Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Ron Paul’s Statement on the Passage of the Bailout
- This topic has 25 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 4 months ago by
patientrenter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 4, 2008 at 1:59 PM #281296October 4, 2008 at 4:49 PM #281069
Anonymous
GuestI tend to agree with Ron Paul on some of this, especially regarding reactive government and short termism, and the Iraq example is a useful reminder of where weak government leads. The difficulty with these issues is always credible information regarding cause and effect. I would have liked to have heard what the impact of not acting was likely to be in clear, quantifiable terms. By the same token, that should apply to the detractors arguments. The debate should be (have been) around the questions of: What would be the damage if their was no bail out? What damage will the bail out do? It’s probably going to be likely, given the nature of democracies, that short term solutions prevail over long term pragmatism. I don’t think you can always blame the politicians for this. The electorate is very fickle, and demands results often without a clear grasp of the complexities surrounding some issues.
I don’t condone or disagree with either side, but I find partisan and ideological banter boring, incompetence annoying, and deception reprehensible. I don’t know who is right in all this, and I rather fancy history holds the only key to unlocking that little secret.
October 4, 2008 at 4:49 PM #281344Anonymous
GuestI tend to agree with Ron Paul on some of this, especially regarding reactive government and short termism, and the Iraq example is a useful reminder of where weak government leads. The difficulty with these issues is always credible information regarding cause and effect. I would have liked to have heard what the impact of not acting was likely to be in clear, quantifiable terms. By the same token, that should apply to the detractors arguments. The debate should be (have been) around the questions of: What would be the damage if their was no bail out? What damage will the bail out do? It’s probably going to be likely, given the nature of democracies, that short term solutions prevail over long term pragmatism. I don’t think you can always blame the politicians for this. The electorate is very fickle, and demands results often without a clear grasp of the complexities surrounding some issues.
I don’t condone or disagree with either side, but I find partisan and ideological banter boring, incompetence annoying, and deception reprehensible. I don’t know who is right in all this, and I rather fancy history holds the only key to unlocking that little secret.
October 4, 2008 at 4:49 PM #281348Anonymous
GuestI tend to agree with Ron Paul on some of this, especially regarding reactive government and short termism, and the Iraq example is a useful reminder of where weak government leads. The difficulty with these issues is always credible information regarding cause and effect. I would have liked to have heard what the impact of not acting was likely to be in clear, quantifiable terms. By the same token, that should apply to the detractors arguments. The debate should be (have been) around the questions of: What would be the damage if their was no bail out? What damage will the bail out do? It’s probably going to be likely, given the nature of democracies, that short term solutions prevail over long term pragmatism. I don’t think you can always blame the politicians for this. The electorate is very fickle, and demands results often without a clear grasp of the complexities surrounding some issues.
I don’t condone or disagree with either side, but I find partisan and ideological banter boring, incompetence annoying, and deception reprehensible. I don’t know who is right in all this, and I rather fancy history holds the only key to unlocking that little secret.
October 4, 2008 at 4:49 PM #281401Anonymous
GuestI tend to agree with Ron Paul on some of this, especially regarding reactive government and short termism, and the Iraq example is a useful reminder of where weak government leads. The difficulty with these issues is always credible information regarding cause and effect. I would have liked to have heard what the impact of not acting was likely to be in clear, quantifiable terms. By the same token, that should apply to the detractors arguments. The debate should be (have been) around the questions of: What would be the damage if their was no bail out? What damage will the bail out do? It’s probably going to be likely, given the nature of democracies, that short term solutions prevail over long term pragmatism. I don’t think you can always blame the politicians for this. The electorate is very fickle, and demands results often without a clear grasp of the complexities surrounding some issues.
I don’t condone or disagree with either side, but I find partisan and ideological banter boring, incompetence annoying, and deception reprehensible. I don’t know who is right in all this, and I rather fancy history holds the only key to unlocking that little secret.
October 4, 2008 at 4:49 PM #281390Anonymous
GuestI tend to agree with Ron Paul on some of this, especially regarding reactive government and short termism, and the Iraq example is a useful reminder of where weak government leads. The difficulty with these issues is always credible information regarding cause and effect. I would have liked to have heard what the impact of not acting was likely to be in clear, quantifiable terms. By the same token, that should apply to the detractors arguments. The debate should be (have been) around the questions of: What would be the damage if their was no bail out? What damage will the bail out do? It’s probably going to be likely, given the nature of democracies, that short term solutions prevail over long term pragmatism. I don’t think you can always blame the politicians for this. The electorate is very fickle, and demands results often without a clear grasp of the complexities surrounding some issues.
I don’t condone or disagree with either side, but I find partisan and ideological banter boring, incompetence annoying, and deception reprehensible. I don’t know who is right in all this, and I rather fancy history holds the only key to unlocking that little secret.
October 4, 2008 at 6:31 PM #281426patientrenter
ParticipantI agree, President. I start deeply suspicious of any bailout, and fairly confident that a limited winding-down of insolvent institutions and bankrupt people would be a better solution in the long run. But I would have been very pleased to see a rational and open and balanced exploration of the alternatives. I could be convinced of a different conclusion than the one I hold now if it emerged after an open and fair and thorough competition of ideas.
October 4, 2008 at 6:31 PM #281415patientrenter
ParticipantI agree, President. I start deeply suspicious of any bailout, and fairly confident that a limited winding-down of insolvent institutions and bankrupt people would be a better solution in the long run. But I would have been very pleased to see a rational and open and balanced exploration of the alternatives. I could be convinced of a different conclusion than the one I hold now if it emerged after an open and fair and thorough competition of ideas.
October 4, 2008 at 6:31 PM #281373patientrenter
ParticipantI agree, President. I start deeply suspicious of any bailout, and fairly confident that a limited winding-down of insolvent institutions and bankrupt people would be a better solution in the long run. But I would have been very pleased to see a rational and open and balanced exploration of the alternatives. I could be convinced of a different conclusion than the one I hold now if it emerged after an open and fair and thorough competition of ideas.
October 4, 2008 at 6:31 PM #281369patientrenter
ParticipantI agree, President. I start deeply suspicious of any bailout, and fairly confident that a limited winding-down of insolvent institutions and bankrupt people would be a better solution in the long run. But I would have been very pleased to see a rational and open and balanced exploration of the alternatives. I could be convinced of a different conclusion than the one I hold now if it emerged after an open and fair and thorough competition of ideas.
October 4, 2008 at 6:31 PM #281094patientrenter
ParticipantI agree, President. I start deeply suspicious of any bailout, and fairly confident that a limited winding-down of insolvent institutions and bankrupt people would be a better solution in the long run. But I would have been very pleased to see a rational and open and balanced exploration of the alternatives. I could be convinced of a different conclusion than the one I hold now if it emerged after an open and fair and thorough competition of ideas.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.