A Kinder, Gentler Ron Paul Thread

Discussion in 'Elections' started by Ismitje, Jan 5, 2012.

  1. Ismitje

    Ismitje Super Moderator

    Dec 30, 2000
    The Palouse
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    1) No personal attacks;

    2) No use of slurs;

    3) No posting of just links or just youtube videos; tell us what is in it and why you like it, or why you don't;

    4) Let's aim for some civility.
     
  2. Umar

    Umar Member+

    Sep 13, 2005
    One step ahead
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Nat'l Team:
    Palestine
    I would be interested in learning why mak9 thinks that fiat currency is based on interest, whilst at the same time complaining about the situation in Iran where people are apparently borrowing fiat money and waiting for it to devalue before paying off the principal loan in Iran.
     
  3. mak9

    mak9 Member

    May 21, 2005
    Toronto, Canada
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Umar please feel free to pm me if you wish to discuss the relation between fiat currency, usury and inflation. I am more than happy to explain it to you.

    What I was complaining about, is that there are very clever people that take out massive loans (ie. wealth) from Iran. Convert it into a different currency like USD, CAD, Yen, Euro, ...etc. Then they invest the money in their new country and basically wait until the Riyal is devalued substantially (after sanctions for example). Then they take a bit of money and convert it back to Riyal. Then they pay back the full principle to the bank in Iran. It may seems like both parties benefited. However, in real terms: Iran lost wealth while the other nation gained wealth.
     
  4. Knave

    Knave Member+

    May 25, 1999
    A kinder, gentler Ron Paul thread?

    Will this thread feature a thousand points of Paul?
     
  5. Umar

    Umar Member+

    Sep 13, 2005
    One step ahead
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Nat'l Team:
    Palestine
    Don't chicken out on me now, mak. I know that fiat money allows people to charge usury, but so does the gold standard. I would guess it's OK to use this thread to discuss the gold standard and economics, given that those are planks of Paul's policy. Please do explain how fiat money itself is based on interest. Remember the principle in Islam that in matters of the dunya, whatever is not expressly forbidden is permissible. So fiat money cannot be tainted with an "Un-Islamic" label unless you can back this up.

    And it's strange to see you arguing against the State of Iran helping clever Iranians becoming richer at it's own expense. Surely that is what libertarianism is all about. Why are you taking the side of the state over the individual?
     
  6. mak9

    mak9 Member

    May 21, 2005
    Toronto, Canada
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    First of all Umar, the way the fiat monetary system is set up...it is ONE centralized bank issuing it. They are the ones that are charging interest to keep the paper money in circulation. Do you understand?

    Sure you can charge usury on Gold. But the supply is limited. At some point a borrower won't be able to pay back, so the lender would have a loss. He won't be able to get a bailout...the way banks are getting today. Under libertarianism/gold-standard, you won't be able to have government-insured bank accounts!

    I was merely pointing out that the exporting wealth problem is a consequence of having a regime that is too ignorant about their own principles.

    Also usury (ribah) is a huge deal in Islamic jurisprudence. No scholar that is getting government money is going to talk about it. It's just not convenient for them and their family to do such a thing. Btw, I prefer we talk about this through PM.
     
  7. nicephoras

    nicephoras A very stable genius

    Fucklechester Rangers
    Jul 22, 2001
    Eastern Seaboard of Yo! Semite
    Government-insured bank accounts are a good thing! Otherwise we'd have bank runs all the time.
     
  8. American Brummie

    Jun 19, 2009
    There Be Dragons Here
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Ron Paul wants to eat your liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.


    THPTHPTHPTHPTHPTHPTHPTHP!!!


    (Not civil enough???)
     
  9. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    The nominal interest rate that is charged reflects several factors, including the time value of money based on the applicable rate of inflation; the rate of return that alternative investments (including but not limited to those with similar risks) can earn in the market, based on general economic conditions; and the risk associated with lending the money, based on the "credit worthiness" of the person who is borrowing.

    I am not a theologian so I don't know which part of this equation falls under the rubric of "usury"? But those who believe in the gold standard might believe that the kind of inflation driven speculation that is possible using fiat money is not as likely when you have a currency backed by gold. That assumption is tied into the belief that a currency backed by a commodity which has a finite supply, such as gold, is unlikely to expand as much as a currency that is not backed by anything. Consequently, those who support the idea of going to the gold standard believe that inflationary risks are lower when you have the gold standard as opposed to when you don't.

    Does this make "fiat currency" un-Islamic? That is certainly something outside my expertise, but the principles that might be used to explain the prohibition against usury could have applicability in discussing fiat currency as well. For instance, if usury is defined as an excessive rate of interest that is charged due to the last criteria I mentioned, namely due to the high risk of default by a borrower, with the prohibition explained in the same terms as the prohibition that exists in many society on gambling, then you might construct an argument against fiat currency on that basis as well. Except, our "gambler" here is society as a whole. Similarly, if the prohibition is intended to prevent speculation based on the expected inflation rate in a society, again because speculative behavior is found to be objectionable for much the same reasons gambling is objectionable, then you might be able to construct an argument that shows that fiat currency encourages speculative behavior more than a currency backed by gold.

    Of course, you can have a "formalistic" attitude towards religion, merely take the prohibitions that exist as something that is set in stone without any need for any explanation or justification, and use that formalistic approach to both paint an absolute prohibition on interest on the one hand, and let anything that is not precisely defined as "interest" be given a stamp of approval on the other hand. That approach is quite alienating to me as I am not particularly religious and because one of the things I do like about shia jurisprudence nonetheless is this idea that "reason" is considered one of the main sources of law, along with scripture and the Hadith. That emphasis on reason, coupled with the emphasis on "justice" as one of the main goals of society as you have in Shia Islamic thought, is what makes me view shia jurisprudence as entirely capable of breaking the artificial walls that have been constructed based on ancient dogma and chart a new, more promising, path for the future. But regrettably, the formalistic approach is all too prevalent, which gives us two extremes neither one of which I find attractive. One extreme is to try to force us to live by the dogma developed during the middle ages. The other extreme is to dumb down society to kneel and bow before dicta blindly, even as that dicta is then for all intents and purposes completely ignored by playing "definition" games that are easy when you take a formalistic approach to things. The latter is the situation we have right now with banking in Iran! Other than the label, and the artificial names and devices surrounding it, there is nothing to distinguish it from Western banking. Except what is called "interest" in the West, is called "profit" here!
     
  10. Deep Wilcox

    Deep Wilcox BigSoccer Supporter

    Jun 5, 2007
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This is it, in a nutshell.

    The fact is the libertarian; "If you want a road in front of your house, then build it" thing doesn't work in a society. Ron Paul is generally correct about the military industrial complex, and saving money by trimming that crap back. But the US is a better place with public schools, medicare, medicaid, the FDA, the SEC, and even the Post Office.

    The whole idea that "government is bad" is too simplistic. And, also, Ron Paul is too old. He is a sage, not a contender.
     
  11. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    As long as you agree with Ron Paul on the military industrial complex, that is a good start! Indeed, to the extent the federal government needs to be trimmed down, that is the first place to start. And that can't be done in a meaningful way, until and unless the US adopts a different attitude and definition for its foreign policy. One that shuns the idea of empire, and an imperial America, and looks to an America which is wary of foreign entanglements even as it trades with and engages in cultural and other forms of exchanges with the world.

    As for other government programs, here there are two different issues that need to be distinguished at the outset. The first issue is, does this issue require the federal government to intervene? Or can this be handled by the states? In general, except when there is a need for uniformity based on the nature of the issue itself, I see no reason why something that can be handled through the states needs to be handled by the federal government?

    The other issue is whether any form of government program or intervention is necessary on the issue in question? The answer to that latter depends on the program or intervention at issue, but I somehow feel that having 50 laboratories to test these answers to find the best one makes more sense than trust all the answers to one model, developed in Washington far from where these issues need to play out, under the supervision of special interest groups who basically write America's prescription on most of these issues.
     
  12. mak9

    mak9 Member

    May 21, 2005
    Toronto, Canada
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    It is a good thing!!!

    It will force banks to be more conservative and not gamble/speculate with their client's money. The most conservative banks will win at the end of the day.

    Take a look at what a disaster MF global had turned out to be in the last month.


    However, if people truly want to have government-insured bank accounts, then they should put very SMART politicians that can regulate EVERYTHING that comes up on a daily basis. I'm talking about politicians that are glued to the news, to the insiders and knows about EVERY single shady deal that is happening in the market.

    I agree with RP's premise, that humans are not perfect! That's why we want nature/market to regulate things.

    Speaking of smart politicians, take a look at the types of people RP has to work with on a daily basis in the House of Financial Services Committee:

    http://www.breitbart.tv/rep-steve-pearce-r-nm-did-we-get-bernie-madoff-is-he-in-jail/
     
  13. Deep Wilcox

    Deep Wilcox BigSoccer Supporter

    Jun 5, 2007
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I completely agree with the above. However, Ron Paul's solutions internationally are generally too simplistic, and domestically he is a disaster. Like Nic said; the FDIC works. You guys need to incorporate that fact into your thinking. (And forget the neo-confederate "States know all" stuff).

    And please recognize the fact that Ron Paul is 75 years old. He time has come and gone. Harsh, maybe, but real for the POTUS.
     
  14. NickyViola

    NickyViola Member+

    May 10, 2004
    Boston
    Club:
    ACF Fiorentina
    I've been a libertarian for a very long time and, honestly, I have never heard this "If you want a road in front of your house, then build it" thing...

    Better than what? Everyone (for the most part) who can afford public schools, chooses public schools.

    The SEC? C'mon now. I understand that you guys think that government is uber-adept at stuff (I understand that you think that, I just don't understand *why* you think that) but you really don't think that private SEC-esque firms, competing with each other and profiting based on their reputations, could out-perform the SEC, or at least do just as well?
     
  15. YankHibee

    YankHibee Member+

    Mar 28, 2005
    indianapolis
    I'm sitting here figuring out how low I can go. I'm deciding whether to go in a "it depends on how well groomed she is" angle, or a "it depends on how tall she is" angle. I guess that might answer the question about whether I have any decency though. Nah.
     
  16. mak9

    mak9 Member

    May 21, 2005
    Toronto, Canada
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Wilcox, with all due respect--that is a distorted view of libertarianism.
    RP is trying to stop the FEDERAL government to use tax payers money to pay for infrastructure and transportation in a city or state where most tax payers don't live in.

    However this doesn't stop local communities, cities, towns to tax their citizens to pay for their roads.

    IMO I think most major roads/streets/avenues/bridges should be privatized. We'll see less pot holes, less TRAFFIC and less POLLUTION (encourage people take bus) if we do so. Given today's technology of license plate recognition, private businesses can easily charge a toll on drivers. However I can see why some people are uncomfortable with this idea. It's because people always think of the worst of other people when it comes to free market situations. They don't understand that COMPETITION will stop businesses from getting carried away.


    1. I disagree about public schools. Today's public schools are more like a drug infested prison than a center for learning. Look at the winners of some of the science competitions/Olympiads. The large majority are either home schooled or from a prestige private school. Public schools are stopping the poor and middle class youths to get an education that can help them become wealthier.

    2. Look, there was a time in US when people weren't forced to get health insurance. Everyone was doing well during that time. There were many private charities that could help the poor--like what Ron Paul was doing back in the 1960s.

    During that time, you could easily afford doctors to come check on you in YOUR own home! Today you have to sit and wait for 2-3 hours just to get to see a Doctor.

    Not only that, medical costs have being going up dramatically. It's because the government is artificially creating demand (through government insurance) when the supply is limited. There is a reason why the cost of laser or plastic surgery is a lot less. It is because the government is not involved in those businesses!

    3. Lol at the SEC. Did the SEC catch Madoff? Did they catch MF global? SEC has a lot of flaws. FINRA too!

    4. I'm sorry but the Post Office can't even deliver mail for a PROFIT! It is costing the government a lot of money. There was time when the post office was delivering mail 2 times a day. Morning mail and evening mail, 7 days a week. Today it is just once a day 5 times a week.

    Now, they are even planning to cut even more service, because they are bankrupt! It is most likely going to get a massive bailout. This is what happens when government tries to monopolize a sector of the economy.
     
  17. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    Actually, what you need to forget is this idea that the feds "know all" stuff!

    Some issues, by their nature, require a uniform standard across the 50 states. There are, however, plenty of issues that are not like that. Why do you think that the federal government is capable of coming up with answers that are true for all. What is wrong with having 50 states to test different answers to these questions?

    I will say it again: With respect to each program at issue, there are two distinct questions. One of them is whether is this is something that the government needs to be involved with at all? Different people will have different answers to that question and frankly most of the hard questions on this issue are still not settled to any degree for anyone to clinge at those answers as gospel. The second question is whether, even if the government is to be involved, the issue requires the federal government to be involved (as opposed to the state governments). Here, I see no reason why we should force a "one answer fits all" mentality on places that are vastly different and have dramatically different issues to consider.

    P.S.

    As for Ron Paul being too old, I agree. But it says something about the barriers that exist around the kind of issues that Ron Paul is raising, that the only candidate that is raising them is Ron Paul. Otherwise, for sure: if you find someone saying what Ron Paul is saying, but that person is younger, more articulate, more attractive, by all means.
     
  18. mak9

    mak9 Member

    May 21, 2005
    Toronto, Canada
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    I think this is what makes him great.

    He won't be afraid of the CIA aka government within government.

    He knows he's going to leave eventually and has lived a great life. He's not going to let a bunch of people come intimidate him and how they will prepare his car in a certain manner if he doesn't do this or that. They'll just make a martyr out of him.
     
  19. DynamoEAR

    DynamoEAR Member+

    May 30, 2011
    HoustAtlantaDMV
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    [​IMG]

    People don't have time for home-schooling.
     
  20. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    I don't think what you allude to is a legitimate worry. The CIA doesn't get involved in these kind of things. The way special interest groups exert their influence is a lot more nuanced even if it is every bit as effective.
     
  21. NickyViola

    NickyViola Member+

    May 10, 2004
    Boston
    Club:
    ACF Fiorentina
    They're working til May just to pay off their tax burdens...
     
  22. Deep Wilcox

    Deep Wilcox BigSoccer Supporter

    Jun 5, 2007
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Hmmm. Public schools do a lot of good. I like home schooling, and private schools are great; but the US needs (NEEDS) a great public education available. Ron Paul does not fight for that and that is to his detriment.


    I'm 54. No doctor has ever come to my house, nor my parents. This is a canard.

    Madoff is in Federal Prison, no?

    My mail comes 6 times a week, and I generally approve of the service.
     
  23. mak9

    mak9 Member

    May 21, 2005
    Toronto, Canada
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Well the thing is, there are students in these schools that are better off doing something else. Like learning a trade or a certain skill rather than being bored trying to relearn concepts that he/she already learned. The quality has been going down significantly.

    Again, Dr. Paul wants to get the FEDERAL government out of the education system. Ideally libertarians want to have the free market control the education sector. When schools are privatized, they will do absolutely everything to get the best teachers, the best facility and the best environment for their students. Private businesses are working for a profit, so it is in their interest to do well.

    Secondly, when the government is out of the education system--prices will fall down significantly because competition (ie. supply) increases. It will be cheap enough that the poor and middle-class can pay for it.

    Thirdly, you'll have many prestigious private schools that will offer waivers to poor families that have a smart/gifted child. It will keep the quality and the reputation of the school at a high level. Greedy businesses that would like to just charge high prices and provide low quality education to spoiled rich kids will eventually run out of business. That's the beauty of the free market.


    Well people were able to get that option at that time. Had US continued to go in that direction, eventually everyone would be able to afford it.

    Plus during that time, the best place to go to see a doctor was in US. Most countries around the world had quasi-religious missionaries performing "magic" or voodoo rituals to cure your sickness.

    But today things have changed a lot. People are going to Cuba and Philippines to get treatment for their illness. Again, this is because government-forced insurance is driving up the medical costs in US!

    Well yes he's there after living a nice comfortable life scamming others. But SEC was assigned the task to prevent such a disastrous outcome.

    You can easily read about the hardships that his former clients are going through today. Many of these folks are retired!

    His son has committed suicide which makes it even harder for Madoff's family members. The whole story has been tragic.

    Now today, we have even a bigger mess and that is MF global. We'll see where that goes.

    Well, the point I was making--is that the quality has been going down ever since the post office was granted a nation wide monopoly.

    Also, I heard in the news a few months ago that Saturday delivery was going to end. Maybe that hasn't come into effect yet in your region.
     
  24. nicephoras

    nicephoras A very stable genius

    Fucklechester Rangers
    Jul 22, 2001
    Eastern Seaboard of Yo! Semite
    This would be a good argument if MF Global were a bank. But it wasn't.

    You really are completely clueless.
     
  25. NickyViola

    NickyViola Member+

    May 10, 2004
    Boston
    Club:
    ACF Fiorentina
    Honestly, this sort of stuff is way beyond these guys. They believe that if the Federal government didn't deliver the mail, we'd all be isolated.

    There's nothing wrong with them, I guess. They just can't see the forest for the trees. Better to just talk past them.

    They're absolutely right about his age, though. He's getting old but it's a young movement and we'll (libertarians, as I'm not really a Ron Paul supporter) win in the end if the statists don't destroy the planet before it comes to pass.
     

Share This Page