Options

Ron Paul, The Conspiracy '08

1545557596062

Posts

  • Options
    WRTWRT __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2007
    To get the thread back on track...

    How the hell can you argue with Ron's proposed policies?

    He wants to pay off the debt and restore sound currency before the dollar actually crashes and we're all eating dog food in the street. Unlike every other politician running for president, he doesn't bow to any corporate masters and thus actually believes in principles geared towards helping the common Joe in the street.

    And how, exactly, are the plans he has laid to achieve this goal flawed? Because he wants to destroy the Fed? He's exaclty right here! The entire monetary system is flawed! A bond/debt based society lets government spend way beyond its means and finance stupid and fucking insane foreign wars that the public never supported anyway and only reluctantly agreed to after they were lied to.

    If a government can issue a bond, it can issue a dollar. If it prints its own money - and doesn't turn to bonds (the interest on which, btw, our income tax pays for, which keeps goddamn growing) - the government is forced to be fiscally responsible. It literally cannot afford to print enough money to finance wars like Iraq because to do so would be to devalue the currency so greatly - and so rapidly - that people would riot in the street.

    Then you call Ron a crazy kook for arguing for a commodity based currency. What you don't understand is that the dollar is backed by a commodity - oil. OPEC uses the dollar as the standard currency; this gives other countries a HUGE incentive to keep spreading the dollar around. Of course, as the dollar continues to depreciate due to our ridiculous expenditures on the military and various wasteful social programs (and don't call me a crazy libretarian - I'm not talking about OSHA), OPEC is leaning towards a switch to the euro. Then we're fucked.

    A commodity backed currency anchors both the currency AND the ambitions of politicians. And do not give me that McCain bullshit; RP is not a goddamn isolationist. Here's an analogy for you: If the Chinese interfered in our national eleections, shot down our civilian airliners, and then gave Mexico biological and chemcial weapons which they then used on us - would we be happy? Probably not. Huh, maybe that's why Iran fucking hates us?

    Nah, they just hate us for our freedoms.

    Give me a fucking break. Get the fucking troops out of there, pay off the debt, and restore sound currency. Barring actual, physical attacks or CREDIBLE threats to national security - not manufactured terrorist bullshit created by our own policy - we have no right whatsoever to military intervention in another country. none.

    WRT on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    WRT wrote: »
    To get the thread back on track...

    How the hell can you argue with Ron's proposed policies?

    He wants to pay off the debt and restore sound currency before the dollar actually crashes and we're all eating dog food in the street.

    :lol:

    moniker on
  • Options
    fjafjanfjafjan Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    my god that post gave me a brain tumour the size of a Ron Paul Dollar.

    The silver kind.

    fjafjan on
    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Does that scare anyone else?

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    oh not again!

    no!

    NOOOOOOO!!!!

    Professor Phobos on
  • Options
    WRTWRT __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2007
    Debate time. Let's go. Change my mind.

    WRT on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2007
    WRT wrote: »
    To get the thread back on track...

    How the hell can you argue with Ron's proposed policies?

    Sigh. Alright, I'll answer point by point.
    He wants to pay off the debt and restore sound currency before the dollar actually crashes and we're all eating dog food in the street.

    Not going to happen. Point depends on one analysis of the situation which I doubt you have the economic training to justify.
    Unlike every other politician running for president, he doesn't bow to any corporate masters and thus actually believes in principles geared towards helping the common Joe in the street.

    This assumes that lack of corporate sponsorship leads necessarily to policies that help the common Joe, while the presence of sponsorship leads necessarily to policies that hurt. Let me point out that Dennis Kucinich has ideas about socialized government which are counter to Paul's, yet both are free of corporate sponsors. Let me also point out that policies put in place by countless traditionally corporate funded politicians have facilitated safe consumer products, the orderly operation of markets and social welfare policies like community colleges and supplimental nutrition for poor mothers with children.
    And how, exactly, are the plans he has laid to achieve this goal flawed? Because he wants to destroy the Fed? He's exaclty right here! The entire monetary system is flawed! A bond/debt based society lets government spend way beyond its means and finance stupid and fucking insane foreign wars that the public never supported anyway and only reluctantly agreed to after they were lied to.

    Being on the Gold Standard did little to deter the Spanish American War in which we invaded and conquered Cuba and the Philippines. It did nothing to stop the Mexican-American war. It did nothing to stop the Civil War, it did nothing to stop World War One. The entire British Empire - the largest empire ever seen in the world - was created while that nation was on the gold standard. Point disproven.
    If a government can issue a bond, it can issue a dollar. If it prints its own money - and doesn't turn to bonds (the interest on which, btw, our income tax pays for, which keeps goddamn growing) - the government is forced to be fiscally responsible. It literally cannot afford to print enough money to finance wars like Iraq because to do so would be to devalue the currency so greatly - and so rapidly - that people would riot in the street.

    But we do buy bonds. So the choice for a policymaker is between paying the interest on borrowed money and not engaging in a conflict. Your actual problem is with what conflict is appropriate to engage in, so your bringing in unrelated points in disingenuous and disfigures your argument.
    Then you call Ron a crazy kook for arguing for a commodity based currency. What you don't understand is that the dollar is backed by a commodity - oil. OPEC uses the dollar as the standard currency; this gives other countries a HUGE incentive to keep spreading the dollar around. Of course, as the dollar continues to depreciate due to our ridiculous expenditures on the military and various wasteful social programs (and don't call me a crazy libretarian - I'm not talking about OSHA), OPEC is leaning towards a switch to the euro. Then we're fucked.

    Our trade imbalance has more to do with the falling value of the dollar than our budget deficit. The amount of debt we are carrying relative to the size of our economy is lower than it was both in the 50s and in the early 90s.
    A commodity backed currency anchors both the currency AND the ambitions of politicians. And do not give me that McCain bullshit; RP is not a goddamn isolationist. Here's an analogy for you: If the Chinese interfered in our national eleections, shot down our civilian airliners, and then gave Mexico biological and chemcial weapons which they then used on us - would we be happy? Probably not. Huh, maybe that's why Iran fucking hates us?

    Nah, they just hate us for our freedoms.

    Give me a fucking break. Get the fucking troops out of there, pay off the debt, and restore sound currency. Barring actual, physical attacks or CREDIBLE threats to national security - not manufactured terrorist bullshit created by our own policy - we have no right whatsoever to military intervention in another country. none.

    A number of candidates have the same position. Paul is not exceptional.

    I HAVE ONLY MADE FIVE POINTS IN THIS RESPONSE. IF YOU TRY TO QUOTE IT AND ANSWER ME WORD FOR WORD YOU WILL ONLY CREATE AN UNNECESSARILY CONFUSED RESPONSE. JUST MAKE A NEW POST ADDRESSING THE POINTS IF YOU WANT TO RESPOND.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Unlike every other politician running for president, he doesn't bow to any corporate masters and thus actually believes in principles geared towards helping the common Joe in the street.
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    :lol:
    Every politician thinks they believe in principles geared towards helping the "common Joe in the street." It is a load of horseshit. There is no common Joe and trying to shove all of the middle and lower class people together under one title is a load of shit.
    And how, exactly, are the plans he has laid to achieve this goal flawed? Because he wants to destroy the Fed? He's exaclty right here! The entire monetary system is flawed! A bond/debt based society lets government spend way beyond its means and finance stupid and fucking insane foreign wars that the public never supported anyway and only reluctantly agreed to after they were lied to.
    That has never happened before in the history of the USA. The War of 1812, the Spanish American War, and World War One were all supported by the people of the USA before the wars. It isn't like New England was against the War of 1812, yellow journalists were full of shit and lied a lot, and "he kept us out of war" as one of Wilson's main slogans for his reelection.

    I almost forgot about the Philippine American War.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2007
    The Empire That The Gold Standard Built

    BritishEmpire.jpg

    Shinto on
  • Options
    LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    WRT wrote: »
    To get the thread back on track...

    How the hell can you argue with Ron's proposed policies?

    He wants to pay off the debt and restore sound currency before the dollar actually crashes and we're all eating dog food in the street. Unlike every other politician running for president, he doesn't bow to any corporate masters and thus actually believes in principles geared towards helping the common Joe in the street.

    And how, exactly, are the plans he has laid to achieve this goal flawed? Because he wants to destroy the Fed? He's exaclty right here! The entire monetary system is flawed! A bond/debt based society lets government spend way beyond its means and finance stupid and fucking insane foreign wars that the public never supported anyway and only reluctantly agreed to after they were lied to.

    If a government can issue a bond, it can issue a dollar. If it prints its own money - and doesn't turn to bonds (the interest on which, btw, our income tax pays for, which keeps goddamn growing) - the government is forced to be fiscally responsible. It literally cannot afford to print enough money to finance wars like Iraq because to do so would be to devalue the currency so greatly - and so rapidly - that people would riot in the street.

    Then you call Ron a crazy kook for arguing for a commodity based currency. What you don't understand is that the dollar is backed by a commodity - oil. OPEC uses the dollar as the standard currency; this gives other countries a HUGE incentive to keep spreading the dollar around. Of course, as the dollar continues to depreciate due to our ridiculous expenditures on the military and various wasteful social programs (and don't call me a crazy libretarian - I'm not talking about OSHA), OPEC is leaning towards a switch to the euro. Then we're fucked.

    A commodity backed currency anchors both the currency AND the ambitions of politicians. And do not give me that McCain bullshit; RP is not a goddamn isolationist. Here's an analogy for you: If the Chinese interfered in our national eleections, shot down our civilian airliners, and then gave Mexico biological and chemcial weapons which they then used on us - would we be happy? Probably not. Huh, maybe that's why Iran fucking hates us?

    Nah, they just hate us for our freedoms.

    Give me a fucking break. Get the fucking troops out of there, pay off the debt, and restore sound currency. Barring actual, physical attacks or CREDIBLE threats to national security - not manufactured terrorist bullshit created by our own policy - we have no right whatsoever to military intervention in another country. none.

    How does an organization made up entirely of foreign nations back our currency (I assume you're saying "we're not fiat! we're backed by oil instead of gold/silver. If not, could you clarify what you mean?)simply by using it somehow?

    I also request that you please consider also the fact that since switching to a fiat system, our recessions haven't been as severe as in the past, nor have we seen the depressions we'd seen throughout the nation's history up until the switch to fiat currency.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Options
    DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    So Ron Paul is a crazy motherfucker...that leaves us as always with a race between a giant douche and a turd sandwich right?

    Doodmann on
    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    I like to ART
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Roaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2007
    WRT wrote: »
    Give me a fucking break. Get the fucking troops out of there, pay off the debt, and restore sound currency. Barring actual, physical attacks or CREDIBLE threats to national security - not manufactured terrorist bullshit created by our own policy - we have no right whatsoever to military intervention in another country. none.

    I'm curious as to how loose your definition of "national security" is. There're a whole host of reasons outside of national security that might make us wish to intervene militarily in a foreign matter. Things like civil war, genocide, and rebellion overseas can have pretty sharp economic effects. I could also mention the simple decency of preventing potentially millions of deaths, but I doubt that would resonate with you.

    Foreign military policy isn't as simple as "if they're not directly attacking us, we have no compelling interest in intervention".

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    Fallout2manFallout2man Vault Dweller Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I'm really curious, I just want to know why so many people are against hard currency here? I can't say I'm an economic expert but it seems like it'd be a way to put a lid on inflation at least. The premise seems sound enough in theory. What's so wrong?

    Fallout2man on
    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I'm really curious, I just want to know why so many people are against hard currency here? I can't say I'm an economic expert but it seems like it'd be a way to put a lid on inflation at least. The premise seems sound enough in theory. What's so wrong?

    How do you prevent deflation?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I'm really curious, I just want to know why so many people are against hard currency here? I can't say I'm an economic expert but it seems like it'd be a way to put a lid on inflation at least. The premise seems sound enough in theory. What's so wrong?

    Deflation.

    moniker on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I'm really curious, I just want to know why so many people are against hard currency here? I can't say I'm an economic expert but it seems like it'd be a way to put a lid on inflation at least. The premise seems sound enough in theory. What's so wrong?
    There's a certain inborn weakness when the dollar is directly connected to a certain resource. That's deflation.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    Fallout2manFallout2man Vault Dweller Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I'm curious as to how loose your definition of "national security" is. There're a whole host of reasons outside of national security that might make us wish to intervene militarily in a foreign matter. Things like civil war, genocide, and rebellion overseas can have pretty sharp economic effects. I could also mention the simple decency of preventing potentially millions of deaths, but I doubt that would resonate with you.

    Foreign military policy isn't as simple as "if they're not directly attacking us, we have no compelling interest in intervention".

    That opens a real can of worms though. If our military isn't just for defense of the nation then what is it for? How are we going to define when we should and shouldn't get involved in any close to objective way?

    The problem I personally have with the idea of us using the military in so called police actions is a simple issue of taxes and representation. If we as a nation are directly paying for our military, shouldn't our military only be used directly to support us, the taxpayers in a way that directly benefits all of us? Sure wars in other nations and other such actions have economic affects on us, but that doesn't necessarily benefit all of us to just send the military right in to enemy territory to "resolve" the conflict in a way that's favorable to us.

    Plus then you have the blowback principle, which has already been elaborated on. While military action might be a good short term interest, what about the long term? How do we know we're not long term creating more problems for us then we solve? Problems that may require further military actions in the future to correct. It seems the sensible policy would be that short of an amazing abundance of evidence that an action had both short and long-term positive effects far outweighing the negative, and we could be assured there would be little to no even long-term blowback, it'd be best for our military to simply not be involved.

    Fallout2man on
    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • Options
    DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    What about just changing the way our money is regulated? I mean can we all agree that the fed system has a lot of problems at this point.

    Doodmann on
    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    I like to ART
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I'm curious as to how loose your definition of "national security" is. There're a whole host of reasons outside of national security that might make us wish to intervene militarily in a foreign matter. Things like civil war, genocide, and rebellion overseas can have pretty sharp economic effects. I could also mention the simple decency of preventing potentially millions of deaths, but I doubt that would resonate with you.

    Foreign military policy isn't as simple as "if they're not directly attacking us, we have no compelling interest in intervention".

    That opens a real can of worms though. If our military isn't just for defense of the nation then what is it for? How are we going to define when we should and shouldn't get involved in any close to objective way

    By having our Congressional Delegations vote on it? Crazy idea, I know.

    moniker on
  • Options
    Fallout2manFallout2man Vault Dweller Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Deflation.

    In the short or long term? I know there'd be a lot of deflation switching to hard currency, but once we were finally settled wouldn't it be relatively steady?

    Fallout2man on
    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Deflation.

    In the short or long term? I know there'd be a lot of deflation switching to hard currency, but once we were finally settled wouldn't it be relatively steady?

    Both, and no it wouldn't.

    moniker on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Deflation.

    In the short or long term? I know there'd be a lot of deflation switching to hard currency, but once we were finally settled wouldn't it be relatively steady?

    What do you think would happen if we suddenly find another huge gold deposit (or whatever the currency was tied to)?

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Wouldn't it be best for a country facing deflation to invade a country with a lot of gold?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2007
    Doodmann wrote: »
    What about just changing the way our money is regulated? I mean can we all agree that the fed system has a lot of problems at this point.
    That's probably better. Fed decisions are increasingly political and deficit spending is too high.

    But that's the kind of thing that the congress and president should work on, really.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Deflation.

    In the short or long term? I know there'd be a lot of deflation switching to hard currency, but once we were finally settled wouldn't it be relatively steady?

    Nope. As things of real value are created and the money supply remains constant you end up with a deflated money supply. Not to mention a wonky and retarded commodities market.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    Fallout2manFallout2man Vault Dweller Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    By having our Congressional Delegations vote on it? Crazy idea, I know.

    As in declaring war, like we're supposed to have been doing all this time?

    I think we need a strict definition in government as to what the military is and isn't for. We can't treat it as some magic cure-all to every problem. That's part of why we've been having trouble in Iraq right now. Our military really isn't built to be a police force that wins the hearts and minds of the people. It was built for squashing armies, not fighting terrorists. Sure we can say we'll change the military to adapt, but wouldn't that weaken it in other areas?

    Sad to say, I just don't think people in government often think things through long term like they really need to. Something might seem like a good idea at the time but end up coming back to bite us in the ass big time later on. Just look at how we ended up inadvertently funding both Saddam AND Bin Ladden back in the day. That's another part of why I think it's best to keep the military restricted to national defense. Politicians are just too short sighted to give them broad mandates of what they can and cannot do.

    Fallout2man on
    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Deflation.

    In the short or long term? I know there'd be a lot of deflation switching to hard currency, but once we were finally settled wouldn't it be relatively steady?

    Nope. As things of real value are created and the money supply remains constant you end up with a deflated money supply. Not to mention a wonky and retarded commodities market.

    When do they start teaching that the economy isn't actually a zero sum game? Econ 212?

    moniker on
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Gold has no more inherent value than currency does.

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    By having our Congressional Delegations vote on it? Crazy idea, I know.

    As in declaring war, like we're supposed to have been doing all this time?

    Or by authorizing military action like we've been doing with the war power's act, yes.
    I think we need a strict definition in government as to what the military is and isn't for. We can't treat it as some magic cure-all to every problem. That's part of why we've been having trouble in Iraq right now. Our military really isn't built to be a police force that wins the hearts and minds of the people. It was built for squashing armies, not fighting terrorists. Sure we can say we'll change the military to adapt, but wouldn't that weaken it in other areas?

    Howso?

    moniker on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Gold has no more inherent value than currency does.

    Well, it is shinier than Ben Franklin's head.

    moniker on
  • Options
    LindenLinden Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    real value

    I get the impression that this concept is something missing from the economic understanding of a lot of Paul supporters. Or the realisation that "GOLD!" does not have intrinsic value.

    Linden on
  • Options
    Fallout2manFallout2man Vault Dweller Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Nope. As things of real value are created and the money supply remains constant you end up with a deflated money supply. Not to mention a wonky and retarded commodities market.

    So how can we keep the government from using control of the money supply to do insane things? I think I understand now why hard currency isn't as lofty an idea. There's still the problem though, of preventing the government from just printing more money whenever they run out or want to do this or that and don't have cash on hand. How can we go back to a sane fiscal policy?

    Fallout2man on
    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Roaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I doubt that would resonate with you.

    Foreign military policy isn't as simple as "if they're not directly attacking us, we have no compelling interest in intervention".

    That opens a real can of worms though. If our military isn't just for defense of the nation then what is it for? How are we going to define when we should and shouldn't get involved in any close to objective way?

    True, we might have to actually use judgment instead of running through our official "Should We Launch Troops?" questionnaire. How is this different than any other issue? We always need to weigh a fuckton of pros and cons before deciding upon the proper answer.
    The problem I personally have with the idea of us using the military in so called police actions is a simple issue of taxes and representation. If we as a nation are directly paying for our military, shouldn't our military only be used directly to support us, the taxpayers in a way that directly benefits all of us? Sure wars in other nations and other such actions have economic affects on us, but that doesn't necessarily benefit all of us to just send the military right in to enemy territory to "resolve" the conflict in a way that's favorable to us.

    Yes, I think the military should only be used in ways that benefit the American people. I just recognize that such ways are more varied than "country X is directly blowing us up." Regardless, do you apply the same standards to all government programs? I mean, I'm not directly benefited by Medicare. I'm not directly benefited by the federal highways running through the midwest. I'm not directly benefited by the existence of the National Guard. Of course, all of those things probably indirectly benefit me by keeping the grand mechanism of the nation running smoothly. Just as the increasingly global nature of our economy and our alliances makes it on our best interests to keep the grand mechanism of the world running smoothly.

    Not to say there aren't frivolous endeavors in our nation's past or present, but I think your short list of acceptable military functions is... well, short.
    Plus then you have the blowback principle, which has already been elaborated on. While military action might be a good short term interest, what about the long term? How do we know we're not long term creating more problems for us then we solve? Problems that may require further military actions in the future to correct. It seems the sensible policy would be that short of an amazing abundance of evidence that an action had both short and long-term positive effects far outweighing the negative, and we could be assured there would be little to no even long-term blowback, it'd be best for our military to simply not be involved.

    It works both ways. While not getting involved may save a few lives and dollars in the short term, what about the long term?

    See, this is why we go back to that whole "using wise judgment" thing.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    By having our Congressional Delegations vote on it? Crazy idea, I know.

    As in declaring war, like we're supposed to have been doing all this time?

    I think we need a strict definition in government as to what the military is and isn't for. We can't treat it as some magic cure-all to every problem. That's part of why we've been having trouble in Iraq right now. Our military really isn't built to be a police force that wins the hearts and minds of the people. It was built for squashing armies, not fighting terrorists. Sure we can say we'll change the military to adapt, but wouldn't that weaken it in other areas?

    Sad to say, I just don't think people in government often think things through long term like they really need to. Something might seem like a good idea at the time but end up coming back to bite us in the ass big time later on. Just look at how we ended up inadvertently funding both Saddam AND Bin Ladden back in the day. That's another part of why I think it's best to keep the military restricted to national defense. Politicians are just too short sighted to give them broad mandates of what they can and cannot do.

    The military played an important and successful role in stabilizing Eastern Europe, and stabilizing and rebuilding Europe and Japan after the second world war. It's not that they should do these things, it's just that people making decisions regarding where to use the military should be excruciatingly careful about using them judiciously and with an eye to success.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Roaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Nope. As things of real value are created and the money supply remains constant you end up with a deflated money supply. Not to mention a wonky and retarded commodities market.

    So how can we keep the government from using control of the money supply to do insane things? I think I understand now why hard currency isn't as lofty an idea. There's still the problem though, of preventing the government from just printing more money whenever they run out or want to do this or that and don't have cash on hand. How can we go back to a sane fiscal policy?

    By electing people who won't do stupid shit.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Nope. As things of real value are created and the money supply remains constant you end up with a deflated money supply. Not to mention a wonky and retarded commodities market.

    So how can we keep the government from using control of the money supply to do insane things? I think I understand now why hard currency isn't as lofty an idea. There's still the problem though, of preventing the government from just printing more money whenever they run out or want to do this or that and don't have cash on hand. How can we go back to a sane fiscal policy?

    By making them value their jobs? Bernanke and Greenspan haven't done that horribly. Granted the rates were too low for too long creating a new bubble to cushion the burst of the .com's but I'd hardly say we're in that horrific of a fiscal situation at the moment. Bad, certainly, but what sort of 'sane' fiscal policy are we lacking?

    moniker on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2007
    Doodmann wrote: »
    What about just changing the way our money is regulated? I mean can we all agree that the fed system has a lot of problems at this point.

    Oh yeah?

    What are those?

    Inflation has been extremely low for a long time. If oil prices weren't rising I doubt very much it would be cracking 2%.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Nope. As things of real value are created and the money supply remains constant you end up with a deflated money supply. Not to mention a wonky and retarded commodities market.

    So how can we keep the government from using control of the money supply to do insane things? I think I understand now why hard currency isn't as lofty an idea. There's still the problem though, of preventing the government from just printing more money whenever they run out or want to do this or that and don't have cash on hand. How can we go back to a sane fiscal policy?

    Wuld you rather trust the Fed with regualting our currency or a bunch of greedy assholes on Wall St. fucking with e commidities markets ot make a quick buck.

    "hard' currency means fuckall. look at how much the value of gold fluctuates on a daily basis and you'll see it's value is hardly rock solid.

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    Rabid_LlamaRabid_Llama Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Wait, in principle isn't the fed controlling the economy a good thing?

    It takes control of deflation/inflation doesn't it? Don't we just need to reform the fed's policy rather than completely abolish it. This gold standard nonsense just seems like rubbish.

    Rabid_Llama on
    /sig
    The+Rabid+Llama.png
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2007
    I don't really think that there's much of an understanding of how the fed increases the money supply here. They don't just print money and then spend it on nice things.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
This discussion has been closed.