*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

*drugs *talks *conspiracy

Adding video to channels (Conspiracy, Drugs, Talks) - requested by MrFisk.

Bush wasn't honest, he was just a pawn of Cheney and Rumsfeld the first three years of the administration.
I like you Paul. I agree with you on a lot of things. However, you're now marrying the war in Iraq with the war in Afghanistan. That mindset helped to initiate Iraqi war. We've killed a lot of Al Queda in Afghanistan and Pakistan since Obama has been in charge. That's a marked improvement from buying them off to fight our shadow villains.

Nice of Time to do this, during the election they mentioned him maybe once and refuse to give him any coverage.

I'm curious to know how you would pay for public services without income tax. Has Ron Paul previously given an answer to this?

>> ^L0cky:
I'm curious to know how you would pay for public services without income tax. Has Ron Paul previously given an answer to this?


I don't know what he proposes, but National Sales Tax / Value-Added Tax is a possibility.

>> ^L0cky:
I'm curious to know how you would pay for public services without income tax. Has Ron Paul previously given an answer to this?


Yes. Excise tax, user fees and tariffs.

This is truely a once-in-a-lifetime, great American. We shouod take advantage of having him while we can. I've never seen him flinch on any question, even the ones regarding him being duped by that Borat moron. Notice there's no tele-prompted poetry here, just plain facts and opinions based on economics and the Constitution. A much better choice for president than the current NWO puppet. The push needs to start now for 2012!

Paul's and Schiff's prediction of the end of civilization as we know it unless we all become fans of freshwater economics doesn't look very likely. They better hope for something like a meteor strike to help bring civilization down, because it's a drain on your credibility if your 100% certainty predictions don't pan out.

I've never seen Paul or Schiff talk about the inherent deflationary nature of information technologies in the context of Austrian Economics, despite their constant talk of inflation. The price of a given amount of processing power or data storage drops by a fairly consistent percent per year (on average)... the same is true for dna sequencing, solar power, or many other high-tech devices.

Maybe they don't think it's a big deal, but I've never even seen them mention it. Austrian Economics were formulated well before the information age, so I'm curious how these new trends fit into it.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Saturday, September 19th, 2009 6:52pm PDT - promote requested by eric3579.

my friends. this guy is hopelessly out of touch. hes living in the 1920;s or something. if the usa was the size of texas maybe we could live the way he proposes, but we are 300 million strong. we must feed and protect 300 million people. we need desease control. emergency management. protection of our food supply.
we can not survive.literally,without the fda cdc fema etc. also without a progressive income tax the wealth would quickly be in the hands of a small percentage of the population. no matter what anyone says our tax system helps to ..spread the wealth. fair tax, flat tax. sales tax. etc. are regressive. the more you make the less you pay in taxes. thats why we dont do that. this guy is one of the reasons we are so fucked up right now. hes completely lost.

>> ^Psychologic:
I've never seen Paul or Schiff talk about the inherent deflationary nature of information technologies in the context of Austrian Economics, despite their constant talk of inflation. The price of a given amount of processing power or data storage drops by a fairly consistent percent per year (on average)... the same is true for dna sequencing, solar power, or many other high-tech devices.
Maybe they don't think it's a big deal, but I've never even seen them mention it. Austrian Economics were formulated well before the information age, so I'm curious how these new trends fit into it.


Metal melt values are always a good indicator about inflation over the long history of time. Let us look at penny melt values. This would be a relation of the fiat value of a penny vs the market value of the copper.

http://mises.org/images4/3069figure1.jpg

The worst part of this is that the penny has been changed every so often with less and less copper (other coins as well). Soon, pennies will be filled with steal as that is one of the cheapest metals you can have. After that, it is the end of the line for a penny. What graphs and graphs like this show ( you can look it up for gold, silver, and nearly any other rareish earth metal) and the trend is the same, metal is more highly prized over time than US dollars. This eats away until the system snaps (like back in the currency crunch of 33 when the government outlawed gold...forced you to sell gold so the treasury could have something real to give dollars value after the failed works projects of the 30s.). Fiat currencies and currency under control of central bankers tends to eventually undermine itself. The world is complex and full of players and vested interests and various other things that make prediction along a specific time frame hard. You could have massive investment of a foreign saver nation rescue a monetary system from collapse (IE China to the USA). But when the music stops for debt, the game is up, you have to face the monster your created. And like most things, the longer you wait to fix it, the worse it will be at that time if finally needs mending.

You are also talking about two different ideas. Because tech gets cheaper doesn't mean there isn't inflation. Technology is fairly different from things like, say food, or metal. New processes make something more efficient to produce over its life cycle. Chips become cheaper because of size. The smaller it gets, the cheaper it can be produced and as consequence, more of them can be sold per unit of silicon wafer. If you ever wandered why smaller is better it is because silicon wafers have to be manufactured circular, it is part of the physic's of aligning the silicon molecules properly. However, chips are usually rectangular. This means that you have to throw away all the edge pieces that don't line up to make squares out of the main circle. This doesn't just scale linearly; the smaller you make a chip, the more of the silicon you use.

The same is kind of true of other techs. Hard drives use a similar shrinking so that less can do more. But a building isn't going to use much less material than it did 20 years ago. Also, inflation is really hard to place effectively when you have the government interfering with prices. When you distort prices by government hand out, it is hard to know what the value of something is. Lets take houses for starters. When the government was handing out nearly free money for housing stuff, the market inflated. House prices when up by 50% a year in some areas. This bubble finally burst along with some other bad lone stuff. The prices of homes have fallen dramatically in most areas, but this isn't "deflation", this is a market readjustment.

In other words, the ideas of metals and stuff still apply to tech. Tech is neat in the way that new advancements mean you can do more with less. (same for DNA stuff, as tech gets more advanced, the less you have to play people and computer time to do the same amount of work).

As for their predictions, Shiffs has been saying for years watch out for the bubble burst. He also predicted that the stock and gold values would merge before we saw the end of the stock tumble, which it pretty much did.

Why have Schiff and Paul never been able to escape a position in the marketplace of ideas that they perceive to be so vastly underappreciated?

As long as they tie their technical points about mistakes of the federal reserve to broader, fundamentalist libertarianism, most people are going to roll their eyes. Claims like that the DMV, FDA, and EPA are fascist are always going to sabotage the efforts of reasonable libertarians. It's in reasonable libertarians' self-interest to rein in the libertarian fringe. (Same applies to liberals and conservatives and their own fringes.) Choose your battles one at a time, instead of trying to fight every battle at once.

I doubt that principle will be recognized broadly any time in the next 100 years by any of the 3 groups mentioned above, though, so expect more endless political theater and missed opportunities.

Ron Paul: making batshit crazy sound perfectly sane.

>> ^StukaFox:
Ron Paul: making batshit crazy sound perfectly sane.


You sure are holding the intellectual high ground with Ad hominem arguments...good jorb homestar

While some of what Dr. Paul has to say seems a bit farfetched, bear in mind that what you’re judging him on are his actual policies, not some bullshit he said to get elected so he could turn around and do whatever the fuck he wanted once in office.

^Politicians in most districts must do that because voters all feel entitled to have their views and only their views represented by society's leaders. It's a symptom of limited interest in the big picture on the part of the populace.

I am not sure I understand your post chill, care to elaborate? That video you posted did nothing but remind me why I don't like that program.

^My point is that if politicians want to be mainstream they have to get opposing sub-factions to support them. Since every sub-faction becomes furious if it has to compromise, the only way to get them to support you is to tell each of them they won't have to compromise. Then, when you're in office, they get furious because suddenly they're having to compromise with each other... the exact thing they didn't want to do.

Regarding the video I linked to, I was trying to say politely that one root of the populace's irrational hope to avoid compromise is limited average cognitive ability.

I think I understand. I long for the days when it was better to be right than popular, quaint notion nowadays. It is funny how the ideals have so quickly gone back to Greek for politicians. Like the Iliad, it is now morally good to be sneaky and cunning rather than upstanding and straightforward.

It is funny for people to see how different the opposing side of an argument is and yet still want their ideals to be forced on others. I have always wondered why people whom argue for and against...lets say gay marriage...never ask themselves a more fundamental question...why is marriage something the government needs to concern itself with. I am convinced that people just love to meddle in others lives, something that is very troubling when concerning rule of law.

Liberty is a crazy idea, lets hope the crazy spreads.

>> ^robdot:
my friends. this guy is hopelessly out of touch. hes living in the 1920;s or something. if the usa was the size of texas maybe we could live the way he proposes, but we are 300 million strong. we must feed and protect 300 million people. we need desease control. emergency management. protection of our food supply.
we can not survive.literally,without the fda cdc fema etc. also without a progressive income tax the wealth would quickly be in the hands of a small percentage of the population. no matter what anyone says our tax system helps to ..spread the wealth. fair tax, flat tax. sales tax. etc. are regressive. the more you make the less you pay in taxes. thats why we dont do that. this guy is one of the reasons we are so fucked up right now. hes completely lost.


Um, your country survived for more than half it's existence without those services. You also survived without the income tax until 1913! Also, an unapportioned tax on income is actually unconstitutional.

Also, regarding the income tax spreading the wealth around, perhaps some numbers might convince you otherwise:


In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2004, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.3% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.3%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.2%. - Source

Ron Paul is on the side of individuals making decisions for themselves. The CDC, FDA and FEMA don't feed 300 million people, individuals work and receive money that they buy food with. The government does not contribute at all, except taking a percentage of that individuals earnings in tax and spending it on government programs.


>> ^chilaxe:
Paul's and Schiff's prediction of the end of civilization as we know it unless we all become fans of freshwater economics doesn't look very likely. They better hope for something like a meteor strike to help bring civilization down, because it's a drain on your credibility if your 100% certainty predictions don't pan out.


In comparison with the people who are actually in control of the economy, Schiff and Paul have been right 100% of the time. If anyone's credibility should be questioned, it should be Bernanke and Geithner.

the population in 1930 was under 100 million. without the cdc ,fda ,government provided highway systems ,etc we can not support our present population. this is true if you like it or not.

The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results. This amendment overruled Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895), which limited the Congress's authority to levy an income tax.
so, your wrong. now say it,say i was wrong.

without taxes on income..capital gains..inheritance. within a few generations the wealth of the country would be in the hands of a very few. its also regressive in nature. meaning the more you make the less you pay in taxes. because a family of 4 making 40.000 a year consumes all its income, see? so they are taxed on 100% of their income. but a family of 4 making 250.000 a year saves maybe 25 % ,and if interest and capital gains were not taxed they would save even more. becuase the income is tax free and the gains are tax free and i can pass it on to my heirs tax free. woo hoo !!!!so they would live off of 65% of their income ,save the rest,tax free, earn gains,tax free, pass it on,tax free untill they were living off the interest. these fair tax ideas etc, ideas are all republican psychobabble joe the plumber bullshit . you must tax income. that is the only FAIR way to do it. its a rich people method for tricking teabagger dipshits. thats why the fair tax people hired joe the plumber to go to tea partys and promote the fair tax.

republicans always say this stupid ass crap that people should make their own choices, oh..unless they want an abortion. then ill make that choice. oh, unless you gay and wanna get married, then ill make that choice. unless you wanna choose a public health option,uh,then no. republicans are always for choice. as long as you choose what they want you to choose.

"republicans always say this stupid ass crap that people should make their own choices, oh..unless they want an abortion. then ill make that choice. oh, unless you gay and wanna get married, then ill make that choice. unless you wanna choose a public health option,uh,then no. republicans are always for choice. as long as you choose what they want you to choose."

But that's not what Ron Paul says. He doesn't agree with people who get abortions, but he leaves the choice to them. I think he's not being hypocritical, like the garden-variety republican of which you speak. That certainly doesn't mean that I agree with everything he says, far from it, but there are things I do agree with, and so far he's been very consistent with them.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.