[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSixu-wxvKI[/YOUTUBE]
Having the first African American President is great and everything, but Obama is going to worsen the economy. He's going to implement the exact opposite of what we need.
Printable View
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSixu-wxvKI[/YOUTUBE]
Having the first African American President is great and everything, but Obama is going to worsen the economy. He's going to implement the exact opposite of what we need.
Number 1: Low interest is good for the economy. This guy doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about on interest.
Number 2: Trickle-down economics (I like Bush Sr.'s term...'Voodoo Economics') don't work. The rest of the world accepts this now that the shit hit the fan.
Number 3: Government programs, what he called "entitlement spending" may or may not be bad for the economy, but they are good for the people. The people come first.
Number 4: His way of thinking won't scale back government. It will abolish government. Have fun with that.
Number 5: He bitches and bitches and bitches, but do I hear any better ideas than at least trying Democrats instead of Republicans? No. All he did was say that it's a problem that's been building for years.
Number 6: Whether or not we're still paying off the New Deal, that's fucking worthless compared to the money we're hemorrhaging right now.
Number 7: Ron Paul wasn't chosen by the bankers to be in the running for president. And, even if he had won, he would have been powerless after those big banking types have a chat with him about the economy.
Number 8: We should start paying off our debts? No. That's not how this system operates. Money is created out of debt in a fractional reserve system (that's the system we live under, if you didn't know). Also, the amount we owe on our money to the world and to the Fed is GREATER than the money supply. What does that mean, then? Paying off debts leads to contraction, and that leads to chaos in our society.
My point being that this guy said Obama will usher in the Great Depression without giving any reasons that could have easily been applied to McCain as well. There was some sort of bias there, even if he wouldn't admit it.
I'd like to give that guy a call and ask him if he has the balls to say that we're going to hit a depression because, GUESS WHAT? Obama got elected. I'll bet you one of my famous pan-fried steaks that he'll downplay what he said on this program.
Jake , I think Obama has inherited a shitload of problems and he isn't alone in the struggle with the current GLOBAL downturn.
IMO
Economics in the modern world seems to mean a constant rob Peter to pay Paul mentality.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw[/YOUTUBE]
Peter Schiff didn't know what the fuck he was talking about previously as well...but oh wait...he was right???
Artificially low interest rates create bubbles, which is what's happening now, hide and watch, Mr. Martinez, hide and watch.:wtf:
Low interest rates on mortgages set by the Federal Reserve were one of the main causes of the current financial crisis. What Mr. Schiff is saying is that the problem that we should be looking at right now is the upcoming inflation. Cheap credit is only going to make this problem much worse because more people will be taking out loans, causing more money to be created, and thus, inflation.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
Trickle-down economics is not a free market with sound money, which is what Peter Schiff advocates.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
We need to decrease the welfare state. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is wrong morally and economically.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
I don't think Schiff is advocating anarchy.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
What the government needs to do is nothing. Let the free market do its job and set prices. Also, greatly reduce taxation. He's been tracing this problem for years and everyone laughed at him when he said the financial crisis was coming. He was one of the only ones to diagnose the problem early on, but now we are listening to those who caused the problem for the solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
I agree. Government spending needs to be greatly reduced in many areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
I don't understand what you are saying here.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
Would it not make more sense to have a sound money system where money doesn't equal debt? Perhaps a system where savings are promoted more than spending beyond your means?Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
He was talking about Obama because it was obvious Obama was going to win. He's gone on record saying a Depression is still coming after Obama got elected, so I'll take one of those steaks. But seriously, once Obama makes the problem worse please remember this man and Ron Paul so you know where to turn when you want to get out of the Depression.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
"Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is wrong morally and economically."
- it's not nearly as wrong morally and economically as taking from the poor and giving to the rich in the form of deficit-causing tax cuts and bank bailouts
Interest rates are controlled by the Fed, not by the government. We have no say whatsoever in what the Fed does. And, if they did cause this by making interest lates too low, it wouldn't be the first time they created a financial crisis.
We let the free markets do what they want for most of 20 years. They don't regulate themselves. Greenspan, who shared the same idealistic philosophy as you do, admitted recently that he was wrong in deregulating the markets.
Banking interests own our government and have owned it since the establishment of the Federal Reserve. They've engineered their system so that they have us by the balls, and most people don't even care how bad the banks fuck us over. If Ron Paul HAD been elected, he would have been approached by these interests and either corrupted, or they would lobby against him in Congress.
The problems we're seeing now are systemic. Our system is designed to work in favor of banks (all money starts in a bank, and inevitably ends up in a bank). In that system, we can never be free of debt. Ever. And, as I said before, if we pay off our debts, we have no money supply.
If government doesn't interfere with the free markets, the government will fail. What else could it possibly do? Our military is already being marginalized by private security forces. Without government interference, the free markets will eventually take over as government, and that is not a particularly pleasant thought.
Oh, and one last thing, if the interest rates hadn't been so low, this crisis would have been a lot worse when it hit. Like I said, the system we live in operates on debt. Our money supply would have hit contraction by now if interest rates had been higher than they already were.
How do you want it?Quote:
Originally Posted by jonquest
Indeed bank bailouts are ridiculous, and Obama supports them. Tax cuts can't really cause a deficit. When people are given the power to do what they want with their power, the economy flourishes. We need lower taxes for the rich and the poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by maladroit
I agree. We do not control the Fed, but Congress does have the power to get rid of the Fed. It was unconstitutional when they created it in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
We have not had a free market the past 20 years. There have been regulations in place during this time. For example a piece of legislation that forced banks to give out loans to those who usually would not be able to get a loan was put into law in 1977 under the Carter administration. This caused many loans not to be paid back because they were given out to irresponsible people.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
Ron Paul has been in Congress for 20 years. He has been corrupted yet, and I don't think that would change if he became President. His whole economic stance is based in opposition to the central bankers.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
I agree. This is why the system needs to be changed. It promotes debt and hurts savings. Also, the inflation is a tax on the middle class because their wages stay the same, but prices increase. We need a non-mass-inflationary currency.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
This isn't true. The military is being marginalized by private companies because George Bush is choosing to give them contracts. The free markets would take over the pricing of goods, but not the government. In many cases private institutions need to take over the public ones though. For example, the school system. Could you give an example of when a private company would take over a government institution and it would have a negative effect?Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
[/quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
The problem we are having is inflation of prices because of too much money being created. How can we solve the problem of inflation with more inflation? We need to let the market decide interest rates.
Medium-rare with a lemon on the side.:jointsmile:Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
Medium rare...cooked well enough but still has enough blood to make it tasty...good choice!Quote:
Originally Posted by jonquest
I could garnish with a lemon, but would you want a light lemon sauce with it made from fresh lemons and the oil from cooking the steak? Or a homemade barbecue sauce with a bit of a kick to it?
*mouth waters*
Sucks being so interested in cooking. My mind wanders and next thing I know I'm fucking starving.
Anyway, I don't think free markets are good for equality. Personally, I believe equality is more important than frivolous increases in the "standard of living" that affect only the few lucky enough to have the money to do so.
I'm not saying Ron Paul would be corrupted. I'm saying they would try. Failing to corrupt him, they'd either get congress to put a strangle hold on him or do something even more drastic.
Lastly, the founding fathers backed the idea of a free currency that inflates with the goods and services being traded, rather than constantly inflating regardless.
Lastly, the market would probably look for the lowest interest rates on the money supply (excluding the bankers that profit from the interest). Why would any strong, sensible business owner want to give away his money to interest?
"Indeed bank bailouts are ridiculous, and Obama supports them."
- indeed he does, and mccain supports them too...if ron paul was in charge, he'd put us on the gold standard and then we'd be even more screwed
And, if Nader were in charge, he'd place a 1% tax on Wall Street derivatives. Why isn't that happening? Why does our tax money have to be a replacement?Quote:
Originally Posted by maladroit
1%, in one year, would be $500,000. I thought that was brilliant. Make them pay taxes to pay for their own bailout, instead of making us pay higher taxes. We pay taxes on everything we buy. Why can't Joseph Freakin Schlemmosheph pay a tax when he buys stock in Korea?
End the Fed! End the Fed!
Long live Ron Paul! He would have pardon all drug related crimes asap!
rEVOLution! :D
What's brings more equality than freedom? Equality can't be brought by taking money from someone and giving it to someone else. Instead, equality should be brought to everyone by allowing freedom in how people earn their money and how they spend it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
I could see an assassination attempt taking place if Ron Paul was elected President. Just look at the others who were elected President that opposed a centralized banking system. (Lincoln was assassinated, an attempt was made on Andrew Jackson's life, JFK wanted to bring in a new currency backed by gold)Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
The founders wanted only silver or gold as money.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
Well we also need for money not to be created from loans. That's the biggest problem with interest rates. If money was not created out of thin air from loans, I wouldn't care where the market set interest rates.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
How would the gold standard screw us?Quote:
Originally Posted by maladroit
Nader practices Robin Hood Economics. He means well, but doesn't fully understand the problem with the monetary system. Taxation needs to be decreased, not increased.Quote:
Originally Posted by beachguy in thongs
Martinez you need to seriously brush up on your knowledge of economics. It sounds like you're just babbling and actually have no idea what Peter Schiff's stance on economic policy is. Why the fuck are you talking about trickle down economic.. just because Schiff dont like OBama doesnt mean he's Republican.
the value of all the gold that has ever been mined on this planet wouldn't even cover half of the US national debt...the combined annual trade deficit and annual budget deficit could export all of america's gold reserves in about six months...you're better off on the paper standard
damn thread made me hungry
We can't pay back the debt as it is. We owe money to many foreign nations and we have no means of paying them back anytime soon. Your statement about there not being enough gold to cover the debt is false. Fort Knox alone holds nearly 5,000 tons of gold and gold is currently values around $750/ounce. This equates to an estimate of $120,000,000,000 worth of gold in Fort Knox alone. The annual budget is irrelevant because Ron Paul would be balancing the budget by cutting wasteful government spending. Finally, trade deficits have historically been produced in countries that weren't on a gold standard. Here is an article on the effects of sound money on trade deficits: The Trade Deficit: An Austrian Perspective - Thorsten Polleit - Mises Institute.Quote:
Originally Posted by maladroit
The fed must answer to congress...Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
Markets were never deregulated, please do not buy into that BS. Under Greenspan, the markets were "differently" regulated.Quote:
We let the free markets do what they want for most of 20 years. They don't regulate themselves. Greenspan, who shared the same idealistic philosophy as you do, admitted recently that he was wrong in deregulating the markets.
That is quite an assumption, especially on the character of the good doctor...Quote:
Banking interests own our government and have owned it since the establishment of the Federal Reserve. They've engineered their system so that they have us by the balls, and most people don't even care how bad the banks fuck us over. If Ron Paul HAD been elected, he would have been approached by these interests and either corrupted, or they would lobby against him in Congress.
That is not necessarily true. It is true that 25% of the government issued debt is held by foreign entities, but the other 75% is held by the US. What this means is that 25% of the debt will need to be repayed via the transfer of GDP (or production). As for the other 75%, leakages = injections...Quote:
The problems we're seeing now are systemic. Our system is designed to work in favor of banks (all money starts in a bank, and inevitably ends up in a bank). In that system, we can never be free of debt. Ever. And, as I said before, if we pay off our debts, we have no money supply.
Then why did this country survive until 1913? There was very little market interference until then...Quote:
If government doesn't interfere with the free markets, the government will fail. What else could it possibly do? Our military is already being marginalized by private security forces. Without government interference, the free markets will eventually take over as government, and that is not a particularly pleasant thought.
The problem is misappropriated money flowing into the real estate market, more specifically the commercial real estate market. This was ushered by government interference, both in the form of promoting lax borrowing practices, as well as tax incentives for real estate holdings.Quote:
Oh, and one last thing, if the interest rates hadn't been so low, this crisis would have been a lot worse when it hit. Like I said, the system we live in operates on debt. Our money supply would have hit contraction by now if interest rates had been higher than they already were.
The interest rates that are commonly referred to as creating the bubble are those from late 2001 until the end of 2004 (under 2%). As of 2007, the federal funds target rate was as high as 5.25%.
Roughly $2.5 trillion of US government debt is foreign owned... The other 75% is held internally, where interest paid is received by those who pay taxes in one form or another. As i have said in the past, the only instance we have to worry about is paying back foreign debt. Therefore, all this blabbering about "future generations" is rhetoric intended to pray on those who lack the understanding of financial markets. In essence, when future generations repay debt via tax money, they will be repaying themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by maladroit
why is the usa still hoarding gold in fort knox? does it belong to the government?
$120 billion of gold in fort knox sounds like a lot, but it wouldn't cover the cost of occupying iraq for ONE year (or the cost of bailing out the banks for one month)...even if ron paul yanked the troops out of iraq, disbanded the entire military, and reduced the federal budget to ZERO, there would still be state and municipal deficits...if ron paul abolished all forms of government spending in america, there would still be consumer spending and consumer debt...$120 billion in gold is equal to less than 1% of the annual US GDP - the economy would have to contract significantly to match the reduced money supply (the usa has about $240 billion in total gold reserves)
ron paul would have to ban all imports to keep the pacific rim and the middle east from sucking fort knox dry in less than three months...in order to keep fort knox full of shiny yellow metal, americans would be walking instead of driving/flying, sitting in the dark, and scrounging for basic supplies...same thing is going to happen if america can't pay back it's debt...gold has much more practical uses, like dental fillings and electronics
That is not all of our gold. If one studied the history of banking, they would know the reason why gold would be kept in Kentucky...Quote:
Originally Posted by maladroit
:wtf:Quote:
$120 billion of gold in fort knox wouldn't cover the cost of occupying iraq for ONE year...even if ron paul yanked the troops out of iraq, disbanded the entire military, and reduced the federal budget to ZERO, there would still be state and municipal deficits...if ron paul abolished all forms of government spending in america, there would still be consumer spending and consumer debt...$120 billion in gold is equal to less than 1% of the annual US GDP - the economy would have to contract significantly to match the reduced money supply (the usa has about $240 billion in total gold reserves)
It is hard to grasp the concept if you refer to the value of gold in that of fiat denominations. Instead, refer to it in terms of mass. Regardless, Dr. Paul's monetary policy has very very very little to do with converting all of the current dollars floating around into gold, and much more to do with the concept of competing currencies, and free banking...Quote:
ron paul would have to ban all imports to keep the pacific rim and the middle east from sucking fort knox dry in less than three months...in order to keep fort knox full of shiny yellow metal, americans would be walking instead of driving/flying, sitting in the dark, and scrounging for basic supplies...same thing is going to happen if america can't pay back it's debt...gold has much more practical uses, like dental fillings and electronics
"If one studied the history of banking, they would know the reason why gold would be kept in Kentucky..."
- i guess i have to sign up for a university graduate course if i want to know the reason for that!
Like I said before, Ron Paul probably would not have been corrupted. They would have gone around him somehow.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
The Fed doesn't have to answer to Congress, only the chairman does, and for all we know he's just a monkey boy for the board of directors.
Before 1913, corporations weren't the size they are now. Capitalism is not a sustainable model without some sort of regulation at least to keep monopolies from forming.
Since the so called "poor" don't pay federal income taxes there is no money being taken from them and given to the rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by maladroit
The bottom 40% do not pay federal income taxes.
But their labor goes to make the rich richer while they hardly ever see a raise for their work.Quote:
Originally Posted by McDanger
You changed your argument from taxes to labor.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
Most of the poor do not stay that way. And the number one cause of poverty in this country is single parent households. Having kids you cannot afford is the #1 way to guarantee you will be poor, and stay that way.
poor people pay federal tax on everything they buy because farmers, stores, and corporations charge the full amount of their federal taxes to the consumer
Highly unlikely. Instead, republicans would rather keep him from power than give the country back some of its power.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
All governors are chosen by the president, and affirmed by the senate. They cannot be removed once elected until 14 years, or they decide to quit or die.Quote:
The Fed doesn't have to answer to Congress, only the chairman does, and for all we know he's just a monkey boy for the board of directors.
Agreed! True monopolies are not a part of capitalism as they dissolve of competition.Quote:
Before 1913, corporations weren't the size they are now. Capitalism is not a sustainable model without some sort of regulation at least to keep monopolies from forming.
All autonomous spending is passed on to the consumer. The poor make up only a portion of the total consumer market. The middle class gets hit the hardest...Quote:
Originally Posted by maladroit
kind of like how businesses add their taxes onto their consumers? the taxes that obama wants to increase.Quote:
Originally Posted by maladroit
He also wants to decrease your taxes (assuming you have a payroll income under $150,000).Quote:
Originally Posted by jonquest
Something Bush forgot during his time at Yale; the balance budget multiplier.
Holy shit! WE AGREED ON SOMETHING!Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
I did not know that about the governors. I though the Chairman was the only one that was picked by the president. Even so, the money made by the Fed should go to US, the fucking TAXPAYERS, not the banks that are allowed to hold shares in it.
And that's why I said Ron Paul would probably never get elected. Even if he was the best choice of the three, he was against the banks. That's the one industry you don't fuck with if you hope to hold political office.
Obama's reduction in my taxes is far from the kind of reduction I'd like to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
Perhaps we should start to move towards what is right and not what is politically acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
Of course...so how do you take care of the banks if they have a stranglehold on politics?Quote:
Originally Posted by jonquest
...
Maybe let them destroy the system due to their own indiscretion???