|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
 Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 2:00 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| catman wrote: |
| Quote: |
Even the idea of the "Robber Barons" is an outdated and inaccurate picture.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.
|
Not true. The government has acted on behalf of big business many many many times. Including in foreign policy. Something Libertarians ignore. Just look at US policy in South America and the Middle East. The overthrow of governments to ensure that big business has full access to the natural resources of region. Death and chaos often follow.
Not that I am accusing Paul of supporting such policies. I take him at his word when he says he is a non-interventionist and respect most of his views with regards to foreign policy. It is mostly domestic policy that I would be worried about. |
Catman, you didn't understand what I wrote. It says that the government was interferring in the marketplace to benefit certain business players who are often referred to as "robber barons." This, of course still occurs today as you pointed out. Your example of modern government helping special interests in recent history is the same as the robber barons. These are examples of the evils of big government and not the free market.
Big government socialism always benefits the politically powerful and not the general public. This has always been true. It is why the idea of the government protecting us from the "robber barons" is a lie. There could be no robber barons without the government and socialism.
This is why we must oppose all alternative energy programs. These programs are designed to fool the stupid and illiterate into supporting more socialism for the rich and powerful. Alternative energy programs will transfer money from ordinary citizens to the powerful, reduce the amount of energy available in the marketplace, increase demand for energy and raise prices many times over the market price.
Rather than supporting alternative energy programs, it would be more logical to write letters to Santa and ask him to bring you some gasoline. That has a better chance of success and less chance of damage than looking to the government for solutions. Belief in Santa shows a higher level of maturity, intelligence, economic education and rationality than does belief in alternative energy programs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="ontheway"][q
| Quote: |
This is why we must oppose all alternative energy programs. These programs are designed to fool the stupid and illiterate into supporting more socialism for the rich and powerful. Alternative energy programs will transfer money from ordinary citizens to the powerful, reduce the amount of energy available in the marketplace, increase demand for energy and raise prices many times over the market price.
|
Not having alternative energy programs has allowed oil to get to where it is.
Better socialism or any thing close to it than sending billions of dollars to the mideast.
Alternative energy programs transfer money from mideast nations to US business and American citizens.
| Quote: |
Rather than supporting alternative energy programs, it would be more logical to write letters to Santa and ask him to bring you some gasoline. That has a better chance of success and less chance of damage than looking to the government for solutions. Belief in Santa shows a higher level of maturity, intelligence, economic education and rationality than does belief in alternative energy programs. |
No , while the market can work better than the government when the market is allowing the enemies of the US to get rich then the government needs to step in.
Case and point if the government made it so any car would be allowed to run on any kind of fuel then there will be incentive for private companies to bring more kinds of fuel to the market including cellulosic ethanol which is not made from food.
Because the government hasn't invested in alternative energy the US is in the situation it is in.
Ron Paul nothing more than the leader of a cult.
| Quote: |
Accelerate the introduction of second-generation biofuels (e.g. cellulosic ethanol and methanol) which don't rely on any food crop as feedstock, and should not require any government subsidy.
- Establish an Open Fuel Standard. That is, require that any automobile sold in the U.S. be a flexible fuel vehicle capable of burning gasoline, methanol, ethanol or any combination of the three � a feature that costs just $100 per vehicle.
- Accelerate the production of plug-in hybrid-electric cars and trucks.
- Introduce the use of lighter, stronger carbon composite materials, as Boeing is doing in the new 787 Dreamliner aircraft, into the production of cars and trucks. A Pentagon study a few years ago concluded that this step alone could reduce our oil imports by 48%.
The most important of these measures is the enactment of an Open Fuel Standard, so that the consumer has a choice at the fuel pump. Unfortunately, without a predictable market, such as would be provided by mandatory flexible-fuel cars and trucks, there is a strong disincentive among investors to risk the capital needed for second-generation alternative fuels like cellulosic ethanol to take off. But without such a mandate, we are keeping ourselves tied exclusively to oil, with all the risks that involves.
Some say that these mandates are contrary to free-market principles. But one could say the same thing about seat belts, air-bags and even the FM radios mandated during the Cold War to assure the government's ability to broadcast nuclear alerts.
No one argues seriously that these things have not been in our interest. And just imagine how valuable it would be to reduce the $460 billion we will spend on foreign oil this year, or the threat to our economy that its disruption would represent.
We must not let this national debate be distorted by charges that one is either pro- or anti- oil. I believe strongly that Western oil companies ought to be supported in the production of as much oil as they can, for as long as they can. Reducing our reliance on foreign oil is, however, an urgent national security priority.
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121012141199772495.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
By the way is think that government funded medical research is a bad idea?
Q for Ron Paul supporters .
If the US had 400 - 500 coal to liquid oil plants would the US have more oil or less oil.
And before you start complaining about the roads remember if transportation is more difficult it is very possible that people will use less efficient routes for it which would use more energy not less and furthermore efficient transportation has allowed the US to get to a 14 trillion dollar economy.
What Ron Paul says makes about as much sense has what Kim Jong Il says. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
We've been through this before.
No real economist agrees with you.
Socialism created the oil/transportation/energy problem. More socialism will make it worse. But, the government wants to get bigger and more powerful and the political class will support anything to allow it to do just that. Special interests get richer, the cycle continues, and a generation from now, another generation of JooJoos will support even more government programs to fix a problem that has grown yet again.
Only the free market can solve this problem.
AQ doesn't give a rat's behind about the Caliphate. Even the CIA agrees with Ron Paul.
As has been explained many times, "you can fool some of the people all of the time... "
If you support government programs, you are the one this old saw is referring to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
"ontheway"
So answer the question .
If the US had coal to liquid plants would the US have more oil or less oil?
If the US had a flex fuel standard would it encourage more fuels to the market or less fuels?
By the way show where the CIA said that Al Qaeda doesn't care about the Caliphate?
Of course they are lying when they talk about it and you know when they lie and when they tell the truth. By the way how to do YOU know when Al Qaeda lies and when they tell the truth? What did you buy something you saw on a Ron Paul infomercial?
Ron Paul knows nothing about anything.
His supporters no nothing about anything.
Ron Paul is the leader of a cult. Nothing more. His supporters are like the followers of a cult. They know nothing about anything.
It was the market that allowed oil to get where it is, not socialism. When oil was 11 dollars a barrel 11 years ago it was the cheapest source of energy. That is the fact no matter what Ron Paul says.
Shame on Ron Paul. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Big government socialism always benefits the politically powerful and not the general public. This has always been true. It is why the idea of the government protecting us from the "robber barons" is a lie. There could be no robber barons without the government and socialism.
This is why we must oppose all alternative energy programs. These programs are designed to fool the stupid and illiterate into supporting more socialism for the rich and powerful. Alternative energy programs will transfer money from ordinary citizens to the powerful, reduce the amount of energy available in the marketplace, increase demand for energy and raise prices many times over the market price.
|
So Archer Daniels Midland are today's robber barons? I don't know, I really don't agree with Government policy with regards to ADM, but I think Bernanke's Fed is the real culprit for the rising prices in commodities. 2% interest rates throughout the end of the year can't be good  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
Big government socialism always benefits the politically powerful and not the general public. This has always been true. It is why the idea of the government protecting us from the "robber barons" is a lie. There could be no robber barons without the government and socialism.
This is why we must oppose all alternative energy programs. These programs are designed to fool the stupid and illiterate into supporting more socialism for the rich and powerful. Alternative energy programs will transfer money from ordinary citizens to the powerful, reduce the amount of energy available in the marketplace, increase demand for energy and raise prices many times over the market price.
|
So Archer Daniels Midland are today's robber barons? I don't know, I really don't agree with Government policy with regards to ADM, but I think Bernanke's Fed is the real culprit for the rising prices in commodities. 2% interest rates throughout the end of the year can't be good |
Of course the Fed expanding the money supply, which it has to do to lower interest rates, and this is raising commodity prices and fueling the next round of inflation. Rather than let the bubble burst and create sound money, the Fed opted for more inflation which will rob more generations of people and create further poverty around the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
If we pressed all the oil out of Joo's head would the US have more oil?
Spending trillions of dollars on unneeded coal to oil plants would be equally futile, useless, and less fun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I dunno Ontheway but if they squeezed all the oil out of your head they would have a place to put nuclear waste.
Yes we have been through all this before and you lost- remember?
Anyway " unneeded coal to oil plants" better to buy oil from the mideast and Venezuela.
Oil is 125 dollars a barrel. "unneeded" 
Ron Paul supporters their stupidity and ignorance speaks for itself - as does their lunacy.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Mon May 12, 2008 2:47 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Catman, you didn't understand what I wrote. It says that the government was interferring in the marketplace to benefit certain business players who are often referred to as "robber barons." This, of course still occurs today as you pointed out. Your example of modern government helping special interests in recent history is the same as the robber barons. These are examples of the evils of big government and not the free market.
Big government socialism always benefits the politically powerful and not the general public. This has always been true. It is why the idea of the government protecting us from the "robber barons" is a lie. There could be no robber barons without the government and socialism. |
James Hill, John D. Rockefeller and Cornelius Vanderbilt VS. The Robber Barons.[ I read this article a few months ago. It's rather long but it is an easy read. This research has lead me to see how another great entrepreneur has been treated these days, Bill Gates. He is probably today's best capitalist, but he got dragged into politics by the over-zealous nature of the Clinton Administration unfortunately. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
Big government socialism always benefits the politically powerful and not the general public. This has always been true. It is why the idea of the government protecting us from the "robber barons" is a lie. There could be no robber barons without the government and socialism.
This is why we must oppose all alternative energy programs. These programs are designed to fool the stupid and illiterate into supporting more socialism for the rich and powerful. Alternative energy programs will transfer money from ordinary citizens to the powerful, reduce the amount of energy available in the marketplace, increase demand for energy and raise prices many times over the market price.
|
So Archer Daniels Midland are today's robber barons? I don't know, I really don't agree with Government policy with regards to ADM, but I think Bernanke's Fed is the real culprit for the rising prices in commodities. 2% interest rates throughout the end of the year can't be good |
cutting interest rates keeps the US economy from going into recession by making credit for every one cheaper..
When there is a recession government revenue falls.
High oil prices are behind the rising prices of commodities.
Oil is used for fertilizer, to power tractors , to transport food
Also nowadays a significant portion of the corn crop is going for ethanol. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| In the past 20 years, he has changed his position on one issue, the death penalty, which he now opposes. |
That's splitting hairs. I argue that he has changed his position on abortion rights much more recently than that, and has flat-out lied during his campaign about it.
He has written 2 books and co-authored laws at the federal level defining life as beginning at conception.
He has changed his position on at least those two positions (the death penalty and abortion), and in one of those cases has made the federal government privy to arguments about abortion as recently as 2005, and directly violated his own ideological claim that this is a state issue as recently as 2003. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Only the free market can solve this problem.
|
I know a Monday in 1929 that disagrees with you, and a lot of economists who want tightened regulations on mortgages who also disagree with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sincinnatislink wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| In the past 20 years, he has changed his position on one issue, the death penalty, which he now opposes. |
That's splitting hairs. I argue that he has changed his position on abortion rights much more recently than that, and has flat-out lied during his campaign about it.
He has written 2 books and co-authored laws at the federal level defining life as beginning at conception.
He has changed his position on at least those two positions (the death penalty and abortion), and in one of those cases has made the federal government privy to arguments about abortion as recently as 2005, and directly violated his own ideological claim that this is a state issue as recently as 2003. |
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.
Dr. Paul did change his postion on the death penalty. He is now opposed to the death penalty, which I agree with and discussed with him long ago in a private discussion we had in DC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sincinnatislink wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
Only the free market can solve this problem.
|
I know a Monday in 1929 that disagrees with you, and a lot of economists who want tightened regulations on mortgages who also disagree with you. |
It is now recognized and standard economic historical analysis that:
1) The Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve expanding the money supply, causing inflation and mal-investment, and then contracting the money supply.
2) The stockmarket crash of 1929 was caused by the Smoot-Hawley tariff law. This was, in fact, the ONLY cause of the actual crash on that famous day. Congress indicated in a vote that the law would pass, the markets realized that such a massive government intrusion into the free market would cripple business and the economies of the US and many of its trading partners, investors rushed to sell ahead of the decline that had to come, and the crash ensued. This is actually the PROVEN cause of the crash. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
