|
At an event in Lansing, Michigan Monday, Rick Santorum put forward an alternate theory for the cause of the financial crisis in 2008: that rising gas prices caused Americans to default on their mortgages, leading to the wave of foreclosures that sparked Wall Street’s near collapse.
“We went into a recession in 2008 because of gasoline prices,” Santorum said to a hotel ballroom of supporters. “The bubble burst in housing because people couldn’t pay their mortgages because of $4 a gallon gasoline.”
This isn’t the first time Rick Santorum has offered up his gas price theory. Earlier this month, he made the same claim in Colorado (via the Colorado Independent):
“We went into a recession in 2008. People forget why. They thought it was a housing bubble. The housing bubble was caused because of a dramatic spike in energy prices that caused the housing bubble to burst,” Santorum told the audience. “People had to pay so much money to air condition and heat their homes or pay for gasoline that they couldn’t pay their mortgage.”
Source
|
So do people not realize these guys just flat out lie repeatedly? How do they get away with this crap?
|
According to PPP Santorum retakes the lead in Michigan, while others say it is basically deadlocked. I wish I didn't have to work today >.<
Tonight is going to be insane no matter what the outcome.
|
On February 28 2012 16:13 Focuspants wrote:
So do people not realize these guys just flat out lie repeatedly? How do they get away with this crap?
general populace is stupid and makes decisions based off of emotions rather than rationality
|
On February 27 2012 14:54 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:45 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 14:38 BlackJack wrote:On February 27 2012 13:41 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 13:26 BlackJack wrote:
Finally something I agree with Santorum on. You don't apologize to irrational people just so they will calm down. You tell them to behave like adults. Caving in to a child throwing a tantrum only tells them that throwing a tantrum will get them what they want. True, but there's also something to be said for being the bigger party, especially when you have overwhelming power. Truth be told, the little guys and the big guys never play by the same rules. Especially when in this case, you've knowingly done something disrespectful that caused the tantrum, and I don't believe in this case it's particularly irrational. God knows what would happen if mass bible burning took place in the US, and the amount of shit it'd stir up from people like Santorum. You can argue that it's just a book without any external significance but what you're really making is an anti-religion argument, which is just a fruitless, impertinent ideal and has no context or pull in real life situations, even if it's logically correct. If you're sticking with the tantrum argument, I think the better comparison is between an older and younger sibling. For the older sibling, proving yourself right feels good emotionally, but it doesn't help you accomplish your goals. The goal should be to get them to stop going nuts every time they get offended, not to beg for forgiveness so we can have a little peace until the next guy draws a cartoon of Muhammad. Apologizing treats the symptoms instead of the disease. It just dignifies their actions with a response. Since when is an apology the same as begging for forgiveness? They can take it or leave it, but we (including Santorum) admitted a mistake, so you own it by apologizing for it and trying to correct it in the future. If they don't accept that response, then it's on them. If you do something wrong and someone overreacts in response, you apologize for the wrong you've done. In some cases, you also condemn their overreaction. To be honest, I don't see the distinction between admitting a mistake you've made and apologizing. In this instance you're right because the Quran burning was carried out by the military so it reflects on our government. However Obama has also gone out of his way to condemn a Quran burning by a private citizen, which is not admitting a mistake but simply an attempt to appease protesters
Or maybe he's simply trying to protect the safety of Americans in Afghanistan without escalating the situation. Sending more troops and ramping up security is expensive and puts people's lives at risk. Apologizing is free.
It's laughable how easily some politicians can be blinded by their own pride. Being humble isn't a weakness. It can actually be used strategically to great effect.
For example, the Cuban Missile Crisis was averted not by American pride, but by intelligent politicians realizing it's much smarter to feign humility than start World War 3 for no good reason.
|
On February 28 2012 16:28 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:54 BlackJack wrote:On February 27 2012 14:45 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 14:38 BlackJack wrote:On February 27 2012 13:41 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 13:26 BlackJack wrote:
Finally something I agree with Santorum on. You don't apologize to irrational people just so they will calm down. You tell them to behave like adults. Caving in to a child throwing a tantrum only tells them that throwing a tantrum will get them what they want. True, but there's also something to be said for being the bigger party, especially when you have overwhelming power. Truth be told, the little guys and the big guys never play by the same rules. Especially when in this case, you've knowingly done something disrespectful that caused the tantrum, and I don't believe in this case it's particularly irrational. God knows what would happen if mass bible burning took place in the US, and the amount of shit it'd stir up from people like Santorum. You can argue that it's just a book without any external significance but what you're really making is an anti-religion argument, which is just a fruitless, impertinent ideal and has no context or pull in real life situations, even if it's logically correct. If you're sticking with the tantrum argument, I think the better comparison is between an older and younger sibling. For the older sibling, proving yourself right feels good emotionally, but it doesn't help you accomplish your goals. The goal should be to get them to stop going nuts every time they get offended, not to beg for forgiveness so we can have a little peace until the next guy draws a cartoon of Muhammad. Apologizing treats the symptoms instead of the disease. It just dignifies their actions with a response. Since when is an apology the same as begging for forgiveness? They can take it or leave it, but we (including Santorum) admitted a mistake, so you own it by apologizing for it and trying to correct it in the future. If they don't accept that response, then it's on them. If you do something wrong and someone overreacts in response, you apologize for the wrong you've done. In some cases, you also condemn their overreaction. To be honest, I don't see the distinction between admitting a mistake you've made and apologizing. In this instance you're right because the Quran burning was carried out by the military so it reflects on our government. However Obama has also gone out of his way to condemn a Quran burning by a private citizen, which is not admitting a mistake but simply an attempt to appease protesters Or maybe he's simply trying to protect the safety of Americans in Afghanistan without escalating the situation. Sending more troops and ramping up security is expensive and puts people's lives at risk. Apologizing is free. It's laughable how easily some politicians can be blinded by their own pride. Being humble isn't a weakness. It can actually be used strategically to great effect. For example, the Cuban Missile Crisis was averted not by American pride, but by intelligent politicians realizing it's much smarter to feign humility than start World War 3 for no good reason.
Fuck that, I don't want my Prime Minister to bow to a Saudi King!
|
xDaunt is the lightwip of Obama.
|
On February 28 2012 10:16 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 09:51 darthfoley wrote:On February 28 2012 07:12 xDaunt wrote:
Romney simply doesn't have the same gift for personal communication that someone like Clinton or even Bush had. He is incapable of connecting with people. In fairness, Obama isn't much better. He can give a good speech off of a teleprompter, but by all accounts, he is cold and aloof in person. My school choir played for him and michelle in the white house a few months ago for christmas. From all accounts, he's exactly the opposite of how you describe him. He was quite friendly and kind. Yeah, I actually know several people who have met him who have said he was very engaging and friendly. One was just an intern in an elevator with him and there were no reporters or anything around for him to have to present for. She got a picture with him and said he was very nice and asked her about her day and how she liked interning. He is very calculating politically, but I think the second to last line about Clinton being different is completely false. Plenty of people felt the death touch politically by Clinton.
Sorry for the slight off-topic, but the words "intern in elevator", "Clinton", and "death touch", all in one post, made me giggle.
|
apparently Santorum and Romney are both leading Obama in the "swing states", with Santorum leading by a wider margin!
In the poll, Obama lags the two leading Republican rivals in the 12 states likely to determine the outcome of a close race in November:
•Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum tops Obama 50%-45% in the swing states. Nationwide, Santorum's lead narrows to 49%-46%.
•Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney edges Obama 48%-46% in the swing states. Nationwide, they are tied at 47% each.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-23/swing-states-health-care-obama/53260222/1
edit: of course i think we should take polls with a grain of salt, but this does seem to fly in the face of the "common knowledge" that 1) Romney has the best chance of beating Obama and 2) that Santorum cannot beat Obama.
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 28 2012 16:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +At an event in Lansing, Michigan Monday, Rick Santorum put forward an alternate theory for the cause of the financial crisis in 2008: that rising gas prices caused Americans to default on their mortgages, leading to the wave of foreclosures that sparked Wall Street’s near collapse.
“We went into a recession in 2008 because of gasoline prices,” Santorum said to a hotel ballroom of supporters. “The bubble burst in housing because people couldn’t pay their mortgages because of $4 a gallon gasoline.”
This isn’t the first time Rick Santorum has offered up his gas price theory. Earlier this month, he made the same claim in Colorado (via the Colorado Independent):
“We went into a recession in 2008. People forget why. They thought it was a housing bubble. The housing bubble was caused because of a dramatic spike in energy prices that caused the housing bubble to burst,” Santorum told the audience. “People had to pay so much money to air condition and heat their homes or pay for gasoline that they couldn’t pay their mortgage.” Source
Lol? This guy has no fucking clue. People defaulted on their mortgages because they had terrible, sub-prime mortgages with bad terms that they didn't understand (for various reasons) and they couldn't afford to pay them. They couldn't afford to pay them due to variable interest rates that skyrocketed shortly after payments began. It had little to do with gas prices.
Occam's Razor: they couldn't pay their mortgage because their mortgage payments were too large.
|
He is absolutely able to connect with people on a personal level, as others have pointed out and as people who've been close to him will tell you. Like someone else wrote, your first link answers your question.
|
On February 27 2012 20:49 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 17:38 EternaLLegacy wrote:On February 27 2012 14:52 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 14:44 EternaLLegacy wrote:On February 27 2012 14:38 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 14:29 EternaLLegacy wrote:On February 27 2012 14:08 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 13:52 xavra41 wrote:
I know Reagan didn't keep his word, and I don't support him either. But he did run on free markets and he was widely popular nonetheless. Government can't just "bolster" and industry. It can give other peoples' money away in a very inefficient and corrupt manner, but as I said before liberals don't understand that you have to take money away before you can give it to something. Rather than a giant sum of money passing through the leaky bucket it would be more efficient to simple lower taxes (and spending) if you wanted to create a haven for big business.
We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country think that the government can fix all their problems. Probably most dangerous from young people as they are not used to politicians lying to them. I don't believe free markets are unstable and that's where we differ. I understand quite clearly how taxes, distributive, redistributive, regulatory and constituent policies work, and I also have a very firm handle on international political economies. The low tax business haven you speak of just doesn't exist, and it never has. They want things, and there's far more examples of strategic trade working than both free markets and protectionism. It's a necessary balancing act. The only models for free trade exist within a vacuum. As soon as they hit the international market, you get a prisoner's dilemma. Strategic trade is good. It's not perfect and like any form of agreement making, it's more art than science. That's your balancing act. It's been in place in the US for half a century now. The problem is that today, for the purpose of rhetoric, it's portrayed as protectionism when in actuality it's the complicated middle ground between free trade and protectionism. The rhetoric works that way because black and white thinking has become such commonplace and is so effective in modern American politics. "You're either with us or against us", and they lie and say there's no room for middle ground. That's fine that you believe that. However, I don't. Do you believe that your beliefs should be inflicted on me at gunpoint? Unless you can present a reasonable counter argument for free trade in international trade, which really doesn't exist. It's something that's been studied and researched for two decades now, and no alternative has been presented. The only alternative is a portrayed one used to score political points, but it has no bearing on reality. This isn't a personal belief system where everyone gets a choice. This is federal trade policy that has been in place for decades, and experts spend their careers studying it and making suggestions on how to implement it better. The system itself (as opposed to a free trade system) is reality, and there's plenty of room for contention on how to best execute it. But not believing in the system is just ignoring a part of reality. People traded before governments existed. Clearly, free trade is reality too. You're really talking about bartering in a discussion on trade policy? You've gone millenia before Adam Smith and Ricardo and even mercantilism, into remedial territory. It's really not relevant at all. In fact, free trade theory is predicated upon the existence of governments, so your statement is patently false. I will ask you again, do you believe in enforcing your beliefs upon me by pointing guns at me? Yes, in some situations. That's exactly how governments and societies work. If your beliefs are contrary to the law and you decide to break it, you will literally have guns pointed at you. If you keep those beliefs but don't break the law then obviously not, but I see little reason why an uneducated belief should be valued. The group of experts making decisions obviously believe something contrary to you, so in this case your belief is nearly meaningless. You can choose to believe that 2+2=5 and no one will harm you for it, but no one will value you either. You can argue that free trade is superior, but what I'm saying is that it does not exist and you cannot cite previous American prosperity as an example of it. It has always fallen somewhere in between free trade and protectionism and at times it's leaned one way or the other. If free trade is represented by 0 on a scale and protectionism is represented by 10, the problem I'm addressing is that politicians knowingly lie when they accuse anything >0 (say, 0.5) of being a form of protectionism. It's a black and white argument for what's really a very complicated issue. In reality, it's probably best to remain somewhere between 3-7. Arguing for 0 and 10 is silly and counter productive. Free trade is, by definition, not free if governments are involved. How can it be free trade when there's governments pointing guns everywhere? No, it isn't. You're confusing lay definitions with actual economic concepts. You don't have free trade without governments. Even the most laissez faire system has government involvement because you still trade using a common currency, which is controlled by the government. What you're talking about is pre-civilization bartering systems. Show nested quote +You claim that just because experts say something and they're the law that me disagreeing makes it okay for guns to be pointed at me. I'm sure the experts in Mao's China thought they were doing a fantastic job allocating rice. Too bad for 20 million people who starved. Just because experts and guns are involved does not make anything right or wrong. Our educated elite seem to think that we can borrow and spend our way into prosperity right now, and they're absolutely incorrect. Experts are no longer experts but simply parrots when the government gets involved. There's open research and competing theories. It is nothing close to a command economy authoritarian state like early Communist China was. Relying on lay people to make important decisions instead of people who have studied the field their entire life is just stupid. It's like discounting the SC2 advice of MVP, because a bronze player thinks he's watched enough SC2 to understand it. Show nested quote +Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that your claim has some legitimacy. Why is free trade bad? Why is arguing for no government involvement counterproductive? Why is anarchy counterproductive? Because there's no regulation. Because there's violence. Because currency has no value nor liquidity. Show nested quote +And lastly, do you believe that every law is worth obeying? I'm sure you've broken a few thousand laws over the course of your lifetime without even realizing it. It's estimated every person commits 3 felonies a day in the US on average. Obviously, there's something wrong with the law. Law does not equal morality. They are completely separate concepts. When law follows morality, there is justice. When law does not, there is tyrrany. Morality is completely subjective. This discussion really is quite silly. I think you should read more about economics.
You do not need a common currency controlled by government. Ron Paul wants to legalize competing currencies and repeal legal tender laws. This is a position that is held by virtually every Austrian economist. Currencies should not be monopolized, but left up to the market.
Anarchy is not counterproductive. Government is counterproductive. The market provides far better regulation than a monopoly of government ever can. There is no evidence to support a claim of anarcho-capitalist systems being any more violent than government. Unfortunately, the examples are few and far between, but one I can give is Iceland 900-1200 AD. During this period there were competing systems of law, much like the modern concept of dispute resolution organizations (DROs) in anarcho-capitalist theory. Violent crime rate during a period of "civil war" at the end of this period was still less than violent crime rate in the US today. The system was completely stable until the Church moved in and created a form of monopoly power and taxation, a la government.
And, morality is not subjective, because that is a contradiction. If morality is subjective, then my claim that it is objective is as valid as yours that it is not. Clearly, it can't be objective and not objective at the same time. Morality is the most often misunderstood concept in modern culture (thank you government schools), so I don't blame you for not understanding it. The entire notion of morality is to provide a code of universal rules which we should live by. There are rules that objectively fit that definition. Rape is never good. Murder is never good. The idea behind the libertarian position - the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) - is that the initiation of force is never good. Force should only be used in self defense. This is philosophically defensible, and there's a lot of great philosophy behind it dating back to Kant, and beyond.
And lastly, I find it hilarious that you say I should learn more about economics and make appeals to authority. That does not constitute an argument. I am very learned in economics, and can point you to countless resources to back my claims. Now if you want to learn more about anarcho-capitalist theory and Austrian economics, I strongly suggest www.mises.org (for economics) and www.freedomainradio.com (for philosophy).
|
On February 27 2012 19:52 Falling wrote:
Why can't it indeed. Business has been around for long enough to wrest military monopoly from the government and yet it hasn't for the most part. And really the collapse of imperial power also sees the collapse of international trade- we call it the Dark Ages (although our view of this age is admittedly through the lense of the Renaissance.)
But I don't really see the advantage of the East India Company having the fleets rather than the Royal Navy. Or ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP having their personal navies vs sovereign nations. Actually we kinda do know what happens when military and business mix- the Beaver Wars in colonial New France with French traders vs British and Dutch traders waging proxy wars via their First Nation allies. It's not always so one-sided, government always getting involved in business. Just as often, business will recruit the government to gain an advantage over its competitors.
To me, companies with military power would be just as prone to fighting as their government as they try to gain an advantage over their competition. And a company wielding military power doesn't seem to be much different than a government- except no constitution or check and balances in power and certainly not even the slightest pretence of being accountable to citizens of a country. In fact the East India Company's rule in India very much make them indistinguishable from imperial rule when the company was nationalized. (Having armed forces, ruling by proxy.)
Protectionism makes sense in regards to infant industries that eventually wish to compete. Britain industrialized first and was the dominant manufacturer of the world and chief proponent of free trade so they could sell to new markets. When America industrialized, they had newer factories and technologies so they could outproduce Britain at a lower price. But until they got to that point, they hid behind tariff walls to protect their infant industries which could not compete with the established British manufacturers.
You bring up good historical concerns, but really they are just examples of why government power is bad. See, military usage is extraordinarily expensive, and any military conflict is economically devastating. It's almost impossible for any company to profitably engage in conflict. The "recruitment" of government services is exactly what's going on today, with big banks recruiting government to bail them out with stolen funds from taxpayers (and taxation is violence). The only way any company can function so perversely is through government taxation.
For example, the East India Company was a classic example of corporatism and government granted monopoly. They're like the Monsanto of the 1700s. It's important to realize that the fuel for the Boston Tea Party was actually competitors in America getting pissed off at the preferential treatment of the East India Company by the British government. It was literally activism against subsidies.
http://mises.org/rothbard/protectionism.asp
Protectionism is the use of government force to impede free trade in order to benefit a small business class that cannot compete in an open market, at the expense of every consumer. It is literally a transfer of wealth from consumer to producer, the exact thing that every "liberal" should abhor.
|
On February 28 2012 07:29 koreasilver wrote:
He probably won't, but even considering that Romney's plan is more fiscally responsible and economically conservative than the remaining candidates. I honestly don't really care that Romney is rich. This fact alone should not matter at all, and it's one of the worse red herrings that people bring up against Romney.
ROFL?
It's not economically conservative. It doesn't even reduce the deficit.
The only economically conservative plan is Ron Paul's, where he wants to cut a TRILLION dollars year 1, balance the budget in 3, reduce the income tax to ZERO. That's ZERO.
How is that not conservative?
And how is arguing for a Federal reserve to continue economic stimulus and a government to continue fiscal stimulus conservative or fiscally responsible? Romney is a hack and you're falling for it. Embarrassing...
Edit: Sorry about the triple post... bah
|
1019 Posts
On February 28 2012 16:13 Focuspants wrote:
So do people not realize these guys just flat out lie repeatedly? How do they get away with this crap?
People are a lot stupider than you might think. It's really sad honestly.
|
On February 28 2012 18:14 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 16:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:At an event in Lansing, Michigan Monday, Rick Santorum put forward an alternate theory for the cause of the financial crisis in 2008: that rising gas prices caused Americans to default on their mortgages, leading to the wave of foreclosures that sparked Wall Street’s near collapse.
“We went into a recession in 2008 because of gasoline prices,” Santorum said to a hotel ballroom of supporters. “The bubble burst in housing because people couldn’t pay their mortgages because of $4 a gallon gasoline.”
This isn’t the first time Rick Santorum has offered up his gas price theory. Earlier this month, he made the same claim in Colorado (via the Colorado Independent):
“We went into a recession in 2008. People forget why. They thought it was a housing bubble. The housing bubble was caused because of a dramatic spike in energy prices that caused the housing bubble to burst,” Santorum told the audience. “People had to pay so much money to air condition and heat their homes or pay for gasoline that they couldn’t pay their mortgage.” Source Lol? This guy has no fucking clue. People defaulted on their mortgages because they had terrible, sub-prime mortgages with bad terms that they didn't understand (for various reasons) and they couldn't afford to pay them. They couldn't afford to pay them due to variable interest rates that skyrocketed shortly after payments began. It had little to do with gas prices. Occam's Razor: they couldn't pay their mortgage because their mortgage payments were too large.
Oh come on. I think we can all say at this point that Santorum doesn't understand Occam's Razor.
|
On February 28 2012 21:22 EternaLLegacy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 20:49 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 17:38 EternaLLegacy wrote:On February 27 2012 14:52 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 14:44 EternaLLegacy wrote:On February 27 2012 14:38 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 14:29 EternaLLegacy wrote:On February 27 2012 14:08 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 13:52 xavra41 wrote:
I know Reagan didn't keep his word, and I don't support him either. But he did run on free markets and he was widely popular nonetheless. Government can't just "bolster" and industry. It can give other peoples' money away in a very inefficient and corrupt manner, but as I said before liberals don't understand that you have to take money away before you can give it to something. Rather than a giant sum of money passing through the leaky bucket it would be more efficient to simple lower taxes (and spending) if you wanted to create a haven for big business.
We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country think that the government can fix all their problems. Probably most dangerous from young people as they are not used to politicians lying to them. I don't believe free markets are unstable and that's where we differ. I understand quite clearly how taxes, distributive, redistributive, regulatory and constituent policies work, and I also have a very firm handle on international political economies. The low tax business haven you speak of just doesn't exist, and it never has. They want things, and there's far more examples of strategic trade working than both free markets and protectionism. It's a necessary balancing act. The only models for free trade exist within a vacuum. As soon as they hit the international market, you get a prisoner's dilemma. Strategic trade is good. It's not perfect and like any form of agreement making, it's more art than science. That's your balancing act. It's been in place in the US for half a century now. The problem is that today, for the purpose of rhetoric, it's portrayed as protectionism when in actuality it's the complicated middle ground between free trade and protectionism. The rhetoric works that way because black and white thinking has become such commonplace and is so effective in modern American politics. "You're either with us or against us", and they lie and say there's no room for middle ground. That's fine that you believe that. However, I don't. Do you believe that your beliefs should be inflicted on me at gunpoint? Unless you can present a reasonable counter argument for free trade in international trade, which really doesn't exist. It's something that's been studied and researched for two decades now, and no alternative has been presented. The only alternative is a portrayed one used to score political points, but it has no bearing on reality. This isn't a personal belief system where everyone gets a choice. This is federal trade policy that has been in place for decades, and experts spend their careers studying it and making suggestions on how to implement it better. The system itself (as opposed to a free trade system) is reality, and there's plenty of room for contention on how to best execute it. But not believing in the system is just ignoring a part of reality. People traded before governments existed. Clearly, free trade is reality too. You're really talking about bartering in a discussion on trade policy? You've gone millenia before Adam Smith and Ricardo and even mercantilism, into remedial territory. It's really not relevant at all. In fact, free trade theory is predicated upon the existence of governments, so your statement is patently false. I will ask you again, do you believe in enforcing your beliefs upon me by pointing guns at me? Yes, in some situations. That's exactly how governments and societies work. If your beliefs are contrary to the law and you decide to break it, you will literally have guns pointed at you. If you keep those beliefs but don't break the law then obviously not, but I see little reason why an uneducated belief should be valued. The group of experts making decisions obviously believe something contrary to you, so in this case your belief is nearly meaningless. You can choose to believe that 2+2=5 and no one will harm you for it, but no one will value you either. You can argue that free trade is superior, but what I'm saying is that it does not exist and you cannot cite previous American prosperity as an example of it. It has always fallen somewhere in between free trade and protectionism and at times it's leaned one way or the other. If free trade is represented by 0 on a scale and protectionism is represented by 10, the problem I'm addressing is that politicians knowingly lie when they accuse anything >0 (say, 0.5) of being a form of protectionism. It's a black and white argument for what's really a very complicated issue. In reality, it's probably best to remain somewhere between 3-7. Arguing for 0 and 10 is silly and counter productive. Free trade is, by definition, not free if governments are involved. How can it be free trade when there's governments pointing guns everywhere? No, it isn't. You're confusing lay definitions with actual economic concepts. You don't have free trade without governments. Even the most laissez faire system has government involvement because you still trade using a common currency, which is controlled by the government. What you're talking about is pre-civilization bartering systems. You claim that just because experts say something and they're the law that me disagreeing makes it okay for guns to be pointed at me. I'm sure the experts in Mao's China thought they were doing a fantastic job allocating rice. Too bad for 20 million people who starved. Just because experts and guns are involved does not make anything right or wrong. Our educated elite seem to think that we can borrow and spend our way into prosperity right now, and they're absolutely incorrect. Experts are no longer experts but simply parrots when the government gets involved. There's open research and competing theories. It is nothing close to a command economy authoritarian state like early Communist China was. Relying on lay people to make important decisions instead of people who have studied the field their entire life is just stupid. It's like discounting the SC2 advice of MVP, because a bronze player thinks he's watched enough SC2 to understand it. Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that your claim has some legitimacy. Why is free trade bad? Why is arguing for no government involvement counterproductive? Why is anarchy counterproductive? Because there's no regulation. Because there's violence. Because currency has no value nor liquidity. And lastly, do you believe that every law is worth obeying? I'm sure you've broken a few thousand laws over the course of your lifetime without even realizing it. It's estimated every person commits 3 felonies a day in the US on average. Obviously, there's something wrong with the law. Law does not equal morality. They are completely separate concepts. When law follows morality, there is justice. When law does not, there is tyrrany. Morality is completely subjective. This discussion really is quite silly. I think you should read more about economics. You do not need a common currency controlled by government. Ron Paul wants to legalize competing currencies and repeal legal tender laws. This is a position that is held by virtually every Austrian economist. Currencies should not be monopolized, but left up to the market. Anarchy is not counterproductive. Government is counterproductive. The market provides far better regulation than a monopoly of government ever can. There is no evidence to support a claim of anarcho-capitalist systems being any more violent than government. Unfortunately, the examples are few and far between, but one I can give is Iceland 900-1200 AD. During this period there were competing systems of law, much like the modern concept of dispute resolution organizations (DROs) in anarcho-capitalist theory. Violent crime rate during a period of "civil war" at the end of this period was still less than violent crime rate in the US today. The system was completely stable until the Church moved in and created a form of monopoly power and taxation, a la government. And, morality is not subjective, because that is a contradiction. If morality is subjective, then my claim that it is objective is as valid as yours that it is not. Clearly, it can't be objective and not objective at the same time. Morality is the most often misunderstood concept in modern culture (thank you government schools), so I don't blame you for not understanding it. The entire notion of morality is to provide a code of universal rules which we should live by. There are rules that objectively fit that definition. Rape is never good. Murder is never good. The idea behind the libertarian position - the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) - is that the initiation of force is never good. Force should only be used in self defense. This is philosophically defensible, and there's a lot of great philosophy behind it dating back to Kant, and beyond. And lastly, I find it hilarious that you say I should learn more about economics and make appeals to authority. That does not constitute an argument. I am very learned in economics, and can point you to countless resources to back my claims. Now if you want to learn more about anarcho-capitalist theory and Austrian economics, I strongly suggest www.mises.org (for economics) and www.freedomainradio.com (for philosophy).
This is laughable to say the least. How anyone can ever believe that "government" is counter-productive is beyond me. Iceland, like Europe, was comprised of fiefdoms at the time. That there were many smaller fiefdoms for a period does not mean it was lawless, nor that there were not "competing systems of law" over pretty much all of Europe. I say Europe because I know very little about other parts of the world at this time, but I would imagine it was similar. And let's not ignore that Iceland is quite large and their entire population was estimated at 50 000. Never the less Iceland does give an important lesson here; That someone will come in and consolidate power should they have the ability and motive to do so. This is a major problem for anarcho-capitalism, the biggest one in my eyes. But you keep on dreaming. Fortunately people drenched in such idealistic worldviews are few and far apart, meaning the society I live in can remain free and stable.
|
On February 28 2012 22:09 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 21:22 EternaLLegacy wrote:On February 27 2012 20:49 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 17:38 EternaLLegacy wrote:On February 27 2012 14:52 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 14:44 EternaLLegacy wrote:On February 27 2012 14:38 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 14:29 EternaLLegacy wrote:On February 27 2012 14:08 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 13:52 xavra41 wrote:
I know Reagan didn't keep his word, and I don't support him either. But he did run on free markets and he was widely popular nonetheless. Government can't just "bolster" and industry. It can give other peoples' money away in a very inefficient and corrupt manner, but as I said before liberals don't understand that you have to take money away before you can give it to something. Rather than a giant sum of money passing through the leaky bucket it would be more efficient to simple lower taxes (and spending) if you wanted to create a haven for big business.
We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country think that the government can fix all their problems. Probably most dangerous from young people as they are not used to politicians lying to them. I don't believe free markets are unstable and that's where we differ. I understand quite clearly how taxes, distributive, redistributive, regulatory and constituent policies work, and I also have a very firm handle on international political economies. The low tax business haven you speak of just doesn't exist, and it never has. They want things, and there's far more examples of strategic trade working than both free markets and protectionism. It's a necessary balancing act. The only models for free trade exist within a vacuum. As soon as they hit the international market, you get a prisoner's dilemma. Strategic trade is good. It's not perfect and like any form of agreement making, it's more art than science. That's your balancing act. It's been in place in the US for half a century now. The problem is that today, for the purpose of rhetoric, it's portrayed as protectionism when in actuality it's the complicated middle ground between free trade and protectionism. The rhetoric works that way because black and white thinking has become such commonplace and is so effective in modern American politics. "You're either with us or against us", and they lie and say there's no room for middle ground. That's fine that you believe that. However, I don't. Do you believe that your beliefs should be inflicted on me at gunpoint? Unless you can present a reasonable counter argument for free trade in international trade, which really doesn't exist. It's something that's been studied and researched for two decades now, and no alternative has been presented. The only alternative is a portrayed one used to score political points, but it has no bearing on reality. This isn't a personal belief system where everyone gets a choice. This is federal trade policy that has been in place for decades, and experts spend their careers studying it and making suggestions on how to implement it better. The system itself (as opposed to a free trade system) is reality, and there's plenty of room for contention on how to best execute it. But not believing in the system is just ignoring a part of reality. People traded before governments existed. Clearly, free trade is reality too. You're really talking about bartering in a discussion on trade policy? You've gone millenia before Adam Smith and Ricardo and even mercantilism, into remedial territory. It's really not relevant at all. In fact, free trade theory is predicated upon the existence of governments, so your statement is patently false. I will ask you again, do you believe in enforcing your beliefs upon me by pointing guns at me? Yes, in some situations. That's exactly how governments and societies work. If your beliefs are contrary to the law and you decide to break it, you will literally have guns pointed at you. If you keep those beliefs but don't break the law then obviously not, but I see little reason why an uneducated belief should be valued. The group of experts making decisions obviously believe something contrary to you, so in this case your belief is nearly meaningless. You can choose to believe that 2+2=5 and no one will harm you for it, but no one will value you either. You can argue that free trade is superior, but what I'm saying is that it does not exist and you cannot cite previous American prosperity as an example of it. It has always fallen somewhere in between free trade and protectionism and at times it's leaned one way or the other. If free trade is represented by 0 on a scale and protectionism is represented by 10, the problem I'm addressing is that politicians knowingly lie when they accuse anything >0 (say, 0.5) of being a form of protectionism. It's a black and white argument for what's really a very complicated issue. In reality, it's probably best to remain somewhere between 3-7. Arguing for 0 and 10 is silly and counter productive. Free trade is, by definition, not free if governments are involved. How can it be free trade when there's governments pointing guns everywhere? No, it isn't. You're confusing lay definitions with actual economic concepts. You don't have free trade without governments. Even the most laissez faire system has government involvement because you still trade using a common currency, which is controlled by the government. What you're talking about is pre-civilization bartering systems. You claim that just because experts say something and they're the law that me disagreeing makes it okay for guns to be pointed at me. I'm sure the experts in Mao's China thought they were doing a fantastic job allocating rice. Too bad for 20 million people who starved. Just because experts and guns are involved does not make anything right or wrong. Our educated elite seem to think that we can borrow and spend our way into prosperity right now, and they're absolutely incorrect. Experts are no longer experts but simply parrots when the government gets involved. There's open research and competing theories. It is nothing close to a command economy authoritarian state like early Communist China was. Relying on lay people to make important decisions instead of people who have studied the field their entire life is just stupid. It's like discounting the SC2 advice of MVP, because a bronze player thinks he's watched enough SC2 to understand it. Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that your claim has some legitimacy. Why is free trade bad? Why is arguing for no government involvement counterproductive? Why is anarchy counterproductive? Because there's no regulation. Because there's violence. Because currency has no value nor liquidity. And lastly, do you believe that every law is worth obeying? I'm sure you've broken a few thousand laws over the course of your lifetime without even realizing it. It's estimated every person commits 3 felonies a day in the US on average. Obviously, there's something wrong with the law. Law does not equal morality. They are completely separate concepts. When law follows morality, there is justice. When law does not, there is tyrrany. Morality is completely subjective. This discussion really is quite silly. I think you should read more about economics. You do not need a common currency controlled by government. Ron Paul wants to legalize competing currencies and repeal legal tender laws. This is a position that is held by virtually every Austrian economist. Currencies should not be monopolized, but left up to the market. Anarchy is not counterproductive. Government is counterproductive. The market provides far better regulation than a monopoly of government ever can. There is no evidence to support a claim of anarcho-capitalist systems being any more violent than government. Unfortunately, the examples are few and far between, but one I can give is Iceland 900-1200 AD. During this period there were competing systems of law, much like the modern concept of dispute resolution organizations (DROs) in anarcho-capitalist theory. Violent crime rate during a period of "civil war" at the end of this period was still less than violent crime rate in the US today. The system was completely stable until the Church moved in and created a form of monopoly power and taxation, a la government. And, morality is not subjective, because that is a contradiction. If morality is subjective, then my claim that it is objective is as valid as yours that it is not. Clearly, it can't be objective and not objective at the same time. Morality is the most often misunderstood concept in modern culture (thank you government schools), so I don't blame you for not understanding it. The entire notion of morality is to provide a code of universal rules which we should live by. There are rules that objectively fit that definition. Rape is never good. Murder is never good. The idea behind the libertarian position - the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) - is that the initiation of force is never good. Force should only be used in self defense. This is philosophically defensible, and there's a lot of great philosophy behind it dating back to Kant, and beyond. And lastly, I find it hilarious that you say I should learn more about economics and make appeals to authority. That does not constitute an argument. I am very learned in economics, and can point you to countless resources to back my claims. Now if you want to learn more about anarcho-capitalist theory and Austrian economics, I strongly suggest www.mises.org (for economics) and www.freedomainradio.com (for philosophy). This is laughable to say the least. How anyone can ever believe that "government" is counter-productive is beyond me. Iceland, like Europe, was comprised of fiefdoms at the time. That there were many smaller fiefdoms for a period does not mean it was lawless, nor that there were not "competing systems of law" over pretty much all of Europe. I say Europe because I know very little about other parts of the world at this time, but I would imagine it was similar. And let's not ignore that Iceland is quite large and their entire population was estimated at 50 000. Never the less Iceland does give an important lesson here; That someone will come in and consolidate power should they have the ability and motive to do so. This is a major problem for anarcho-capitalism, the biggest one in my eyes. But you keep on dreaming. Fortunately people drenched in such idealistic worldviews are few and far apart, meaning the society I live in can remain free and stable.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long1.html
Your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance.
|
Can we get a banner on the top of this thread forbidding links to the Mises institute? Honestly, if you haven't already fallen for their nonsense the first 100 times it was posted you won't now.
|
On February 28 2012 17:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:apparently Santorum and Romney are both leading Obama in the "swing states", with Santorum leading by a wider margin! Show nested quote +In the poll, Obama lags the two leading Republican rivals in the 12 states likely to determine the outcome of a close race in November:
•Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum tops Obama 50%-45% in the swing states. Nationwide, Santorum's lead narrows to 49%-46%.
•Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney edges Obama 48%-46% in the swing states. Nationwide, they are tied at 47% each. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-23/swing-states-health-care-obama/53260222/1edit: of course i think we should take polls with a grain of salt, but this does seem to fly in the face of the "common knowledge" that 1) Romney has the best chance of beating Obama and 2) that Santorum cannot beat Obama.
Any time you see a poll that's being discussed a lot you should look at other polls. If 5 out of 5 polls agree then its likely there's something going on. RCP aggregates these polls so you can see more clearly.
![[image loading]](http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/692/rcp.png)
Notice the outlier. In my own experience, Gallup tends to be a pretty accurate poll except during elections when it seems to favor R candidates. Rasmussen also tends to favor R candidates for some reason or another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
