Jackboots always come in matched pairs, a left boot and a right boot.
Whether or not we think Congress would suitable for this kind of responsibility is irrelevant -- it's the correct mechanism as per how this nation was designed, and it is up to the electorate to hold Congress responsible for doing its duty.
If we don't, we can't blame it on Congress when everything gets screwed up. It's our fault if we let them run amok.
Furthermore, I think we should abolish the Fed altogether. If it's going to be legal tender, it should be directly issued by and regulated by the authority of the United States government. No more of this borrowing-to-create-currency crap.
I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.
Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.
Ron Paul hasn't moved, the right has gone out there to join him.
For well you know that it's a fool who plays it cool,
By making his world a little colder.
Education, health, and welfare belong in the state. With a smaller federal government, citizens would pay less taxes and have more to spend either voluntarily or through their state programs.
I think there is some misunderstanding here about how libertarianism would lead to further "corporatocracy" of America. I am not saying that there are corporate apologists who call themselves libertarians, but many libertarians have an issue the modern day corporation and do not see it has product of the free market. In fact, moving towards free markets would lead to less corporate power.As I have stated, I don't mind moderate libertarianism. However, I think allowing an extreme libertarian such as Paul to become President would cause too much change far too soon and will further lead the U.S. into becoming a corporatocracy more so than it already is.
As Roderick Long points out:
Cato Unbound Blog Archive Corporations versus the Market; or, Whip Conflation NowCorporate power depends crucially on government intervention in the marketplace. This is obvious enough in the case of the more overt forms of government favoritism such as subsidies, bailouts, and other forms of corporate welfare; protectionist tariffs; explicit grants of monopoly privilege; and the seizing of private property for corporate use via eminent domain (as in Kelo v. New London).
There are some valid concerns over the legitimacy of the modern day corporations. Its not a cut and dry argument and even libertarians will argue among themselves about this topic.
Of course, he considers me a liberal, so I'm not sure what he'll make of it.
Ron Paul says things that make of lot of sense to me re: limiting the size and scope of the federal government. He bucks the establishment on both sides of the aisle. However, some of his specific policy solutions don't seem practical or workable--at first glance.
For example, dismantling the Dept. of Education--what is the process? Give me a timeline with goals. What is the potential negative fallout and what steps would he take to minimize that?
He has some bold policy ideas for making the Federal government more efficient and accountable. I've only heard the broad strokes though--I'm still unsure about how practical and pragmatic some of his ideas are. But I want to hear more...
Two things I really respect about Ron Paul is that when I've heard him speak, he doesn't engage in hyper-partisan rhetoric (comments meant to demean the other party by distorting their position) and, when he disagrees with his own party, he's honest about it and openly critical.
Congress controlling the Fed will have quite a negative effect on interest rate spreads as it is essentially giving the keys to the printing press to the people who are the biggest spenders in the history of the world. This is why i believe they will not politicize monetary policy... the result could be catastrophic.
It would be a shame for the policy in which was intended for reform turned into the catalyst for true inflationary pressure.
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911
1. I personally think it's stupid to stick to a document written more than two hundred years ago irregardless of the circumstances, specially on issues that didn't exist when said document was written. And monetary policy on the scale we are talking, in an electronic age, in a globalised world, certainly didn't exist for them. But if you want, we can play a game of what would they do if they were here, but that'll lead you no where either.Whether or not we think Congress would suitable for this kind of responsibility is irrelevant -- it's the correct mechanism as per how this nation was designed, and it is up to the electorate to hold Congress responsible for doing its duty.
2. It is relevant because as point out above, Congress can find ways within the boundary of the constitution to have a body that look at these issues on its behalf. It's by Congress's will that the Fed exists in the first place.
3. It's "up to the electorate" to do a lot of things, but saying that doesn't make it happen. So do we sit by and hope the electorate will live up to its responsibilities (what are they exactly?) or make choices like sensible people?
That's really a comfort when you see the debt keeps going up, isn't it?If we don't, we can't blame it on Congress when everything gets screwed up. It's our fault if we let them run amok.
1. Your last sentence is not clear. Either you are talking about the Fed creating money - the Fed doesn't need to borrow, it's the one institution that can create liability out of thin air (or the printing press to be more accurate), or you are talking about the Federal government's borrowing, in which case I think you don't know your monetary policy 101 very well. I would suggest you google the term "monetisation". This policy was popular before the 60's when the executive arm had more power over the Fed - basically the Fed was another arm of the Executive branch in fact if not in the letter. But Chiarman Martin was against that and worked to change that, but Volcker was the one that really asserted the Fed's independence. Most people who read about the Fed's history admires him for that, and yet now you are talking about undoing all that and put the Fed in a position where it might be made to monetise the debt or keep rates too low to satisfy the politicians, again.Furthermore, I think we should abolish the Fed altogether. If it's going to be legal tender, it should be directly issued by and regulated by the authority of the United States government. No more of this borrowing-to-create-currency crap.
2. I think people who want the Fed to "answer to Congress" comes from a position where they want to abolish the Fed because the Fed already answers to Congress, the Chairman can be called to testify anytime I believe. Ron Paul can't answer the questions about the consequences of abolishing the Fed would be and what do you put up in place of the Fed (let Congress put up a vote every month as to what the rate should be? What if there's a filibuster?) so the best he can do is make it difficult for it to make decisions.
What about the fact that firms in the same market sector have a natural tendency to consolidate? Bigger firms has more natural advantage, there may come a point they would become too big, but in the mean time, if left to themselves, they tend to progress to hold a huge chuck of the market.
Last edited by nonpareil; 01-09-10 at 10:07 PM.