but I think it will fail. We have an all volunteer military that will find it harder and harder to get people to fight. Even if we revive the draft, we will fail. People with no heart in the fighting will save us. If Opec decides they want Euros instead of dollars, we will have no options. We will only piss the rest of the world off and drive any trade partners away.

The illegal war we wage in SW asia is costing us dearly. I don't think anyone will get enough political clout to start another illegal war for a long time.

Imagine, for the next election, if the choices were Huckabee and Hillary. That is a very scary thought!

If those were the choices, I would have to seriously consider voting for Hillary. And then I would go shoot myself.

The problem with Ron Paul is that he would have a Congress almost exclusively against him. So he wouldn't be able to get any of his platform enacted.

DennisN, I think you are right.

But, I would prefer that to a scenario where the congress and the president agree on a lot of things.

Absolute power = bad.
Checks and balances = good.

My biggest issue is Medicare, and I believe this is the biggest issue of many baby boomer and retiree voters.

What did Ron Paul offer so far? Tax write-offs? What about so many people who can never afford the payment, let alone having enough tax for write-off? What is the median income of the US household? $50K? What are the # of people uninsured? 40M. What are the typical insurance plan for $50K jobs? HMO piece-of-crap that is next to non-existent.

So what does Ron Paul offer for people who are either stuck in $50K jobs, or those without insurance? Mind you, these people are very likely the 20+s, new college grad whom people of my generation rely on for our retirement. None, not only that, he is going to take away the last resort for these people - government medical aid. I don't care how efficient the market will be, how is he going to tie over from where we are today to where the "efficient market" will be? How long does he think the transition is going to take, and how many people must die due to this grand social experiment?

He is also completely naive on international affairs. We Americans can enjoy a much higher standard of living precisely because we meddled with international businesses and grab an unfair share of resources, which is something fundamental to this country's future prosperity. The only thing wrong with the current international policy is, we are not doing it right. We should continue to be the world's police force, in a much more intelligent way. We don't do it by pissing everyone off, we do it by skillful trading, persuasion, effective propaganda. If America retreats, Russia and China will immediately advance to fill the void, and the consequence will be very devastating, much worse than the depreciation of USD.

All in all, I like his voice in the mix and I hope some of his input will be incorporated by the next President. But I will never ever have him as my President, an idealist should become an academia, not a politician.

A vision of 2009.....

Ron Paul sworn in as President. Congress - both Demitass and GOP - enact a veto-proof law making it a felony to be a Libertarian. The House impeaches and the Senate convicts Paul and his VP, and Speaker Pelosi becomes President. The Supreme Court declines cert on any appeal.

DennisN Says:
December 17th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
"The problem with Ron Paul is that he would have a Congress almost exclusively against him. So he wouldn’t be able to get any of his platform enacted."

The media would humiliate the Congress just as they did when Swarzenegger became governor. Fear of not being reelected by a new enlightened and invigorated population will make them cave. He would be a strong leader because he would be polarizing.

If anyone has an hour, here is a very nice video where his views are clearly made on almost every major issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

What are the typical insurance plan for $50K jobs? HMO piece-of-crap that is next to non-existent.

Bush has a great solution, namely catastrophe insurance and health spending accounts.

And yes, for those who have gotten to know me, I do believe in a hybrid economy but I don't see it as being incompatible with his economic model.

I firmly believe that there must be incentive for people to avoid non-essential health care.

Why visit a doctor just to be told to stay home? People are just way too paranoid about their bodies.

Hey Peter, what is the solution for an individual who has health insurance but exceeds the limits of the policy?

On a similar note, should there even be health insurance, or should an individual ever face being bankrupted by a health issue?

And hospital should charge for emergency room visits. Say, $250 cover charge. The charge can become a tax credit (not deduction) to avoid overburdening the poor.

Peter P,

We also need to repeal the FDA. Why should you have to go to a doctor - BY LAW - to get drugs you need? I already know I have high blood pressure, so why shouldn't I be able to go down to Costco and, without a prescription, buy what I need?

Peter P Says:
December 17th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
"Bush has a great solution, namely catastrophe insurance and health spending accounts."

Barring us adopting a Ron Paul type purely market driven system, I would have to say what you are miscategorizing as the Bush system is the type I would favor. It addresses both of our concerns, not using health care unnecessarily, and having a mechanism kick in when someone has a catastrophic issue.

Ron Paul has a very good answer on that link I posted regarding prescriptions.

Unlike RP, I don't trust private industry to police itself in the areas of safety or good citizenship.

Peter P Says:
December 17th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
"And hospital should charge for emergency room visits. Say, $250 cover charge. The charge can become a tax credit (not deduction) to avoid overburdening the poor."

But that is just masking a direct government payment which under a different form you would oppose.

Hey Peter, what is the solution for an individual who has health insurance but exceeds the limits of the policy?

I think catastrophe insurance can address this issue. The limits should be set very high (e.g. $5M) but the deductible should also be high (e.g. $5000 - $10000).

On a similar note, should there even be health insurance, or should an individual ever face being bankrupted by a health issue?

I believe so, unfortunately.

I am not entirely against a parallel health care system with basic services.

If Opec decides they want Euros instead of dollars, we will have no options.

If OPEC decides they want Euros, then there will be a booming trade in currency exchange (as we convert dollars to Euros, or dollars to Yen or Rubles, to buy oil). Or we might simply exercise our military/imperial 'option' and seize it outright. But I see little chance of either scenario happening. For all the hot rhetoric (Imperialist Zionist dogs!), I seriously doubt most OPEC countries (who depend on oil exports for their very existence) want a trade war with their biggest customer --the U.S.

But that is just masking a direct government payment which under a different form you would oppose.

To someone who works and pays tax, yes.

@SIBA,

I am not against RP, I just don't agree with his 'purist' Libertarian views/policies 100%.

OK buddy, but a catastrophic policy as you just described is exactly the type of MSA that you just called the Bush plan that you didn't like.