Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Ron Paul warns Canada’s conservatives that the U.S. war on drugs failed


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#61 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,114 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:05 PM

Dramatically increased consumption has nothing to do with standard of living, it has everything to do with why the US is up s***'s creek, which is why such reckless deficit spending that started in the Clinton presidency (which Krugman has defended for years) has lasted well over a decade and a half has caused them so many problems and this decade, as well as future decades now, will continue to cause so many issues.

People like Krugman have absolutely no sense of a future economy. Things are all about now and the short term, investors like Peter Schiff who know what long term economics are by finance and investments, actually have a clue. Krugman's gimmick hasn't fooled the intelligent.

The US must stop spending so much. It isn't that the US must raise taxes, the US must drop it's consumption, i.e. spending.

A great analogy is actually from an active thread near the top of this subforum that relates to fast food. Americans have a health issue that relates to fast food. They're fat because they consume too much crap food at a fast rate without producing energy to burn off the calories they intake. Likewise, they consume too many goods without producing enough, in the long term deficit spending is not viable, and Krugman naively believes this is somehow manageable even $16 trillion dollars in the hole later. The only idiots I know of that sit there in a hole this deep saying that come from the Catholic Church.

Edited by Aleksandr Pistoletov, 14 March 2013 - 01:11 PM.

  • 1

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#62 CB007

CB007

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,661 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 03

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:13 PM

Dramatically increased consumption has nothing to do with standard of living, it has everything to do with why the US is up s***'s creek, which is why such reckless deficit spending that started in the Clinton presidency (which Krugman has defended for years) has lasted well over a decade and a half has caused them so many problems and this decade, as well as future decades now, will continue to cause so many issues.

People like Krugman have absolutely no sense of a future economy. Things are all about now and the short term, investors like Peter Schiff who know what long term economics are by finance and investments, actually have a clue. Krugman's gimmick hasn't fooled the intelligent.

The US must stop spending so much. It isn't that the US must raise taxes, the US must drop it's consumption, i.e. spending.

A great analogy is actually from an active thread near the top of this subforum that relates to fast food. Americans have a health issue that relates to fast food. They're fat because they consume too much crap food at a fast rate without producing energy to burn off the calories they intake. Likewise, they consume too many goods without producing enough, in the long term deficit spending is not viable, and Krugman naively believes this is somehow manageable even $16 trillion dollars in the hole later.


I expected more from you than a simple-minded, uninformed rant. Unless you have more to say, you obviously have not studied the issues from both sides critically, intellectually and analytically.

Until you have more concrete arguments to make....
  • 0
Posted Image

#63 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,114 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:19 PM

I expected more from you than a simple-minded, uninformed rant. Unless you have more to say, you obviously have not studied the issues from both sides critically, intellectually and analytically.

Until you have more concrete arguments to make....

Oh, my bad, I should be more concrete like reducing Ron Paul's arguments by calling him a doctor (ignoring his work on economic and foreign affairs), and cut and pasting someone's education background like that makes a difference when their decades long assertions are devoid of logic, like the person I'm posting to isn't going to see right through that.

You must think people are really stupid. Carry on with the dog and pony show.

Edited by Aleksandr Pistoletov, 14 March 2013 - 01:22 PM.

  • 1

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#64 CB007

CB007

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,661 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 03

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:28 PM

Oh, my bad, I should be more concrete like reducing Ron Paul's arguments by calling him a doctor (ignoring his work on economic and foreign affairs), and cut and pasting someone's education background like that makes a difference when their decades long assertions are devoid of logic, like the person I'm posting to isn't going to see right through that.

You must think people are really stupid. Carry on with the dog and pony show.


My bad (I mean it). I guess you missed my post last page:




On Krugman:

The guy is a macroeconomist, not an investment analyst or business consultant. Though I find it hard to believe that he recommended Wall Street stocks, but even if he did, so did many others. I wasn't here to defend him to begin with so I'll stop at this.


On Keynesian Economics:

I don't know in which book Keynes says reckless investment in speculative assets is a good thing for the economy, so blaming the current recession on Keynesian Economics is completely wrong. Government spending and taxation did not put us into this recession. Reckless investment at all levels of the economy, from the average folks buying homes they cannot afford using balloon mortgages given to them by mortgage and loan companies, to Wall Street repackaging them as sound investments and buying and selling them with each other is to blame. The countries that did not suffer from the recession much, like the Scandinavian countries, and emerging markets like Brazil and India, steered clear of all of this, regardless of their tax levels and amounts of government controls.

One can argue that Fanny and Freddie were big players in all of this, but that's just bad business, not Keynesian Economics per se.


On China:

When China depreciates the RMB is called currency manipulation to gain competitive advantage. When the US Fed implements QE and the USD gets depreciated as a side effect, it's call 'erosion of American wealth'. You see the hypocrisy?


On Ron Paul,

If he does possess true expertise in economics, I have yet seen it in any speeches or videos. Everything about the economy he says can be categorized into one of the following categories:

1) plain obvious (Debt, bad. War, bad),
2) oversimplication / biased opinions / misinformation / propaganda (the first 5 mins of the Sun video, and many others)
3) matter of perspective (CPI vs PPI, price vs value of dollar)
4) completely ridiculous (calling a silver coin tripling in value over 4 years preservation of capital)

I beg you to post one video or speech where he states indisputable facts beyond the plain obvious. Whatever you post can be categorized in the above 4 categories and easily disputed with simple economics.

Speaking of indisputable facts, and thorough analyses, here is an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaNxAzLKegU

You cannot dispute this. This analysis came from actual micro/macroeconomic research and policy implementation experience. You may raise a proper question: how are we going to pay for all this after the economy recovers? That's a proper question, yes (the answer is cut spending and raise taxes when the economy booms). But his analysis and explanation of the recession, and the method to recover, are indisputable. I have yet seen Paul produce a thorough and factual thesis at this level to support his ideas.

I do not disagree with Ron Paul's principle of balancing spending with income. It makes perfect sense. But even you ought to know that we are not in the correct time in history to do this. What do you actually think would've happened if emergency loans weren't given to Wall Street in 2008? If Wall Street did collapse? Please tell me.

What Paul advocates on the surface level has little reality to what he thinks we should do to get there. One simply does not equate with the other.

And just for the record I have to agree with his idea of non-interventionism with foreign policy. Most of the hate coming from the rest of the world stems from America flexing their military and economic muscles. This is well documented and understood.
  • 0
Posted Image

#65 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,114 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:48 PM

Wall Street was supposed to collapse, but that was the fault of government expending so much effort incentivising reckless credit issuance to people who didn't deserve it and using taxpayer as collateral. No thanks, I think I'll take Wall Street falling instead of f***ing the populace later on. Although, "Wall Street falling" is quite dramatic, that's Krugmanspeak for the financial and housing markets correcting themselves from phony growth. That comes from too much government stimulus, tax breaks, and so on (this is all stuff Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, and Niall Ferguson warned about), and government incentives and backing of extremely risky loans and credit issuance. This is why Keynesian economics has been a failure. Textbook definitions of it are irrelevant when it's uses make it a detriment.



You'll notice a common theme right off the bat about "bad medicine".

Common sense doesn't need a degree about it.
  • 1

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#66 CB007

CB007

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,661 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 03

Posted 14 March 2013 - 02:53 PM

Wall Street was supposed to collapse, but that was the fault of government expending so much effort incentivising reckless credit issuance to people who didn't deserve it and using taxpayer as collateral. No thanks, I think I'll take Wall Street falling instead of f***ing the populace later on. Although, "Wall Street falling" is quite dramatic, that's Krugmanspeak for the financial and housing markets correcting themselves from phony growth. That comes from too much government stimulus, tax breaks, and so on (this is all stuff Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, and Niall Ferguson warned about), and government incentives and backing of extremely risky loans and credit issuance. This is why Keynesian economics has been a failure. Textbook definitions of it are irrelevant when it's uses make it a detriment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

You'll notice a common theme right off the bat about "bad medicine".

Common sense doesn't need a degree about it.


Its pretty funny watching all these other dumbass Fox news commentaries! They sure all look like complete jack asses now!

So Schiff was right. But he wasn't the only one predicted this. Fox made him look like a genius but he wasn't the only one. I never said a word bad about him, nor would I ever disagree with him or you that it was greed and risky mortgages etc that got us into this mess. And I would also not disagree with you that government played a role.

Financial Armageddon is not Krugmanspeak. It's well studied history, we had it back in the Great Depression. 'Market correcting themselves' does not take place like normal recessions in this 'Balance Sheet Recession' or 'Liquidity Trap'. I'm sure you have all heard that companies, despite having healthy profits, are not re-investing. If you haven't watched the Richard Koo video I suggest that you do.
  • 0
Posted Image

#67 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 14 March 2013 - 03:09 PM

I just love how a thread with connections to the failed war on drugs (like no crap, tell me something I didn't know) has veered so far off of the tracks you'd need Amtrak to make it get back to where it was originally. Whether you agree with Paul's policies or you don't...as a third party (Green Party) supporter, he'd be one hell of a lot better than what we've got in office down here right now...and he was MILES ahead of either of the last two Republican candidates for President. While I may not agree with everything Ron Paul has to say, I think he's got some great ideas in some areas, with others a bit lacking...but no one is going to agree with EVERYTHING any politician has to say. There's no way around that. You'll have some policies you support and some you don't. I actually hoped that the GOP would turn to Paul this time around...but they apparently were satisfied with a megalomaniacal Mormon marionette who would have destroyed this country and small businesses and eliminated FEMA and Social Security within his first month in office. I'm not saying I wouldn't be reluctant to cast my vote for Paul especially if he were running as a bonafide Republican...but I think he'd at least made this last election close enough for Obama to have been sweating on Election Night. Just my two cents.

Edited by Scott Hartnell's Mane, 14 March 2013 - 03:18 PM.

  • 2
Posted Image

View PostScott Hartnell, on 11 June 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.