[Eugene]

The main premise of Ron Paul’s position on federal spending (as I understand it) is, using FEDERAL money and FEDERAL solutions is always less effective and more abuse-prone, than using State local programs to achieve the same goal. Using private money is more effective yet.

I don’t think there is much difference between using federal and state money and I don’t think Ron Paul does either. He uses federal vs. state card to avoid addressing hot issues like gay rights, abortion, etc.

government-funded science is by far less productive than privately funded labs.

Some branches of science require presence of government to advance. Private investors aren’t going to pay for research unless it is likely to lead to profits in reasonable timeframe. Theoretical physics is a good example. Then, there are things that can’t come into existence unless backed by government(s). Some time next year we will probably see the launch of the largest particle accelerator in the world (LHC). It was built in Switzerland at the cost of around $3 billion. It is going to keep a good portion of world’s high energy physicists busy for the next 10 years. No private investor or a group of investors is going to pay for a project like this. For a government like the one we have in the U.S., it’s peanuts ($15 from every taxpayer). (Incidentally, an even bigger accelerator could have been finished and launched in Texas 10 years ago, but, in the end, the government decided that the project was too expensive and killed it.)

Same thing with space exploration. It’s been 50 years since the launch of Sputnik and still no private company has been able to even come close to putting a man-made object into orbit. It’s just too expensive.

With the income tax abolished, you will be able save by far more money than you ever could.

The problem is, people who need Social Security / Medicare most don’t pay much (if any) income tax. Abolishing income tax will greatly benefit lawyers and engineers and programmers (especially single ones), but it won’t do much for a burger flipper or a janitor who makes $30,000 a year.

But my understanding is, Ron Paul does not want the government to dictate the rates. Free market tends to self-correct.

Ron Paul’s views on economics (and the Austrian school in general) are the economic equivalent of the intelligent design. It’s okay to study the intelligent design as long as it stays theory, but you’re going to get in trouble if you try to solve real-world problems and to make policy decisions based on it. Conventional economics tells us that attempting to keep a tight lid on money supply in times like the present has a good chance of turning a potentially mild economic slowdown into a full-scale depression. Who would you rather trust to make decisions on this subject? An obstetrician (Ron Paul) or a professor with three published textbooks on macroeconomics (Ben Bernanke)?

The thing about free market, it tends to adhere to a 80/20 rule: 20% of people make 80% of the money. Basic cost of living is nearly the same for everyone, so people who make more money can save more and invest more. Rich get richer and poor stay poor. In the United States, inequality is not so pronounced, for a number of reasons, all of them anti-libertarian (income tax, minimum wage laws, partially socialized medicine and education). Minimum wage laws make it uneconomical to manufacture stuff in America. Instead of assembling iPods and painting toys, unskilled Americans join the service industry. American burger flipper is far better off than Chinese manufacturing worker, because minumum wage laws make sure that he’s paid at least $5.15 an hour (more than most Chinese workers make in a day), and his clients can afford to pay $3 for a Big Mac.

[Eugene]

The main premise of Ron Paul’s position on federal spending (as I understand it) is, using FEDERAL money and FEDERAL solutions is always less effective and more abuse-prone, than using State local programs to achieve the same goal. Using private money is more effective yet.

I don’t think there is much difference between using federal and state money and I don’t think Ron Paul does either. He uses federal vs. state card to avoid addressing hot issues like gay rights, abortion, etc.

government-funded science is by far less productive than privately funded labs.

Some branches of science require presence of government to advance. Private investors aren’t going to pay for research unless it is likely to lead to profits in reasonable timeframe. Theoretical physics is a good example. Then, there are things that can’t come into existence unless backed by government(s). Some time next year we will probably see the launch of the largest particle accelerator in the world (LHC). It was built in Switzerland at the cost of around $3 billion. It is going to keep a good portion of world’s high energy physicists busy for the next 10 years. No private investor or a group of investors is going to pay for a project like this. For a government like the one we have in the U.S., it’s peanuts ($15 from every taxpayer). (Incidentally, an even bigger accelerator could have been finished and launched in Texas 10 years ago, but, in the end, the government decided that the project was too expensive and killed it.)

Same thing with space exploration. It’s been 50 years since the launch of Sputnik and still no private company has been able to even come close to putting a man-made object into orbit. It’s just too expensive.

With the income tax abolished, you will be able save by far more money than you ever could.

The problem is, people who need Social Security / Medicare most don’t pay much (if any) income tax. Abolishing income tax will greatly benefit lawyers and engineers and programmers (especially single ones), but it won’t do much for a burger flipper or a janitor who makes $30,000 a year.

But my understanding is, Ron Paul does not want the government to dictate the rates. Free market tends to self-correct.

Ron Paul’s views on economics (and the Austrian school in general) are the economic equivalent of the intelligent design. It’s okay to study the intelligent design as long as it stays theory, but you’re going to get in trouble if you try to solve real-world problems and to make policy decisions based on it. Conventional economics tells us that attempting to keep a tight lid on money supply in times like the present has a good chance of turning a potentially mild economic slowdown into a full-scale depression. Who would you rather trust to make decisions on this subject? An obstetrician (Ron Paul) or a professor with three published textbooks on macroeconomics (Ben Bernanke)?

The thing about free market, it tends to adhere to a 80/20 rule: 20% of people make 80% of the money. Basic cost of living is nearly the same for everyone, so people who make more money can save more and invest more. Rich get richer and poor stay poor. In the United States, inequality is not so pronounced, for a number of reasons, all of them anti-libertarian (income tax, minimum wage laws, partially socialized medicine and education). Minimum wage laws make it uneconomical to manufacture stuff in America. Instead of assembling iPods and painting toys, unskilled Americans join the service industry. American burger flipper is far better off than Chinese manufacturing worker, because minumum wage laws make sure that he’s paid at least $5.15 an hour (more than most Chinese workers make in a day), and his clients can afford to pay $3 for a Big Mac.

[Eugene]

The main premise of Ron Paul’s position on federal spending (as I understand it) is, using FEDERAL money and FEDERAL solutions is always less effective and more abuse-prone, than using State local programs to achieve the same goal. Using private money is more effective yet.

I don’t think there is much difference between using federal and state money and I don’t think Ron Paul does either. He uses federal vs. state card to avoid addressing hot issues like gay rights, abortion, etc.

government-funded science is by far less productive than privately funded labs.

Some branches of science require presence of government to advance. Private investors aren’t going to pay for research unless it is likely to lead to profits in reasonable timeframe. Theoretical physics is a good example. Then, there are things that can’t come into existence unless backed by government(s). Some time next year we will probably see the launch of the largest particle accelerator in the world (LHC). It was built in Switzerland at the cost of around $3 billion. It is going to keep a good portion of world’s high energy physicists busy for the next 10 years. No private investor or a group of investors is going to pay for a project like this. For a government like the one we have in the U.S., it’s peanuts ($15 from every taxpayer). (Incidentally, an even bigger accelerator could have been finished and launched in Texas 10 years ago, but, in the end, the government decided that the project was too expensive and killed it.)

Same thing with space exploration. It’s been 50 years since the launch of Sputnik and still no private company has been able to even come close to putting a man-made object into orbit. It’s just too expensive.

With the income tax abolished, you will be able save by far more money than you ever could.

The problem is, people who need Social Security / Medicare most don’t pay much (if any) income tax. Abolishing income tax will greatly benefit lawyers and engineers and programmers (especially single ones), but it won’t do much for a burger flipper or a janitor who makes $30,000 a year.

But my understanding is, Ron Paul does not want the government to dictate the rates. Free market tends to self-correct.

Ron Paul’s views on economics (and the Austrian school in general) are the economic equivalent of the intelligent design. It’s okay to study the intelligent design as long as it stays theory, but you’re going to get in trouble if you try to solve real-world problems and to make policy decisions based on it. Conventional economics tells us that attempting to keep a tight lid on money supply in times like the present has a good chance of turning a potentially mild economic slowdown into a full-scale depression. Who would you rather trust to make decisions on this subject? An obstetrician (Ron Paul) or a professor with three published textbooks on macroeconomics (Ben Bernanke)?

The thing about free market, it tends to adhere to a 80/20 rule: 20% of people make 80% of the money. Basic cost of living is nearly the same for everyone, so people who make more money can save more and invest more. Rich get richer and poor stay poor. In the United States, inequality is not so pronounced, for a number of reasons, all of them anti-libertarian (income tax, minimum wage laws, partially socialized medicine and education). Minimum wage laws make it uneconomical to manufacture stuff in America. Instead of assembling iPods and painting toys, unskilled Americans join the service industry. American burger flipper is far better off than Chinese manufacturing worker, because minumum wage laws make sure that he’s paid at least $5.15 an hour (more than most Chinese workers make in a day), and his clients can afford to pay $3 for a Big Mac.

[Eugene]

The main premise of Ron Paul’s position on federal spending (as I understand it) is, using FEDERAL money and FEDERAL solutions is always less effective and more abuse-prone, than using State local programs to achieve the same goal. Using private money is more effective yet.

I don’t think there is much difference between using federal and state money and I don’t think Ron Paul does either. He uses federal vs. state card to avoid addressing hot issues like gay rights, abortion, etc.

government-funded science is by far less productive than privately funded labs.

Some branches of science require presence of government to advance. Private investors aren’t going to pay for research unless it is likely to lead to profits in reasonable timeframe. Theoretical physics is a good example. Then, there are things that can’t come into existence unless backed by government(s). Some time next year we will probably see the launch of the largest particle accelerator in the world (LHC). It was built in Switzerland at the cost of around $3 billion. It is going to keep a good portion of world’s high energy physicists busy for the next 10 years. No private investor or a group of investors is going to pay for a project like this. For a government like the one we have in the U.S., it’s peanuts ($15 from every taxpayer). (Incidentally, an even bigger accelerator could have been finished and launched in Texas 10 years ago, but, in the end, the government decided that the project was too expensive and killed it.)

Same thing with space exploration. It’s been 50 years since the launch of Sputnik and still no private company has been able to even come close to putting a man-made object into orbit. It’s just too expensive.

With the income tax abolished, you will be able save by far more money than you ever could.

The problem is, people who need Social Security / Medicare most don’t pay much (if any) income tax. Abolishing income tax will greatly benefit lawyers and engineers and programmers (especially single ones), but it won’t do much for a burger flipper or a janitor who makes $30,000 a year.

But my understanding is, Ron Paul does not want the government to dictate the rates. Free market tends to self-correct.

Ron Paul’s views on economics (and the Austrian school in general) are the economic equivalent of the intelligent design. It’s okay to study the intelligent design as long as it stays theory, but you’re going to get in trouble if you try to solve real-world problems and to make policy decisions based on it. Conventional economics tells us that attempting to keep a tight lid on money supply in times like the present has a good chance of turning a potentially mild economic slowdown into a full-scale depression. Who would you rather trust to make decisions on this subject? An obstetrician (Ron Paul) or a professor with three published textbooks on macroeconomics (Ben Bernanke)?

The thing about free market, it tends to adhere to a 80/20 rule: 20% of people make 80% of the money. Basic cost of living is nearly the same for everyone, so people who make more money can save more and invest more. Rich get richer and poor stay poor. In the United States, inequality is not so pronounced, for a number of reasons, all of them anti-libertarian (income tax, minimum wage laws, partially socialized medicine and education). Minimum wage laws make it uneconomical to manufacture stuff in America. Instead of assembling iPods and painting toys, unskilled Americans join the service industry. American burger flipper is far better off than Chinese manufacturing worker, because minumum wage laws make sure that he’s paid at least $5.15 an hour (more than most Chinese workers make in a day), and his clients can afford to pay $3 for a Big Mac.

[Eugene]

The main premise of Ron Paul’s position on federal spending (as I understand it) is, using FEDERAL money and FEDERAL solutions is always less effective and more abuse-prone, than using State local programs to achieve the same goal. Using private money is more effective yet.

I don’t think there is much difference between using federal and state money and I don’t think Ron Paul does either. He uses federal vs. state card to avoid addressing hot issues like gay rights, abortion, etc.

government-funded science is by far less productive than privately funded labs.

Some branches of science require presence of government to advance. Private investors aren’t going to pay for research unless it is likely to lead to profits in reasonable timeframe. Theoretical physics is a good example. Then, there are things that can’t come into existence unless backed by government(s). Some time next year we will probably see the launch of the largest particle accelerator in the world (LHC). It was built in Switzerland at the cost of around $3 billion. It is going to keep a good portion of world’s high energy physicists busy for the next 10 years. No private investor or a group of investors is going to pay for a project like this. For a government like the one we have in the U.S., it’s peanuts ($15 from every taxpayer). (Incidentally, an even bigger accelerator could have been finished and launched in Texas 10 years ago, but, in the end, the government decided that the project was too expensive and killed it.)

Same thing with space exploration. It’s been 50 years since the launch of Sputnik and still no private company has been able to even come close to putting a man-made object into orbit. It’s just too expensive.

With the income tax abolished, you will be able save by far more money than you ever could.

The problem is, people who need Social Security / Medicare most don’t pay much (if any) income tax. Abolishing income tax will greatly benefit lawyers and engineers and programmers (especially single ones), but it won’t do much for a burger flipper or a janitor who makes $30,000 a year.

But my understanding is, Ron Paul does not want the government to dictate the rates. Free market tends to self-correct.

Ron Paul’s views on economics (and the Austrian school in general) are the economic equivalent of the intelligent design. It’s okay to study the intelligent design as long as it stays theory, but you’re going to get in trouble if you try to solve real-world problems and to make policy decisions based on it. Conventional economics tells us that attempting to keep a tight lid on money supply in times like the present has a good chance of turning a potentially mild economic slowdown into a full-scale depression. Who would you rather trust to make decisions on this subject? An obstetrician (Ron Paul) or a professor with three published textbooks on macroeconomics (Ben Bernanke)?

The thing about free market, it tends to adhere to a 80/20 rule: 20% of people make 80% of the money. Basic cost of living is nearly the same for everyone, so people who make more money can save more and invest more. Rich get richer and poor stay poor. In the United States, inequality is not so pronounced, for a number of reasons, all of them anti-libertarian (income tax, minimum wage laws, partially socialized medicine and education). Minimum wage laws make it uneconomical to manufacture stuff in America. Instead of assembling iPods and painting toys, unskilled Americans join the service industry. American burger flipper is far better off than Chinese manufacturing worker, because minumum wage laws make sure that he’s paid at least $5.15 an hour (more than most Chinese workers make in a day), and his clients can afford to pay $3 for a Big Mac.

[Eugene]

Ron Paul is the way to go.

Abolish income tax, so that rich people (such as myself) can keep all of their hard-earned money. Oops, there’s a big hole in the budget? We’ll scale down our defense spending. There’s still a big hole? No problem, we’ll just cut some unnecessary programs. Here’s an idea: why don’t we shut down NASA.

Cut social programs such as unemployment benefits and Medicare. You want to eat? Go find a job you lazy bum. You want to go to a doctor, but you can’t afford health insurance? Tough luck. You’re 75 and you have no savings (or, rather, not enough to pay $1000/month for health insurance in the absence of Medicare)? Tough luck.

Start raising rates. What deflationary spiral? What 25% unemployment? We’ll just repeal minimum wage laws to bring manufacturing jobs back to America. If you can’t afford to own a car and a house on a $100/month manufacturing salary – you’ll have to live in a factory dorm and walk to work. Alternatively, consider selling a kidney to some rich man. There’s always demand for kidneys. It does not say anywhere in the Constitution that selling your own organs should be illegal.

If you don’t want to work at the conveyor belt 10 hours a day, 6 days a week – consider becoming a butler (or a gardener, or a maid). Those 5-10% of Americans who make it through the Second Great Depression without going bankrupt will be filthy rich compared to middle-class workers making $100/month. They will be able to afford mansions and servants. Exurbs will be plowed over and turned into ranches.

Whether you end up being a butler or a manufacturing worker, you should feel fortunate. You could have ended up like those poor 20% of folks who defaulted on their upside-down morgages and were sold into slavery. (Oh yeah – the 13th amendment was abolished by President Paul soon after the 16th as contrary to the spirit of founding fathers. Many of whom were slaveowners, as you know. Besides. Mr. Paul felt that it was a good way to prevent moral hazard among homebuyers.)

Man, life will be fun.

[Eugene]

Ron Paul is the way to go.

Abolish income tax, so that rich people (such as myself) can keep all of their hard-earned money. Oops, there’s a big hole in the budget? We’ll scale down our defense spending. There’s still a big hole? No problem, we’ll just cut some unnecessary programs. Here’s an idea: why don’t we shut down NASA.

Cut social programs such as unemployment benefits and Medicare. You want to eat? Go find a job you lazy bum. You want to go to a doctor, but you can’t afford health insurance? Tough luck. You’re 75 and you have no savings (or, rather, not enough to pay $1000/month for health insurance in the absence of Medicare)? Tough luck.

Start raising rates. What deflationary spiral? What 25% unemployment? We’ll just repeal minimum wage laws to bring manufacturing jobs back to America. If you can’t afford to own a car and a house on a $100/month manufacturing salary – you’ll have to live in a factory dorm and walk to work. Alternatively, consider selling a kidney to some rich man. There’s always demand for kidneys. It does not say anywhere in the Constitution that selling your own organs should be illegal.

If you don’t want to work at the conveyor belt 10 hours a day, 6 days a week – consider becoming a butler (or a gardener, or a maid). Those 5-10% of Americans who make it through the Second Great Depression without going bankrupt will be filthy rich compared to middle-class workers making $100/month. They will be able to afford mansions and servants. Exurbs will be plowed over and turned into ranches.

Whether you end up being a butler or a manufacturing worker, you should feel fortunate. You could have ended up like those poor 20% of folks who defaulted on their upside-down morgages and were sold into slavery. (Oh yeah – the 13th amendment was abolished by President Paul soon after the 16th as contrary to the spirit of founding fathers. Many of whom were slaveowners, as you know. Besides. Mr. Paul felt that it was a good way to prevent moral hazard among homebuyers.)

Man, life will be fun.

[Eugene]

Ron Paul is the way to go.

Abolish income tax, so that rich people (such as myself) can keep all of their hard-earned money. Oops, there’s a big hole in the budget? We’ll scale down our defense spending. There’s still a big hole? No problem, we’ll just cut some unnecessary programs. Here’s an idea: why don’t we shut down NASA.

Cut social programs such as unemployment benefits and Medicare. You want to eat? Go find a job you lazy bum. You want to go to a doctor, but you can’t afford health insurance? Tough luck. You’re 75 and you have no savings (or, rather, not enough to pay $1000/month for health insurance in the absence of Medicare)? Tough luck.

Start raising rates. What deflationary spiral? What 25% unemployment? We’ll just repeal minimum wage laws to bring manufacturing jobs back to America. If you can’t afford to own a car and a house on a $100/month manufacturing salary – you’ll have to live in a factory dorm and walk to work. Alternatively, consider selling a kidney to some rich man. There’s always demand for kidneys. It does not say anywhere in the Constitution that selling your own organs should be illegal.

If you don’t want to work at the conveyor belt 10 hours a day, 6 days a week – consider becoming a butler (or a gardener, or a maid). Those 5-10% of Americans who make it through the Second Great Depression without going bankrupt will be filthy rich compared to middle-class workers making $100/month. They will be able to afford mansions and servants. Exurbs will be plowed over and turned into ranches.

Whether you end up being a butler or a manufacturing worker, you should feel fortunate. You could have ended up like those poor 20% of folks who defaulted on their upside-down morgages and were sold into slavery. (Oh yeah – the 13th amendment was abolished by President Paul soon after the 16th as contrary to the spirit of founding fathers. Many of whom were slaveowners, as you know. Besides. Mr. Paul felt that it was a good way to prevent moral hazard among homebuyers.)

Man, life will be fun.

[Eugene]

Ron Paul is the way to go.

Abolish income tax, so that rich people (such as myself) can keep all of their hard-earned money. Oops, there’s a big hole in the budget? We’ll scale down our defense spending. There’s still a big hole? No problem, we’ll just cut some unnecessary programs. Here’s an idea: why don’t we shut down NASA.

Cut social programs such as unemployment benefits and Medicare. You want to eat? Go find a job you lazy bum. You want to go to a doctor, but you can’t afford health insurance? Tough luck. You’re 75 and you have no savings (or, rather, not enough to pay $1000/month for health insurance in the absence of Medicare)? Tough luck.

Start raising rates. What deflationary spiral? What 25% unemployment? We’ll just repeal minimum wage laws to bring manufacturing jobs back to America. If you can’t afford to own a car and a house on a $100/month manufacturing salary – you’ll have to live in a factory dorm and walk to work. Alternatively, consider selling a kidney to some rich man. There’s always demand for kidneys. It does not say anywhere in the Constitution that selling your own organs should be illegal.

If you don’t want to work at the conveyor belt 10 hours a day, 6 days a week – consider becoming a butler (or a gardener, or a maid). Those 5-10% of Americans who make it through the Second Great Depression without going bankrupt will be filthy rich compared to middle-class workers making $100/month. They will be able to afford mansions and servants. Exurbs will be plowed over and turned into ranches.

Whether you end up being a butler or a manufacturing worker, you should feel fortunate. You could have ended up like those poor 20% of folks who defaulted on their upside-down morgages and were sold into slavery. (Oh yeah – the 13th amendment was abolished by President Paul soon after the 16th as contrary to the spirit of founding fathers. Many of whom were slaveowners, as you know. Besides. Mr. Paul felt that it was a good way to prevent moral hazard among homebuyers.)

Man, life will be fun.

[Eugene]

Ron Paul is the way to go.

Abolish income tax, so that rich people (such as myself) can keep all of their hard-earned money. Oops, there’s a big hole in the budget? We’ll scale down our defense spending. There’s still a big hole? No problem, we’ll just cut some unnecessary programs. Here’s an idea: why don’t we shut down NASA.

Cut social programs such as unemployment benefits and Medicare. You want to eat? Go find a job you lazy bum. You want to go to a doctor, but you can’t afford health insurance? Tough luck. You’re 75 and you have no savings (or, rather, not enough to pay $1000/month for health insurance in the absence of Medicare)? Tough luck.

Start raising rates. What deflationary spiral? What 25% unemployment? We’ll just repeal minimum wage laws to bring manufacturing jobs back to America. If you can’t afford to own a car and a house on a $100/month manufacturing salary – you’ll have to live in a factory dorm and walk to work. Alternatively, consider selling a kidney to some rich man. There’s always demand for kidneys. It does not say anywhere in the Constitution that selling your own organs should be illegal.

If you don’t want to work at the conveyor belt 10 hours a day, 6 days a week – consider becoming a butler (or a gardener, or a maid). Those 5-10% of Americans who make it through the Second Great Depression without going bankrupt will be filthy rich compared to middle-class workers making $100/month. They will be able to afford mansions and servants. Exurbs will be plowed over and turned into ranches.

Whether you end up being a butler or a manufacturing worker, you should feel fortunate. You could have ended up like those poor 20% of folks who defaulted on their upside-down morgages and were sold into slavery. (Oh yeah – the 13th amendment was abolished by President Paul soon after the 16th as contrary to the spirit of founding fathers. Many of whom were slaveowners, as you know. Besides. Mr. Paul felt that it was a good way to prevent moral hazard among homebuyers.)

Man, life will be fun.

[Eugene]

Year built: 1913?

[Eugene]

Year built: 1913?

[Eugene]

Year built: 1913?

[Eugene]

Year built: 1913?

[Eugene]

Year built: 1913?

[Author]

Posts