RON PAUL 2012!!!

[PayNSprayBandit]

well the auto industy was already in a precarious situation before the crash since not only is it competing with popular japanies autos but its also dealing with high health care costs since we are annoyingly capitalist in the health care industry, so really if the auto manufacturers did fail and have to go bankrupt its entierly possible that we would end up with almost all the manufacturing leaving the country and just a couple plants still here, altho the odds are anyones guess.

the problem with the contraining buisness agrument is that buisness has shown it will grown to become as bloated and heavy as it can, thats what aig did, thats why we have monopoly laws on the books and really currently we dont have a do poorly and get punished way of reacting to ceos, how do you define bad? say a ceo fires 45000 workers and plays with the books so that it looks like he helped increase earnings by so and so much that quarter so he pulls in a big bonus for this performance, is that bad? and if it is how do you punish them since chances are that did increase the stock price and the board tends to be in favor of that, really without govt interfearence you cant do much to punish them

When people need to eat, they will work. Where people will work, esp. qualified people, companies will do business. This is why we argue that the market will always find a way. The workers may have had some trouble, but ultimately would have been fine.

Again, one of the places regulations are good is in keeping companies from lying. If a CEO breaks the law by "Cooking the Books" we'll give him 20 years and the accountants will have to fix his mess. Now, by "do poorly" I meant loose money, but in all cases the answer is simple. Fail at your job, get fired; fail as a company, go under; cheat people, go to jail. Businesses should be allowed to grow, so long as they "play fair", it's the natural order of things. A competitive capitalist system is best equated to natural selection. It has it's problems, but it is the best way of things. There are plenty of massive conglomerates who are great for the public and have never done any of those things, in fact that's true for most of them.

the main problem with small regulations like that one is that originaly it probably served a purpose but that purpose has been lost and its made delibretly hard to get rid of regulations since all regulations are treated the same and you really dont want it to be easy to get rid of some of them.

oh and the govt already does kinda own schools, its called public schools and while most of it is paid for localy they still get federal money but you also havent said why it would be bad for thoes to be owned directly by the federal govt

This actually is a large part of my problem with regulations. There are too many to keep track of and when they should be changed no one notices and the people who have the power to fix them are too busy to pay attention.

The government absolutely owns schools, trains as well, that's why I gave those examples. There was actually a 20/20 hour special on this that I highly recommend, but I'll try and sum it up.

Schools stagnate because they can. Competition forces teachers to excel and schools to educate. In a state run program there is no one to compete with. It actually brings us back to the monopoly laws you brought up earlier. Schools need a reason to do better. And don't say the answer is money, because the best funded public school in the country is doing the worst. The school system is being killed by a government monopoly and a teachers union that cares far more about job security and salaries than kids or education, that is to say, their jobs.

 

[PayNSprayBandit]

I used to like Ron Paul because of his stance on the Internet, but then I heard about his stance on the economy and withdrew that support.

What is it that you find disturbing about his stance on the economy?

 

[PayNSprayBandit]

I used to like Ron Paul because of his stance on the Internet, but then I heard about his stance on the economy and withdrew that support.

What is it that you find disturbing about his stance on the economy?

I heard he was in favor of deregulation.

Absolutely, what I meant was, "why are you against deregulation?"

 

[PayNSprayBandit]

I used to like Ron Paul because of his stance on the Internet, but then I heard about his stance on the economy and withdrew that support.

What is it that you find disturbing about his stance on the economy?

I heard he was in favor of deregulation.

Absolutely, what I meant was, "why are you against deregulation?"

Are you serious? What do you think got America into this current mess anyway?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.91026?page=8#1686070
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.91026?page=8#1688003

 

[PayNSprayBandit]

There's another point here that we were heading toward, but seemed to lose.

We started with Ron Paul running in 2012 and then the conversation turned to Obama, which is most fitting because he will almost certainly be running for reelection. So, Ron Paul's primary campaign will be something to the effect of "A different kind of Republican" or whatever and "Hey, I can beat Obama". So, the question is could he? The obvious answer it "it depends". It depends on how successful America is between now and then. Note that I said "how successful America is" for better or worse Obama will, just like every other president, be responsible for the state of this country regardless of external forces. So, it's not his plans and more the result, but for the sake of argument lets say he does 'okay', not great but not bad either. This will make the election of 2012 ideological rather than about recent events. And the debate then is, "Can Ron Paul sway this country to his way of thinking in an ideological debate with Barrack Obama?" and my thought is, "yes, I believe so."

Why? Because while Obama is a gifted speaker, so is Paul and he's quick on his feet, making him good in a debate as well as in interviews. Ideologically I think Freedom is an argument that can be sold to the pubic and nobody sells it better than Ron Paul. This country has recoiled from the bailout and is concerned about such a socialist economic policy. WRT personal freedom they are both pretty extremely in favor removing the issue from the debate. This would mean that the discussion would be Obama trying to take care of everyone with his redistribution of wealth versus Paul's relentless freedom and Omaba's war on Pakistan versus Paul's Isolationism (which I'm actually against). They're polar opposites on everything but wedge issues, which they both think are stupid; which is good, because they're right, wedge issues are idiotic. If nothing else it would be a solid intellectual debate, which this country desperately needs.

 

[Worgen]

well the auto industy was already in a precarious situation before the crash since not only is it competing with popular japanies autos but its also dealing with high health care costs since we are annoyingly capitalist in the health care industry, so really if the auto manufacturers did fail and have to go bankrupt its entierly possible that we would end up with almost all the manufacturing leaving the country and just a couple plants still here, altho the odds are anyones guess.

the problem with the contraining buisness agrument is that buisness has shown it will grown to become as bloated and heavy as it can, thats what aig did, thats why we have monopoly laws on the books and really currently we dont have a do poorly and get punished way of reacting to ceos, how do you define bad? say a ceo fires 45000 workers and plays with the books so that it looks like he helped increase earnings by so and so much that quarter so he pulls in a big bonus for this performance, is that bad? and if it is how do you punish them since chances are that did increase the stock price and the board tends to be in favor of that, really without govt interfearence you cant do much to punish them

When people need to eat, they will work. Where people will work, esp. qualified people, companies will do business. This is why we argue that the market will always find a way. The workers may have had some trouble, but ultimately would have been fine.

Again, one of the places regulations are good is in keeping companies from lying. If a CEO breaks the law by "Cooking the Books" we'll give him 20 years and the accountants will have to fix his mess. Now, by "do poorly" I meant loose money, but in all cases the answer is simple. Fail at your job, get fired; fail as a company, go under; cheat people, go to jail. Businesses should be allowed to grow, so long as they "play fair", it's the natural order of things. A competitive capitalist system is best equated to natural selection. It has it's problems, but it is the best way of things. There are plenty of massive conglomerates who are great for the public and have never done any of those things, in fact that's true for most of them.

the main problem with small regulations like that one is that originaly it probably served a purpose but that purpose has been lost and its made delibretly hard to get rid of regulations since all regulations are treated the same and you really dont want it to be easy to get rid of some of them.

oh and the govt already does kinda own schools, its called public schools and while most of it is paid for localy they still get federal money but you also havent said why it would be bad for thoes to be owned directly by the federal govt

This actually is a large part of my problem with regulations. There are too many to keep track of and when they should be changed no one notices and the people who have the power to fix them are too busy to pay attention.

The government absolutely owns schools, trains as well, that's why I gave those examples. There was actually a 20/20 hour special on this that I highly recommend, but I'll try and sum it up.

Schools stagnate because they can. Competition forces teachers to excel and schools to educate. In a state run program there is no one to compete with. It actually brings us back to the monopoly laws you brought up earlier. Schools need a reason to do better. And don't say the answer is money, because the best funded public school in the country is doing the worst. The school system is being killed by a government monopoly and a teachers union that cares far more about job security and salaries than kids or education, that is to say, their jobs.

you really should pay more attention to buisness. CEOs are fantasticly good at playing with numbers so even a failure can look like a sucess and white coller crime is very hard to really punish legaly since there are so many ways for them to have plausable deniability, really they have to be really incompitant to leave enough evidence for a nice clean conviction, in fact when a buisness is sucessfull enough the market will boost it since it will have the power to get nay sayers fired, just read the smartest guys in the room, its about enron and shows the extreme case. Altho the play fair thing you just mentioned is why we have regulations, to prevent them from not playing nice, when you get rid of regulations then they play mean and dont share the monkey bars. Would you rather have regulations that are difficult to change and some mild annoyances becaues of them or ones that are easy to change and end up having someone just remove them because they dont like them?

Im going to guess you dont know many school boards, usualy they arnt made up of the best people for the job they need to do and teachers arnt paid enough to really attract the best people for the jobs, I had a gym teacher who also taught math and here the cost of living is high enough so that starting teachers cant afford to live in the city so that tells you what they are paid here.

Why am I not suprised you dont like unions, unions exist to protect workers from abuse

 

[PayNSprayBandit]

You really should pay more attention to business. CEOs are fantastically good at playing with numbers so even a failure can look like a success and white caller crime is very hard to really punish legally since there are so many ways for them to have plausible deniability, really they have to be really incompetent to leave enough evidence for a nice clean conviction, in fact when a business is successful enough the market will boost it since it will have the power to get nay sayers fired, just read the smartest guys in the room, its about Enron and shows the extreme case. Although the play fair thing you just mentioned is why we have regulations, to prevent them from not playing nice, when you get rid of regulations then they play mean and don't share the monkey bars. Would you rather have regulations that are difficult to change and some mild annoyances because of them or ones that are easy to change and end up having someone just remove them because they don't like them?

I'm going to guess you don't know many school boards, usually they aren't made up of the best people for the job they need to do and teachers aren't paid enough to really attract the best people for the jobs, I had a gym teacher who also taught math and here the cost of living is high enough so that starting teachers cant afford to live in the city so that tells you what they are paid here.

Why am I not surprised you don't like unions, unions exist to protect workers from abuse?

Okay, in reverse. I don't hate all unions. I think that for the most part their time has passed and whereas they were once useful, now they often hurt more than help. There are still some that do good. Mostly, I dislike unions that are all-powerful and selfish.

Teacher's salaries will only reach their proper level when schools have to compete for teachers and the free market is allowed to take hold. There's like a hundred step process to get rid of a bad teacher. Teachers accused of sexual harassment are paid to sit in a room alone for years while the case is settled. Young teachers are poor because old teachers who run the union demand all the money. The teachers union is so bad, extreme liberal Barrack Obama came out against them last month. This isn't about Norma Raye, it's about a union that has, as you might say, "grown to become as bloated and heavy as it can".

When schools compete for teachers, teachers win. When schools compete for students and teachers compete for jobs, students win. Competition is king. I really do recommend seeing "Stupid in America", Stossel did this whole investigation, it was great.

And lastly, Enron. In May 2006, Enron's founder, Ken Lay, and CEO Jeffrey Skilling were both found guilty of conspiring to defraud shareholders. In July 2006, Ken Lay died before he could be sentenced. In October 2006, Jeff Skilling was sentenced to 24 years in prison. Even after claiming to have no knowledge of accounting and claiming to be as baffled as us the verdict remained the same. These guys are expected to know what's going on and if something goes wrong, they go down whether they had malicious intent or not. See also Bernard Madoff. Tell me again about how these guys get away.

I actually pay a lot of attention.

As for the investors, know in whom you're investing, know who you can trust, take a risk, or invest more conservatively. The point I've been trying to make, but am clearly not wording properly, is that "limited government" is not "no government". Government absolutely has a role to play in all our lives. It's just a really small one. Ensuring stability in the system through a few permanent laws (I never said I wanted easily changeable laws.) is their job and it's far better than getting the government involved in the minutia. Also, an important side note, the vast majority of business men are not evil. If you have to lie down, I'll understand.