| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
 Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 7:35 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Sincinnatislink wrote: |
So you are claiming you understand market economics in a general sense?
Do tell where I can buy your book.
Furthermore, I'd like you to point to someone who says we need deregulation to fix the subprime mortgage fiasco.
Furthermore, the Smoot-Hawley tariff act was passed in 1930. I was referring specifically to 1929's Black Monday.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act
| Quote: |
| There is not universal agreement about the effect of the tariff. |
You are citing a very specific school of economic thought's general opinion as fact. |
On the day of the stockmarket crash there was a preliminary vote on the tariff law. It passed. The way was clear for the tariff law to go into effect. The traders and investors were aware within minutes. The effects of the tariff law had been discussed already. The traders started selling. Panic ensued. The reason was the Smoot-Hawley tariff. The fact that it went into effect later was not relevant. Congressional records, newspaper accounts, trading records and notes from traders indicate that the tariff caused the panic and the crash. This has been historically researched and published.
The stockmarket is a predictor of what is to come based on present information. They do not wait for a law to become effective to assess its effects. The subsequent actual effects of the law after it was in place have no bearing on the fact that it was the anticipation of its effects that caused the crash. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
a) That's dandy. You're not even citing a consensus opinion of economists, much less fact. Your initial reply to my comment claimed that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff act had a proven, simple causal relationship to Black Monday. That is simply false.
b) I'm still waiting for a tenable argument that deregulation is a solution to the subprime mortgage problem. A "freer market" seems to have created the problem in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Ron Paul has NOT altered his position on abortion in any way in over 3 decades (that I have known him personally) and not since becoming a doctor, probably never. |
If abortion is not a federal government issue, than why does he sponsor and co-sponsor bills limiting abortion at the federal level? I already gave you some links, and I'd like to hear what you have to think about those in this context.
He has no reservations using federal government power to limit abortion rights, but has not taken any steps to return said powers to the states.
And for crying out loud, I don't care if you are his favorite girl at the hostess bar. That has no bearing on his views. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apparently you didn't understand what I wrote.
First, I said that Ron Paul hasn't changed his views on abortion. He hasn't. He wants to return many issues to the state level to be handled as per the Constitution. That has not changed.
However, there are times when abortion and murder are Federal issues under the jurisdiction of the Federal government and not state issues, for example, in Federally controlled districts, military bases. Therefore, some federal legislation that determines for example that life begins at conception would be required at the Federal level. This does not mean that such federal legislation would supercede the states' rights. So, he introduces legislation that will affect those areas properly under federal jurisdiction as well. This has not changed either.
Second. It is obvious that you don't understand history, economics or the stockmarket.
The market takes all present information into account in determining the value of stocks. Stock values have NOTHING to do with past performance. They are based on an estimate of the stream of future values that a particular stock will deliver. The market performs as an agggegation of values and information.
On the day the stock market crashed in 1929, Congress voted to clear the way for the Smoot-Hawley tariff. It had already been introduced. It's future destructive effects were known. On this day the law's passage, implementation and disasterous impact on the economy was assured.This being the case, traders and investers knew that the earnings of the individual companies represented by the stocks on Wall Street would suffer. Their FUTURE earnings would collapse. This meant that the present value of those future earnings ie the stock price and the aggregate meaning all the prices as a group called "the market" CRASHED.
It has been documented that it was the Smoot-Hawley tariff law that caused the crash. It was the reason the traders and stockholders began selling in earnest.
The market is based on the FUTURE. When governments act in a way that causes the estimates of future values (income streams) to decline as in the Smoot-Hawley tariff, the market will decline, or as in 1929, "CRASH."
This is why stock prices are a leading economic indicator and not a trailing statistic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sincinnatislink wrote: |
He has written 2 books and co-authored laws at the federal level defining life as beginning at conception. |
Not a particularly libertarian position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Libertarian is as wide-ranging as liberal or conservative in many ways. Paul never really appealed to the "beltway libertarians" who write Reason mag etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Sincinnatislink wrote: |
He has written 2 books and co-authored laws at the federal level defining life as beginning at conception. |
Not a particularly libertarian position. |
No, he's a bit more of a constitutionalist than a libertarian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Even the idea of the "Robber Barons" is an outdated and inaccurate picture. Every so called "Robber Baron," every act of business fraud that is cited in ignorance by those who try to support big government, has in fact been shown to be a case where the government itself, big government itself, was already interfering in the marketplace and legislatively thwarting the beneficial free market actions the would have eliminated these people. The government passed laws to prevent competition and free trade and refused to prosecute fraud.
.
|
How would the free market have eliminated the pools and trusts of the railroad, coal, and oil refining industries? How does the regulation of this type of market-driven malfeasance equal the advocation of Stalinist (no sizable Marxist state has every existed) totalitarianism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jkelly80 wrote: |
| How would the free market have eliminated the pools and trusts of the railroad, coal, and oil refining industries? |
High prices would lead to alternatives. People not in the cabal would find a cheaper way of addressing the need.
Rail roads could be challenged by a canal project. The auto industry broke the rail roads regardless of government intervention. The free market doesn't solve the problem immediately. But I'll take a bottom up approach that takes time to get it right than a government mandated top down approach. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Sincinnatislink wrote: |
He has written 2 books and co-authored laws at the federal level defining life as beginning at conception. |
Not a particularly libertarian position. |
No, he's a bit more of a constitutionalist than a libertarian. |
So he ran for the libertarian party because...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Sincinnatislink wrote: |
He has written 2 books and co-authored laws at the federal level defining life as beginning at conception. |
Not a particularly libertarian position. |
No, he's a bit more of a constitutionalist than a libertarian. |
So he ran for the libertarian party because...? |
For pretty much the same reason that any other party does: they pick someone based on:
1) closeness to their platform
2) chances of winning (with the Libertarian party getting noticed = winning)
There's never a perfect match. A constitutionalist isn't the exact same as a Libertarian, but it's close enough that the party was happy with the choice. It's easy enough to find people closest to priority #1; you just conduct interview after interview until you find the closest match, but then you'll lose the election. So there's always a compromise between 1) and 2). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| There's never a perfect match. A constitutionalist isn't the exact same as a Libertarian, but it's close enough that the party was happy with the choice. It's easy enough to find people closest to priority #1; you just conduct interview after interview until you find the closest match, but then you'll lose the election. So there's always a compromise between 1) and 2). |
I take it:
1) you're a fan of RP.
2) you don't mind stripping women of choice? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| There's never a perfect match. A constitutionalist isn't the exact same as a Libertarian, but it's close enough that the party was happy with the choice. It's easy enough to find people closest to priority #1; you just conduct interview after interview until you find the closest match, but then you'll lose the election. So there's always a compromise between 1) and 2). |
I take it:
1) you're a fan of RP.
2) you don't mind stripping women of choice? |
1) Yep
2) Abortion's a non-issue for me and I don't think any president would be capable of restricting it. Ron Paul himself voted against a bill for example where states would inform each other of abortions done by people out of state:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll144.xml
So for him individual and state rights trump his views on abortion. I imagine that if he were president one state might decide it was in their best interest to restrict abortion, they'd try it, realize that it's impossible to restrict, and give up within a year or two.
If I thought that he would want to and actually could restrict abortion nationwide, then yes, I would want to rethink my support.
He does bring up an interesting issue though about how as an OB/GYN he's licensed to be paid to do abortions should be feel so inclined, but if he were to make a mistake during an unrelated option that harms the baby he could be sued for harming two lives even though the legal definition is that the baby is not yet a life. He's really into minutiae like that, moreso than nationwide sweeping judgments and constitutional amendments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What is "a constitutionalist?" Someone who follows the American Constitution? Then that would be everyone in the American political spectrum from 1790 through the present.
I think you mean Ron Paul is "a strict constructionalist." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
What is "a constitutionalist?" Someone who follows the American Constitution? Then that would be everyone in the American political spectrum from 1790 through the present.
I think you mean Ron Paul is "a strict constructionalist." |
If by strict constructionist you mean someone who cherry-picks amendments to uphold (the 14th is out for RP), then yes, RP is a strict constructionist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
