News What are the economic impacts of government growth and corruption?

[mheslep]

I respect some of Paul's views, but like others, I find him too nutty. For me, what does him in is his position on antitrust law. I don't know what universe he lives in, but I would say that multinational corporations exerting undue influence on the marketplace falls under the umbrella of "interstate commerce." More generally, he's a corporatist in constitutionalist's clothing. He doesn't understand that corporations do not have the right to exist, and that they are supposed to serve some sort of public good in exchange for the legal benefits. If he had is way, in twenty years we'd all be slaves to a company which owns everything, and which you cannot speak out against lest they stop selling you food.

In economics, there is an opposing view on this subject. I'm probably going to read up on it in the future.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0945466250/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1933995092/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0945999623/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I note that in an interview awhile back nobel laureate Milton Friedman had said that while originally he supported Antitrust law but he had eventually come to oppose it, the idea being I believe that it did more harm than good.

 

[Mororvia]

I think Paul might allow states to decide such standards, I think he just wants the federal government out.

Yes, this is EXACTLY it. This is his stance on the majority of things people find extreme and I don't agree with all of it. I think the federal gov't is or can be important in areas of education, energy and science to name a few.

We (myself and RP) are in lockstep on foreign policy and pretty close in terms of cutting spending.

 

[mheslep]

...I'd even go so far as to say that if he's serious then he simply doesn't understand how the Constitution is supposed to work. The whole purpose of Congress is to enact laws to apply the Constitution to specific circumstances...

I'd disagree, especially with the general nature to that last sentence, which would appear to let the Congress do most anything a majority wanted absent conflict with one of the 'nine' amendments. The restriction is much tighter than that. The authority of the US legislature is completely spelled out in Sections http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8" of Article 1 both of which are fairly specific. And by the restraint of amendment X - "rights reserver to the states" - that is all congress is allowed to do (ignored in practice). Sections 8 & 9 do not include anything about consumer protection, say, fire safety (perhaps a bigger problem in those times than ours). The entire basis for federal consumer law rests on the single line commerce clause in Section 8: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;". Now I'd agree that many people in the modern era would say that issues like consumer law are 'important' as you suggest and that therefore we must have congress act. Indeed, Harvard's Alan Dershowitz recently said (paraphrasing): "I don't care what someone in the 17th/18th century said" about original intent. Regardless, Paul's right on one thing, the current system is not how Constitution was intended to work.

Edit: Apologies if the above is a little pedantic, but I thought it necessary to nail down all the antecedents and indirect references that have been floating about.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Here's a mainstream media article that just came out on the Ron Paul newsletters:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

(Though, by "mainstream media" I really just mean that it's an edited print source rather than a "lone gunman" web site; The New Republic definitely has a political view. But the article is put together from quotes from a wide range of Ron-Paul-authorized publications and other confirmable facts.)

 

[DrClapeyron]

Ron Paul isn't saying anything different. Every candidate so far has pointed the finger at the federal government as the source of 'this' problem or the real reason 'this thing' isn't being done is because of 'this' in 'this' department or we have to change 'this' in the department of 'that' in order to do 'this'. He says the same things, only he needs a tin foil hat so people can take him seriously.

 

[falc39]

Here's a mainstream media article that just came out on the Ron Paul newsletters:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

(Though, by "mainstream media" I really just mean that it's an edited print source rather than a "lone gunman" web site; The New Republic definitely has a political view. But the article is put together from quotes from a wide range of Ron-Paul-authorized publications and other confirmable facts.)

I've been trying to keep up with this on the forums.

This is from the same guy who was on Tucker, the video can be found here in case anyone missed it:


He ends the interview saying he will reveal everything tomorrow. It's tomorrow and he brings in the article above, with some selected quotes.

To me, he kind of kills his own article by stating this:

Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.

What a way to discredit yourself...

Anyway, the campaign released this official response:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-re...ew-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters

And Ron Paul had his own personal response:
http://reason.com/blog/show/124281.html

This time, he actually gives an explanation now of why he doesn't release the old stuff

reason: Why don't you release all the old letters?

Paul: I don't even have copies of them, because it's ancient history.

I'm going to look at some of the selections that he posted, probably at most to compare it to the style of his speeches and other writings to see if they match. Otherwise, I don't really see this as clear evidence that he wrote it. It's irritating that they pull this off on the day of and before the NH primary. Obviously politics as usual...

 

[falc39]

Ron Paul isn't saying anything different. Every candidate so far has pointed the finger at the federal government as the source of 'this' problem or the real reason 'this thing' isn't being done is because of 'this' in 'this' department or we have to change 'this' in the department of 'that' in order to do 'this'. He says the same things, only he needs a tin foil hat so people can take him seriously.

I don't see that. He always gives a much more detailed answer in terms of economics and monetary policy and tries to relate it to everything, including foreign policy.

Furthermore, I found Ron Paul's new book online offered for free in PDF!
Pillars of Prosperity: Free Markets, Honest Money, Private Property
http://www.mises.org/books/prosperity.pdf

It's basically all his speeches on economics in congress with some commentary. You have to admit that this guy cares a lot more about economics and monetary policy than the people who are running against him (even if you disagree with his school of thought).

 

[Manchot]

I'm going to look at some of the selections that he posted, probably at most to compare it to the style of his speeches and other writings to see if they match. Otherwise, I don't really see this as clear evidence that he wrote it. It's irritating that they pull this off on the day of and before the NH primary. Obviously politics as usual...

Does it really matter if he wrote it? The quotes span an extremely long period of time, meaning that either a) he didn't read his own newsletter or b) he read it and tacitly approved. Either way, Ron Paul's integrity is in question.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

What a way to discredit yourself...

The author of the article is discredited because Ron Paul published these things for more than a decade in his own name without identifying who was writing it? Isn't that a bit of a stretch?

But it's good to know that he's claiming he simply doesn't have copies of anything any more. It's kind of curious that he remembers so clearly exactly who wrote what in the issues that are available. But saying he doesn't have copies is much less patronizing than outright saying he doesn't think we should read it.

And thanks for posting those links falc39.

 

[falc39]

dang, vote fraud has already been confirmed in New Hampshire.

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/New_Hampshire_District_Admits_Ron_Paul_Vote_Skew"

 

[Evo]

dang, vote fraud has already been confirmed in New Hampshire.

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/New_Hampshire_District_Admits_Ron_Paul_Vote_Skew"

digg.com is not considered a reliable source.

Even so, Ron Paul is not a viable candidate and isn't being considered as a serious potential candidate.

 

[falc39]

digg.com is not considered a reliable source.

Even so, Ron Paul is not a viable candidate and isn't being considered as a serious potential candidate.

it shouldn't matter though what Ron Paul is considered, this isn't acceptable.

it's all over the forums right now.

also look at this: guiliani got 9.11% in three different counties. No other candidate did. is this some cruel joke? What are the chances of that happening?

 

[falc39]

here's a better link.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

1-7-08: Silvestro the Cat & New Hampshire Elections
UPDATE JAN 9 9am PST: TOWN OF SUTTON CONFIRMS RON PAUL TOTALS WERE 31, NOT ZERO.

I just got off the phone with Jennifer Call, Town Clerk for Sutton. She confirmed that the Ron Paul totals in Sutton were actually 31, and said that they were "left off the tally sheet" and it was human error.

This is not an acceptable answer, especially because one of the most common forms of fraud in a hand count system is to alter or omit results on the reporting sheet. Hand count is lovely, transparent. They then fill out another reconciliation sheet, often in front of witnesses, and it looks fine. Then they provide a summary or media sheet with the incorrect results.

A Web site here: http://www.wheresthepaper.org has more on fraud techniques with hand counted paper ballots. You'll have to dig for it -- or Google, and the excellent research on this is Theresa Hommel from the state of New York.

 

[D H]

dang, vote fraud has already been confirmed in New Hampshire.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/New_Hampshire_District_Admits_Ron_Paul_Vote_Skew"

The article claims that a summary sheet released to the media omitted the count for Paul. If that is all that happened, where is the vote fraud? What is reported to the media is a summary, not the official complete tally. The complete tally includes each and every vote for each and every candidate, including the fringe candidates and the write-ins.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Definitely something that absolutely must be investigated but pretty far short of evidence of fraud.

 

[fourier jr]

this must be a different Ron Paul from the one who's running for president:

Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A series of newsletters in the name of GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul contain several racist remarks -- including one that says order was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went "to pick up their welfare checks."

etc etc

The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr. -- described as a "pro-Communist philanderer." One newsletter, from June 1992, right after the LA riots, says "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

Another says, "The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."

In some excerpts, the reader may be led to believe the words are indeed from Paul, a resident of Lake Jackson, Texas. In the "Ron Paul Political Report" from October 1992, the writer describes carjacking as the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."

The author then offers advice from others on how to avoid being carjacked, including "an ex-cop I know," and says, "I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."

etc

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html

 

[kyleb]

this must be a different Ron Paul from the one who's running for president:

Seems to be the case according to the man's own statements. Did you not see his comments on the newsletters in the article you linked?

 

[denverdoc]

The guy uses constitutionalism to validate and rationalize a very myopic and privelaged view of the world. He is consistent as day follows night to be sure, feed the rich, starve the poor and if you don't own private property, then you are essentially classless w/o real claim to the things that our fathers of the constitution promised, eg liberty, pursuit of happiness. Oh sure you can pursue it, just don't get in the way who already "have" it. So far as I can tell, Paulian principles equate to the right to be miserable and lest you complain, the right to be silenced by those with property. Your mileage may vary.

 

[mheslep]

First thing they do for him is get rid of the EPA, the consumer product safety commission, the clean air act, all alternate energy funding, and a few other major impediments to businesses doing whatever the hell they want. Immediately, the country ditches all forms of clean energy, people pull the catalytic converters off their cars, and 100 new coal power plants are built.

I'll take crack at the environmental case. The free market environmentalism approach would be as follows. First, create pollution credits in the vein of basic trespass law, you can't throw your pollution over the fence onto my property unless I agree and you pay me for it. Thus, 10 tons of sulfur dioxide up the stack would cost X creating incentives to reduce emissions. The credits must be salable so that the system has a natural check. If a polluter tries to hide emissions, then even if one cares nothing for the local environment there's a built in incentive to police the polluter since if I'm in the market to sell credits the polluter is depressing demand by cheating. Thats going to put drag on your 100 plants, get producers to go another way, for instance, investing in clean energy.

Now, in evaluating the EPAless world we also need to compare to system as it is now, with all the paperwork and licensing process. If that is greatly reduced, it also reduces impediment to the creation of new efficient/cleaner plants (which they should be w/ credits) and replace the broken down old cars of the power industry - the pre 1977 filthy coal plants still chugging along. Finally, with regards to fears of excessive legal costs in a EPAless system, don't discount the legal costs now.

With regards to individual polluters (catalytic converter removal,etc) - I don't know how to address that. In any case that's covered AFAIK by state laws. I can't pass my state inspection system without one, so no federal EPA needed there. Indeed, the EPA blocks states from increasing restrictions on auto emissions past some EPA-knows-best limit without a waiver from EPA as California's are likely quite aware at the moment.

I don't know if Rep. Paul agrees with all this in detail. He's stated that private property rights need to be enforced (again), and that though its not a priority for him he'd move towards dumping EPA. The above is basically the less - government approach to cleaner air/water/... per, say, https://www.amazon.com/gp/associates/link-types/marketplace.html?t=theedgeofengl-20&asin=9990561818"&tag=pfamazon01-20

A final reason: I don't see much basis in the constitution for EPA in its current form; its a distortion beyond all recognition of the commerce clause.

 

[mheslep]

and lest you complain, the right to be silenced by those with property. Your mileage may vary.

Who is silencing you?

 

[denverdoc]

I'll take crack at the environmental case. The free market environmentalism approach would be as follows. First, create pollution credits in the vein of basic trespass law, you can't throw your pollution over the fence onto my property unless I agree and you pay me for it. Thus, 10 tons of sulfur dioxide up the stack would cost X creating incentives to reduce emissions. The credits must be salable so that the system has a natural check. If a polluter tries to hide emissions, then even if one cares nothing for the local environment there's a built in incentive to police the polluter since if I'm in the market to sell credits the polluter is depressing demand by cheating. Thats going to put drag on your 100 plants, get producers to go another way, for instance, investing in clean energy.

Now, in evaluating the EPAless world we also need to compare to system as it is now, with all the paperwork and licensing process. If that is greatly reduced, it also reduces impediment to the creation of new efficient/cleaner plants (which they should be w/ credits) and replace the broken down old cars of the power industry - the pre 1977 filthy coal plants still chugging along. Finally, with regards to fears of excessive legal costs in a EPAless system, don't discount the legal costs now.

With regards to individual polluters (catalytic converter removal,etc) - I don't know how to address that. In any case that's covered AFAIK by state laws. I can't pass my state inspection system without one, so no federal EPA needed there. Indeed, the EPA blocks states from increasing restrictions on auto emissions past some EPA-knows-best limit without a waiver from EPA as California's are likely quite aware at the moment.

I don't know if Rep. Paul agrees with all this in detail. He's stated that private property rights need to be enforced (again), and that though its not a priority for him he'd move towards dumping EPA. The above is basically the less - government approach to cleaner air/water/... per, say, https://www.amazon.com/gp/associates/link-types/marketplace.html?t=theedgeofengl-20&asin=9990561818"&tag=pfamazon01-20

A final reason: I don't see much basis in the constitution for EPA in its current form; its a distortion beyond all recognition of the commerce clause.

This experiment has been tried and led to the creation of the EPA. I am not sure why folks don't get the mercenary aspect of commerce/free enterprise, esp as practiced here in the USA. No one gives a hoot about future damages or reduction of life quality until it results in law suits--and then careful calculus is applied to the future cost of litigation vs doing biz as usual. Without some standards such as the ones promulgated by the EPA, there is no legal ground to stand on. Witness the tobacco suits. One expert after another to convince jury after another there is harm associated with tobacco smoke. This is an egregious case, try arguing what DU has done to Iraqis, above ground testing to Nevadan's and southern Utahn's, it becomes very difficult to prove damages and collect. As someone quipped above, if you want an economy based on legal opinions, elect Paul.

 

[falc39]

quick follow up on the town of Sutton thing in New Hampshire. It now has been found that there was a second town that completely did not report their votes for ron paul - Greensville.

- Two hand count towns reported "zero" votes for candidate Ron Paul to the media, even though they did have votes for him. The town of Sutton reported zero, but had 31 votes; the town of Greenville reported zero, but had 25 votes. The two towns had misreported results affecting exactly the same candidate in exactly the same way.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/"

wow, so both towns made the same mistake, on coincidently the same candidate, with about the same number of votes... amazing.

and, I'll mention again... rudy guiliani was the only candidate to get 9.11% in a county. He actually got it three times! what are the chances of that happening? Could it be some sick joke and a showing of the evil villain syndrome?

and considering that NH used the same machines that have been tested in my home state (california) as 'vulnerable'...

 

[fourier jr]

Are you trying to say there was some sort of voter fraud? That sort of thing doesn't happen in the USA & never will!

 

[CaptainQuasar]

and considering that NH used the same machines that have been tested in my home state (california) as 'vulnerable'...

Some municipalities in NH use machines and some use hand counts. One of the other possible irregularities that has been raised is that the outcomes in hand-count districts are significantly different, on average, than the outcomes in machine-count districts. Though I've heard of differences in regards to Obama and Clinton, I don't know if Ron Paul is included in that too.

 

[Evo]

quick follow up on the town of Sutton thing in New Hampshire. It now has been found that there was a second town that completely did not report their votes for ron paul - Greensville.

Since Ron Paul is doing so poorly it would take a huge amount of votes to make him viable. He might as well quit now.

 

[TridenTBoy]

:-/ So Evo who would you vote for then?

 

[Evo]

:-/ So Evo who would you vote for then?

Obama

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Since Ron Paul is doing so poorly it would take a huge amount of votes to make him viable. He might as well quit now.

No no! He has to stay in long enough for me to vote for him in the primary; assuming of course that by then Obama won't need my vote.

Paul had better not deny me my protest vote!

I do agree though: He can't win, so while the vote is still critical, I think Paul voters should back Obama.

 

[Mk]

The guy uses constitutionalism to validate and rationalize a very myopic and privelaged view of the world.

I suppose the idea of maximum freedom can be seen as a privilege.

 

[falc39]

No no! He has to stay in long enough for me to vote for him in the primary; assuming of course that by then Obama won't need my vote.

Paul had better not deny me my protest vote!

I do agree though: He can't win, so while the vote is still critical, I think Paul voters should back Obama.

I don't see how that's possible with most Paul supporters, at least with me. I mean, I prefer him over Hillary, but he is a completely different candidate. I guarantee you that government will get bigger if he wins. I also guarantee you that the country will lean even more towards a globalist ideology under him. I mean, what do they even agree in? The war? Possibly, although Obama has already flip-flopped on that. The only thing they really have in common is that they both tend to draw a lot of young supporters.