Ron Paul 08

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, but we would have to define exploitation and premature depletion of essential resources. Technically, the lines on both can be somewhat blurry depending on our definitions.


But the issue is that the resource was not understood to be limited. I mean, we can argue that there was a market imperfection, but who would be so wise as to understand that cooling the massive magnets in medical imaging devices would be a use for helium in the previous decades? We deal with millions of unknowns and non-omniscient mechanisms, if our standard is omniscience then the system will fail, but it isn't.

Actually, there have been people talking about the helium depletion issue for the last 50 years - even before there were CAT scan machines, there were other potential uses (like dirigibles). It is more a question of people not wanting to know, than of people being unable to know.

Economic growth is nothing more than an increase in economic activity (ie, GDP/spending). This increase is not the same as the bottom line - it is often offset by increased debt or depletion of capital (financial or resource). More spending is not always good - there are different types of more spending.

And all I'm saying is that if the future uses of helium were known to be so valuable then why didn't anyone save up on helium, waiting for these things to occur? I mean, people do buy goods, hold them, and wait for their value to go up. Apparently they didn't do this enough with helium, why is that? I don't think that people didn't want to know about future profit.

Economic growth is an increase in economic activity, but in the long run it is very close to the same as the bottom line. Economic growth goes hand in hand with better technology and more capital as GDP is both a function of capital and of spending due to the interconnection of supply and demand. I didn't say that more spending was good, however, changes in our GDP aren't from the same dollars going around more but rather from more goods to buy.

People are squandering all kinds of resources - oil, water, soil. Part of the problem is that even though a resource might be worth more in the future, you can't spend future earnings today, and there are needs and wants to satisfy by doing something that is not the best interests in the long term. Look at all the houses in the desert in the SW US where people are trying to landscape like they are in Pennsylvania or Kentucky. Look at all the conspicuous use of water in Las Vegas (and look at the levels of the lakes that support that foolishness). Japan has cut down large areas of tropical rainforests for producing disposable chopsticks - individually the use of disposables often made sense, but collectively, it destroyed a lot of biodiversity for a fairly trivial return. No attempt is made to offset the loss of the potential resources that were in those forests (ie, plants that contain new medicines, etc) against the dollar value of the disposable chopsticks.

Imperfect, even stupid decisions are made on an individual basis. The same holds true for collective behavior (ie, markets). Why do we have market bubbles? Because economic choices are seldom made by the hypothetical rational man - they are often made by emotional, short-sighted people who refuse or deny information that conflicts with their profit plans.




Long term, I agree with you somewhat. But economic growth is calculated by looking at the year to year (or quarter to quarter) increase in spending - it can be goods or services, as long as the dollars change hands. The US has shifted to a service/information economy; individuals still tend to spend their money on goods (food, car, shelter) while most corporations spend a lion's share of their budget on labor or information products.

GDP does not account for debt - be it investment in education or improved manufacturing (good debt that might improve future earnings), or spending on frivolous luxuries that do not foster long-term economic growth. Much of the economic 'growth' of the past decade is from money borrowed against inflated real estate. While some people used that opportunity to reinvest the money, many blew it on consumer goods. Now that the bloom is off the real estate rose, the bills are coming due.

That isn't a problem at all, that merely reflects human values. We have time preferences, and there is no objective value. The use of water is more difficult to really blame on economic failure as water is not allocated by markets, which means that there is an information issue. Actually, unless a) the government was involved with this or b) people were plain incompetent, then the price of the rainforest would include the potential gain of biodiversity. Prices and information go together hand in hand, if there is a price then there is information. The issue I might see here is either some inefficiency or less saving then perhaps that which would create the best economic growth and I promoted savings.

I am not denying the existence of bad decisions, but rather am arguing that the magical world of better decisions does not exist. We have market bubbles for a number of reasons, is human imperfection a part of it? Yes. Are bubbles some horrific economic failure? Not really, all human beings have optimism and emotions that cloud their judgment. At least with a bubble this is constrained by their own benefits.



That is partially true, but I really don't care about the short run economic growth but rather that which is longer run. Spending is a part of the economy and we do have increases in our GDP due entirely to spending but those are short run blips.

Ok, GDP isn't perfect. I really am not arguing that it is perfect, but rather that it is a part of economic models. GDP is comprised of consumption, investment, government spending and net exports. Debt would likely impact investment. Frivolous luxuries are just a part of consumption, people like to consume. Ok, there is debt. So long as we don't have a massive credit crunch I am not that concerned. You make many comments on imperfection, but where on earth do we see perfection? I don't know of a single organization more efficient than the ones you criticize. Really though, I said economic growth in a generic sense, I did not mean blips in GDP, I meant growth.

The thing that cracks me up about Libertarians is 1.) it's like herding cats, and 2.) they end up reinventing the wheel.

With a Ron Paul government (which would really be screwed as the Congress would not be Libertarian--roadblock, anyone?), nothing will get done, which might not be such a bad thing. Would certainly stop the pork barrel spending.

The problem with states controlling all rights is that there is no guaranteed citizen protections. One can argue economics as a reason to want to vote for RP, but the corporations are already getting such a tax break it is immoral. The biggest issue in only considering economic factors is the practice of considering it in a vacuum. Once other issues get introduced (energy costs, resources, the problems of consumerism, the artificial regional economic bubbles that are now busting all over the country), then Libertarians suggest what they consider fairer regs or committees to deal with them.

The difficulty doesn't come with the ideology--it comes with the people who are running it, and people are rather irrational. They tend toward the lowest common denominator. They want but they don't want to pay. It wasn't that long ago we had a civil war--over state's rights. While we have progressed some, I can see us going to a time where we'd end up with some kind of requirement in order for a citizen to vote, women denied rights to "protect" them, and taxes being raised on the state level to make up for what the states don't get from the federal government (which might not be a bad idea on certain levels). Education sucks, but it's always sucked because of the way it's funded and the fact that parents can't control their kids, and this is already on a local level.

Not only that, I personally don't like Ron Paul. He's a homophobic and an anti-non-Christian.

What exactly constitutes a highly developed labor market? Unemployment rate?

And yes, I guess we do have cheaper gigantic plasma TVs and all. The materialistic technology boom sure isn't awesome for those of us who miss the days of the VCR, pre-internet, and pre crappy computer animated kids' movies that they make 50 of per year.
Nor does it help alleviate rising costs of food, electricity and healthcare.

It is sort of relative, just as your traits could be argued to not be an absolute evil. However, I would argue that the diversity that we show does show our labor market to be highly developed and our low unemployment rate is a good sign as well.

But the improving technology in healthcare, and the increased cheapness of most reasonably old products certainly does help those who are not the richest. Not only that but those who hate the mere thought of others gaining from technology are going to be screwed anyway. I mean, technology pushes forward and the internet, the VCR, and crappy computer animated kids movies benefit some groups of people and exist for those who benefit.

I think that Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination, but that he should seek the Libertarian nomination and run as that party's candidate. After he is eliminated from the Republican field, of course.

You miss the pre-internet era, so you go online to lament about it? Ok.

yes. It is wise of him to say that he won't run for anything other than republican to throw off the other candidates right now. He has ton of support and the more his support grows, the more he will re-think his only republican nomination plan.

ron paul believes that the states should be allowed to abridge the rights of gays by prohibiting gay marriage.

Yet he claims to be a libertarian.

Yeah, technically Ron Paul isn't the ideal libertarian. Really I think that the stance that has more libertarians steamed is his stance on immigration. The fact that he pushed states rights is still more libertarian than the idea of a constitutional amendment against homosexual marriage.

Well, he doesn't support the federal government making a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, either (like pretty much every other Republican candidate).

I wouldn't say he's "anti-non-christian" or "homophoebic", he has not voted for a ban on gay marriage or for it's acceptance, either way. He gets s**t from non-christians because of how he phrased his stance I think on his web-site when it came to seperation of church and state. But, I don't think he plans on the establishment of a certain religion as much as the other condidates, he only stated that Christians should be allowed to pray to themselves in schools and what not, so should people of any other faith. RP views religion as a private affair between the individual and their faith. And I have to agree with that, I'm a non-christian.
Truth of the matter is most non-christians only see how theyr being discriminated, but it goes both ways. Now I will say that Christians seem to have the upper hand in that, being as we've got a "christian" president and the republican party. And often they overblow their persecution complex. But to a lesser extent, some times Christians are discriminated, that's kinda hard to see though because usually theyr the ones DOING the discrimination (and when people object somehow they, the christians, think THEYR being discriminated by not being allowed to shove their religion down secular society's throat through legislation).... But if they want to pray to themselves they should be allowed to, the left-wing attitude is the exact opposite some times, that theyr not allowed to pray to their god. And from what I've understood (though this may not be correct) those same left wingers are ok with muslims praying to Allah.
I'm a non-christian myself, I just think that religion or lack of should not be established in society, that all religions have the right to pray in their private, personal space (even in schools), and that all faiths should have to abide by the same rules in respecting one anothers' presence, equality, and validity. I believe this is where RP stands as well.

There were a few times that I saw random prayer circles in the morning when I was in High School. They were all just standing in a big circle holding hands with their heads down. Thinking about when and why they collaborated such events thoroughly confused me. Are there actually schools around the nation that ban this?