2.04.2010

Ron Paul Warns Of Coming Social And Political Chaos

by at
Labels: ,

4 comments:

  1. AnonymousFeb 5, 2010, 9:37:00 AM

    Okay, if I may be so bold, here is what is wrong with the Libertarian picture provided by the Ron Paul rant and more or less repeated by the rest of the Libertarian crowd of backseat drivers.

    The gold standard, while historic, and exampled by some visually inspiring coins, is an arbitrary measure that makes little sense in the real world.

    Why should gold be the measure of wealth, when it is placed, if geologically, still -arbitrarily on the planet? The gold standard would allow wealth to be artificially bestowed upon countries whose natural deposits are large, and whose environmental laws are lax. How does this make any sense?

    Placing the currency on the gold standard would condition wealth -like oil conditions wealth, making it somewhat dependent on natural deposits. Is this a desirable? No, it is arbitrary. There would be wars for gold fields just as there are now wars over oil fields.

    The inflexibility of gold as a basis for currency makes it -more- subject to manipulation. History proves this. Is this a positive attribute of an economy? Or is this, a liability, one which increases boom and bust periods?

    Economics is an abstract, complicated and non-intuitive slice of a single-minded -analysis- of reality. There is nothing in the world that is exclusively economic. But economics treats everything as if it were exclusively economic.

    It is a delusion to think there are economic fixes to any problem, simply because these problems when viewed through the economic lens are skewed -and not really focused on the real problems we all are acutely aware of.

    Ron Paul (and the Libertarians) propose half-assed economic or political solutions after half-assed economic or political solutions, without ever considering the whole picture of the problem -which is not economic or political.

    The problem is a moral problem.

    For millennia humanity has waged a battle against reality in an effort to make a better world and to improve human life.

    There is nothing more Quixotic.

    What is better than this world?

    What could be better than life?

    The focus on growth and progress are thus exposed as delusions given us like a plague by generations of so-called geniuses, each who have left the world no better, each who have detracted from life by their assertions, meddling in that which they had no real comprehensive understanding.

    So, even if all the alarmist predictions Ron Paul is making are true, -predictions that are no different from the alarmist predictions recurrently made by generations of alarmist-populists, -are any of these possible outcomes as bad as we are led to believe by our own knee-jerk reaction to the shock of hearing these things tossed up in the air over our heads like so many sharp knives?

    The answer is clearly, No.

    The girls are still very pretty, the Jalapeno peppers are still quite hot, and the water is still inviting when I get the chance to take a swim.

    If society collapses, and I believe to some extent it will continue to collapse, -it will be a good thing, -the perfect time for reassessing the fundamental assumptions that have led us all down this foolish path, where everyone is trying to encourage growth and prosperity, progress and enlightenment.

    It's pretty foolish. I'm sixty. The view from here cannot get any better. Believe me, I'm going to hate to leave it all behind.

    Ron Paul wants to make the world a better place. He comes from a long line of people who similarly thought they knew how to make the world a better place.

    They were -all- wrong.

    The world is fine place without all these meddlers. Don't do more. Do less. Because generally speaking, everything we do messes up the world.

    Ron Paul is too heavy on the side of what we should do, and not heavy enough on the side of what we shouldn't do.

    -Don

    ReplyDelete
  2. -DonFeb 5, 2010, 9:33:00 PM

    Let me take the time here to explain why credit is categorically immoral.

    This is where Ron Paul and I part company. Ron Paul sees the problem of the government's endless borrowing. I see the problem as anyone borrowing. It is a selfish problem, a selfishly immoral problem.

    It is intuitive to many that credit is a dangerous and wasteful path -though few will have thought through -the moral implications of credit.

    When someone wants to buy something, but they do not have enough cash -because the price is beyond their reach, -credit is sometimes offered as an option.

    However, look at -what the implications- the credit option -logically imply.

    First and foremost -the illusion is that credit makes something more affordable for the person looking to purchase. It does not.

    The added interest-cost of credit increases the cost of the purchase. The purchaser thus loses by paying more for an item than he might -if he were able to buy with cash.

    This increased cost then also reduces the amount of cash on hand that -that purchaser- will have available for other items he may need.

    Now step back from this individual's perspective, and ask what a credit purchase does to our economic reality -when a credit purchase is made.

    EVERY credit purchase inflates the price of every purchase of the same item by others. This is due to supply and demand.

    In other words, if an individual views a credit purchase as selfishly-immoral, and refuses credit when it is offered to him, the price of that item will fall, -because -his- demand is removed from the supply and demand equation surrounding that class of item.

    So we can easily see, whenever someone accepts an extension of credit -ostensibly because they cannot afford an item otherwise-, they selfishly put that item further out of the reach of everyone else looking to purchase a similar item.

    This is because of the supply and demand equation.

    Credit causes inflation, forever putting more and more purchases out of reach of more and more people.

    In a credit economy, everything tends to head toward a price so high, credit is required to purchase every item.

    Poverty thus abounds in a credit economy.

    Does that sound familiar?

    We all know what a company store is.

    The credit economy is worse.

    What's the solution?

    Stop borrowing, refuse all credit -and prices will fall accordingly.

    Stop paying back what you have already borrowed, and you will run the credit parasites out of business.

    That is the moral solution to part of the problem Ron Paul only partially addresses.

    It cannot be done? LOL!

    I'm sixty years old. I've never had a loan or a credit card in my life.

    I have everything I want, -including all my teeth.

    Many people my age have lost their teeth. None too few lost their teeth because when they went into debt, they felt they could not afford to go to the dentist any more.

    That's what credit will do for you.

    When ANYONE offers you credit, you have my permission to knock their teeth -right down their throat.

    Someone has to do it.

    Credit is categorically immoral, -even moreso than murder. Dead people don't walk around with half-toothless grins.

    LOL!

    -Don

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousFeb 5, 2010, 10:22:00 PM

    Don:

    So what do you want to use for money? Who will be the benevolent saint performing the role of the federal reserve?

    There are problems with the gold standard, the silver standard, and there have been problems when both have been used simultaneously for money.

    I've read about Franklin's colonial scrip - must work fine when the person running the show cares or is made to care more about the country using the money than the money he stuffs into his/her own pockets.

    Credit? I agree - scam. We've moved from a savings based economy to a credit based economy in my lifetime - and I was born in '64.

    I don't have a particular fondness for a gold standard - seems ridiculous to me too - but if you want to know what gold is worth - ask someone purchasing it because they know their dollar is backed only by the full faith and credit of the torturing, lying, propagandizing, murdering and bill of rights denying federal government of the United States.

    Now - let's say you have one minute to live unless you eat a chicken salad sandwich within fifteen minutes and you are in the air on a Delta flight. All they take are credit cards. You have a credit card - but refuse to use it. They do NOT accept cash. At your destination is a red button that when you press it - and only you can press it - magically all the problems of the world regarding money go away. Do you use your credit card? Nobody likes hypotheticals but the point is there can be situations where borrowing might make sense so we cannot dismiss it entirely although I see your point.

    My point is that people are now placed in a position to either use credit or die. That is not an exaggeration - cash is being deliberately phased out and I can give examples. Living in a tent and eating grubs isn't even an option since there is no public land on which one can pitch a tent and do the Robinson Crusoe thing.

    JR

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jack RabbitFeb 6, 2010, 12:16:00 AM

    Don:

    If you ever come to Charlottesville you'd better lemme buy you lunch. As far as payment for the lunch...I'll take care of that part.

    JR

    ReplyDelete

Only by exercising YOUR freedom of speech shall you keep it. Comment now - I can handle it....

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)