patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,363,418 comments by 15,735 users - Glock-n-Load, Tenpoundbass online now
« First « Previous Comments 31 - 42 of 42 Search these comments
uomo_senza_nome
2011 Oct 20, 4:45am
Central Banking = price fixing
To be more precise, fixing the price of money
price of money = interest rate
Without any intervention, interest rate demonstrates the willingness of market participants to part with their money for a duration to earn return.
uomo_senza_nome
2011 Oct 20, 4:48am
We are to blame for taking our responsibility for granted, but these people do not represent who we are, only how we have failed.
well said.
I doubt such a longstanding power structure will let him near the white house.
yep, common sense is not beneficial to the elite.
Vicente
2011 Oct 20, 5:36am
May be we should think about whether we can afford to fight wars or to improve the quality of life domestically. May be we should rethink priorities, rather than bossing around.
Actually I agree with you. However, consider this. Most people when they say they want to end our current wars, do not actually mean they want to slash the WAR MACHINE to the bone. They want the troops to come home and have a period of quiet. However they by and large would not agree with decimating our military. And as long as you have a large standing army with a large force projection ability, it's only a matter of time until adventurism comes around again. The American public likes that big stick, they are conflicted about it's use, but they like it a lot despite how stupidly expensive it is. I'm not arguing this point in detail, I'm explaining why I think Ron Paul will never get real traction on this.
uomo_senza_nome
2011 Oct 20, 5:42am
I'm not arguing this point in detail, I'm explaining why I think Ron Paul will never get real traction on this.
He gets more donations from military than all Rep. Candidates combined and he gets more than Obama. So the people who are in the ground get this.
They want the troops to come home and have a period of quiet. However they by and large would not agree with decimating our military.
I don't think Dr. Paul's stand is to completely eliminate the military. His position is clear. Defend the country, don't defend the world.
Vicente
2011 Oct 20, 6:02am
I don't think Dr. Paul's stand is to completely eliminate the military. His position is clear. Defend the country, don't defend the world.
However many in the MIC, the ruling class, and the voting public LIKE having a big military with bases all over the world. Defending the homeland doesn't require B-2 bombers any more. It doesn't require a Navy bigger than the next 13 navies combined. Are we going to bring home all those troops from bases around the world and pay them to dig holes and fill them up in Kansas? No. Nobody really wants to think about the real consequences of stripping down to homeland defense, which would mean laying off >50% of the troops and mothballing a lot of equipment and shuttering huge swaths of the MIC. They'd like less adventurism for NOW because their bellies are kind of full, but they might be hungry in the morning so stick the leftovers in the fridge....
I'm trying to explain why so many people you would think should back him, instead ignore Ron Paul. He's got some ideas that people feel they OUGHT to be for, but actually have mixed feelings about. Hence he'll always be a fringer.
fdhfoiehfeoi
2011 Oct 20, 7:05am
Sometimes when we take positions on things we talk as if the changes should be made tomorrow. Obviously when we are so far from where we started as a country, we can't get to where we need to be overnight. These are still good principles, but enacting them in a way that won't destroy the country in the process will take years, decades if we move at a normal pace. Eight years is enough for Paul to start his plan, but much will need to be carried on by those who follow.
Still, we need to start somewhere.
He gets more donations from military than all Rep. Candidates combined and he gets more than Obama. So the people who are in the ground get this.
Hah. Nice Freudian slip.
I'm trying to explain why so many people you would think should back him, instead ignore Ron Paul. He's got some ideas that people feel they OUGHT to be for, but actually have mixed feelings about. Hence he'll always be a fringer.
Well, let's be honest, he is far right on some things too. On this two axis test, Ron Paul is as libertarian as John Edwards, but as far right as Tom Tancredo:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
So sure, he has some good ideas, but he also has some bad ones. No different from most other politicians, really. Also, presentation matters too, not as much to me, but to many other people it does.
Bitcoins are the future
Hmm, I'm going to start taking you less seriously just because of your username. Did you see this recently, by the way?
http://www.betabeat.com/2011/10/17/price-of-bitcoin-still-dropping-falls-below-the-price-of-mining/
And if you think mining is easy, you're a frakkin moron.
No one said mining was easy -- some types of mining are more sophisticated than others, obviously. However, people skilled at mining are not skilled at other non-mining businesses that might relocate in Nevada. The overall job pool is not very useful to relocating businesses.
Beverly Hills, CA
Its kind of hard to throw stones at NV from a state that is almost bankrupt.
It's hard to reconcile that. Did you put your zip code as 90210? :)
See, we had a real good thing going in NV... but our entire economy was based on home construction & gambling. So when home prices crashed, they stopped building homes in NV. And then everybody from CA who won unreasonable amounts money in the housing boom didn't have the cashola to go all Fear and Loathing anymore. Beyond that, they have recently built huge indian casinos in between every major CA city and NV city, so people are lazy and just don't go all the way to NV...
I might add that it's apparently okay to blame California for Nevada's massive failings (however misguided that is), but it's not okay for Californians to comment on it. That seems entirely consistent, doesn't it. :)
uomo_senza_nome
2011 Oct 20, 9:21am
Hah. Nice Freudian slip.
what are you talking about? it is not a verbal or a memory mistake.
You want the data? Here it is: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/310783
So sure, he has some good ideas, but he also has some bad ones. No different from most other politicians, really
yeah, but he is consistent. He doesn't flip-flop, he says what he means and he means what he says. His track record should speak for itself.
He saw the housing bubble way back in 2001. That's pretty good, of course nobody wants to listen to 'Crazy Uncle Ron' though.
No one can agree with any presidential candidate 100%. It is certainly about whether you can agree with the person more than you can disagree with. On the critical issues such as economy and monetary policy, it is important for anyone who votes for Ron Paul to truly understand what his guiding principles are.
what are you talking about? it is not a verbal or a memory mistake.
Dude, read your typo. You said "in the ground" not "on the ground." I wasn't disputing the substantive point at all (and honestly I don't care about this data point very much), although it's interesting that Obama draws 78% of what Paul does and the overall split Obama to R is 36/64. That's a lot more than most people typically expect for Dems when you're talking about the military.
yeah, but he is consistent. He doesn't flip-flop, he says what he means and he means what he says. His track record should speak for itself.
Without getting into the substantive political points, if you are using "flip-flop" in the traditional US political sense, that's not really a great quality. It was a very effective criticism on John Kerry because he did a terrible job explaining, but there's nothing wrong with changing your mind based on new information or based on context, and it'd be stupid not to do so.
He saw the housing bubble way back in 2001.
Again, without getting into substantive political points, and as an aside, using this as a positive trait here sort of negates the criticism of Robert Shiller made by someone else on this forum.
Nah, its ok to comment on it, but to blame all of the results of the housing bubble on the GOP is ignorant. That was a team effort.
Read my comments again more carefully. None of this was blamed on the GOP specifically (and it's silly to assume that it was). It was an observation that the current stated philosophy of the GOP has not worked very well in one US state. Obviously, YMMV, and this experiment can be repeated in other states to see what happens there.
uomo_senza_nome
2011 Oct 20, 10:02am
there's nothing wrong with changing your mind based on new information or based on context, and it'd be stupid not to do so.
that's correct.
if you are using "flip-flop" in the traditional US political sense, that's not really a great quality.
i'm not saying in the traditional sense. If you look at specific critical issues (say for example bank bailouts), many of the Rep. candidates said yes, Paul said no. That's the kind of consistency I'm talking about.
using this as a positive trait here sort of negates the criticism of Robert Shiller made by someone else on this forum.
I don't know what the other point made was, but Paul's economic philosophy is Austrian and it's pretty solid in predicting bubbles. Nobody can predict the timing, but the trend is there for all to see.
For example, Fed is engineering a bubble in bonds. It is obvious that it is becoming frothy, but nobody knows when that will pop. Paul made this point in the debate yesterday, which also stems from his strong understanding of business cycles and Austrian theory.
I think I should kinda put that Nevada isn't all the same. Northern nevada has some huge gold mines and not much for people (Elko county).
Also if you go to western states BLM owns large chunks of land..we're talking serious amounts.
Since the state government cannot tax federal land that limits revenue..
NV boomed by making things legal there that weren't elseware. It was easy to get married/divorced, allows sports betting, obviously has casinos..some counties allow prostitution.
There are sales taxes but there's a fixed percentage that goes to education instead of a general fund.austrian_man says
there's nothing wrong with changing your mind based on new information or based on context, and it'd be stupid not to do so.
Don Imus said before on his show that if someone cannot change their mind then what are they supposed to do? If someone votes say..for a war does that really mean they should be for it all the way?
uomo_senza_nome
2011 Oct 20, 3:02pm
Don Imus said before on his show that if someone cannot change their mind then what are they supposed to do? If someone votes say..for a war does that really mean they should be for it all the way?
Hey I don't have a problem with politicians changing their minds. All I'm saying is I haven't seen even a single politician to be as consistent as Ron Paul. On the things such as economics, monetary policy in which he has essentially never wavered, it is grounded in sound economic theory.
« First « Previous Comments 31 - 42 of 42 Search these comments
This op-ed is brilliant and exactly what I've been telling people on occasion:
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/nevada-the-republican-promised-land-132035853.html
They were also discussing this on NPR this morning: http://www.npr.org/2011/10/19/141493959/ask-nevada-do-low-taxes-less-regs-create-jobs
Summary: Nevada has very low taxes and very low regulation. There is no corporate tax and no state income tax. There is even a constitutional limit on mining taxes, which means that tax receipts don't go up even if commodities skyrocket, as they have in recent years on occasion. Nevada is 49th in taxation, with the lowest burden of any state except Alaska (which gets massive federal subsidies of more than $20K per person per year from you and me, and oil money). In fact, much of its "regulation" is directly written by businesses and their lobbyists, and their legislature rarely meets. Nevada also has the fewest public employees per capita of any state.
Yet, Nevada still has:
1) highest unemployment rate
2) highest foreclosure rate
3) highest personal bankruptcy rate
4) biggest drop in median income
5) one of the biggest drop in property values of any state, if not the biggest (maybe Florida beats it?)
My own editorial portion:
If the GOP Paradise didn't work in Nevada, why would it work elsewhere? Why is "lower taxes" and "get rid of regulation" always the solution? It's not!
Nevada has lots of mining, but its job market is not particularly skilled or deep, which is why companies are staying away. It also has lots of gambling, but its other industries are pretty thin. Companies don't have a great job pool -- Reno and Las Vegas, the main population centers, just don't have deep job pools with skilled workers.
Low taxes and low regulation are not the only concern for businesses -- being able to get skilled workers in a diversified economy matters a lot too. Nevada is failing because it went too far to one side of the political spectrum in thinking the market would save it. There are plenty of other factors besides simply taxes and regulation that matter.
#housing