http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul453.html

Second paragraph.

MINK,

Boys make lemonade. Government takes small percentage. Government buys paint for artist down the road. Artist makes painting with a markup of 3000%. Lemonade stand starts to look like a waste of time.

How about this instead, "Boys make lemonade. One of the boys breaks off to pursue Art career with his percentage of profit. He makes 3000% mark up on first painting. Lemonade stand starts to look like a waste of time."

I don't think the force of government was necessary.

^ I was thinking the same thing considering statists like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh were speaking at this event as well. Did they change audiences with speakers? I think it's funny that the GOP leadership has been trying to kiss up to Ron Paul supporters since they got their asses kicked in November.

>> ^volumptuous:
Hey, another video of Peter Paul talking about the past, but bringing nothing to the table of what to do in the future.
And to think the Libtards are on the fringe!
I wonder if Peter knows about his BFF Ron Paul getting almost $100million dollars in earmarks from the new spending bill:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6286883.html
"Paul played a role in obtaining 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million"

Oh sure, Paul railed against the bill. Called it "socialism" and "fascism" at the CPAC circle-jerk. But, just as I expected, he's all talk and nothing else.


So Ron Paul's constituents are supposed to pay taxes and get nothing back on principle? If his district could opt out of paying taxes I would understand your point but they can't so I don't.

I agree winkler, I think they do need to crack down on naked shorts and reinstate the uptick rule though.

>> ^Haldaug:
All your Religions are belong to us...


That's exactly what I thought when I saw the title.

>> ^Farhad2000:
/ron paul
Even VS is asking for a bailout! Virtual hat? Falling revenues? Donations?
SMELLS LIKE COMMUNISM TO ME
The free market has spoken and your business model failed you, why should the public be forced to sustain something? Rabble rabble rabble...
/ron paul
Will send more coke money soon fucking addicts


RON PAUL WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS BECAUSE IT'S VOLUNTARY!

/Obama

We've already decided that Videosift is essential to the world whether you agree or not and therefore we will raise your taxes (or borrow from China and defer them to your children) and if you don't agree with this, TOO BAD, I WON!

/Obama

No it's not Wall Street. It's the CME in Chicago. Big difference and whole different mindset. Rick reports on the Treasuries and Currencies market which means when the US is fucking up like taking on too much debt or the Fed printing too much money he's on the front line and usually the only one on CNBC with balls enough to call them out. The people he argues with are usually Wall Street assholes who want to keep the con game going under the guise of helping main street.

When you need sleep, 45 minutes waiting for the police is unacceptable. I had a buddy whose neighbors were playing loud music way past bedtime. He called the police and they said they'd send a deputy out. An hour goes by and his kid can't sleep and neither can he so he calls again. The dispatcher says, "We're really busy and we'll be out as soon as we can." My buddy says, "Fine, I'll handle it myself!!!" he heard the dispatcher say "WAIT!" right before he hung up on her. The cops were there in 5 minutes.

Anyone think Bin Laden is still alive?

I think Bin Laden = Emmanuel Goldstein at this point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIlkk0tXaN8&feature=related

Part Two

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Psychologic:
I think what he was saying (in the context of your statement) is that if you max out all of your credit cards during good times then you shouldn't choose to spend even more money during bad times.
Families generally have to reduce their spending when their income drops, especially if they were already spending more than they were making. The question is whether or not that applies to the US government.

I'm thinking that's the wrong analogy. It's more like a restaurant that has been slowly losing money for years. They've let the building fall to pieces, with leaks in the roof, failing electrical wiring, and an old rotary phone. New management comes in, and rather than trying to cut back on hours, or drop the quality of the food to try to make ends meet, they take out a loan, fix the roof and wiring, buy new appliances, remodel the dining room, and hire themselves a good chef to spice up the menu, and then advertise their all-new status.
That's what we're looking to do. Invest in our future to try to turn around a downward losing spiral.


The problem is our bank is China and they may cut us off before we even get started.

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^quantumushroom:
You'll be wishing for the Bush Years again when inflation hits.

Do you think China and other countries will start dumping dollar assets? I'm starting to wonder if they see it as a viable alternative.
America is a large part of the world's consumption. I don't think China "needs" US consumption to stay afloat, but it would sure as hell take a big chunk out of their economy if they dumped their dollars and sent the US currency into free fall. China may fear the unhappiness and controllability of their own populace in that case.
That's just a guess though, I don't know what they're thinking.


I read an article in Bloomberg back in October I believe that the US had worked out some kind of agreement with Japan and China (the largest holders of our debt) that they would not sell dollars. October seems like decades ago though, things could have changed by then.

The last treasury auction last week didn't go so well. An anonymous buyer, most likely the Fed, came in at the last minute and saved the day. Not a good sign considering that we haven't even begun getting to Obama's spending plans yet.

>> ^volumptuous:
COINS!!!
Ugggh, another history lesson from Ron Paul, yet nothing in the way of what should be done today.
When is this guy going to, oh I dunno, help figure this shit out? Or is it just too important to scream MISES every chance there's a microphone nearby?


He already has it figured out. He says the solution is letting the chips fall where they may. What's wrong with that?

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^imstellar28:

That is of course, the classic counter argument to what I (and everyone on the Hill) is proposing.
My view is that the picture you draw is too static. If the market is always better at providing prosperity, why are people losing jobs and having to spend less?
It's not crushing taxes levied to pay off the debt -- we've never really had anyone try to do that.
It's not crushing regulation stopping people from starting businesses, it's the bankers themselves cutting off investment capital because they're afraid they've already gambled and lost every penny they own.
Maybe it's because when the market is left to its own devices, it pushes empty ponzi schemes as the main engine of the economy, instead of the old-fashioned idea of actually producing goods and services that require work.
I'm not saying that incurring the debt is a good idea, I'm just saying that if we slash government "spending" to a level below our falling revenues, you'll only make the situation worse, and make revenues drop even further as the economy grinds to a halt.
I think we both agree that this whole thing will sort itself out, in the same way that we'd agree that life, in some form, would survive a nuclear war, the difference is, I want to fight the nuclear proliferation because I don't really want my survival skills tested that much, while you say "nukes for everybody!" because you have faith that the natural order of things will work out to the best possible result.
As for the thought that this is the result of 90 years of government meddling, I don't think there's evidence for that at all. Again, the issue isn't with our national debt or regulation, it's with what the private sector did when government "got out of the way".


I was being somewhat facetious in my earlier post, Imstellar's post is much closer to my line of thinking. I disagree with the Krugman/Summers/Geithner/Obama plan which is what you are advocating. My problem is I don't trust them. You seem to be hoping for a Cinncinnatus when history shows you always get a Caesar to some extent. I think things will get very bad no matter what we do. The Obama Administration's hope is to get the "economy going again." Obama's plan is skipping an important part of the process though. Savings and production need to be built back up again which will mean huge asset declines in the mean time. If this process is skipped (it will be largely) then we will have massive inflation. These bad investments need to be liquidated not propped up or we'll be stuck in this rut a lot longer than we would be otherwise. There will always be a buyer at the right price. The problem is that the banks are insolvent and instead of selling their deposits to smaller less politically connected and better capitalized banks they are threatening to take the whole system down. The government should let them fail but they won't because then JPM and GS won't be around to naked short gold to keep the dollar looking good for Obama's big spending plans. Well, I don't know how long they can keep that going we're 2 weeks in Obama's presidency and gold is skyrocketing. You want to know where that TARP money went? Covering short positions in gold.