Ron Paul Driving GOP White House Campaign

Discussion in 'Politics' started by aaronman, May 9, 2011.

  1. Federal Reserve?

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qagXXNNcKkM]YouTube - Ron Paul "The Federal Reserve Is Responsible For The Inflation, The Business Cycle, Unemployment!"[/ame]

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwHdSl1ASbA]YouTube - End the Fed | Ron Paul[/ame]

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE]YouTube - Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve[/ame]
     
  2. I thought you were responding to my post regarding free market monopolies.

    Then as an example you use a planned market cartel...

    What are you talking about... all I said was that consumers decide.

    Are you saying there should be some idiot like Al Gore who decides what we can or cannot buy? :confused:

    Oil is a legitimate source of energy, there's no reason it shouldn't be bought. Alternative fuels will become more popular as the price of oil increases and their price comes down.

    In a free market they wouldn't be sponsored by the state... so it wouldn't be political at all. Consumers would choose which form of energy they wanted to use based on price, sustainability, environmental impact, etc...

    People are investing in it, but it's still not a viable competitor. The price of oil isn't high enough.
     
  3. The Myth of Natural Monopoly - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Daily
    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO8ZU7TeKPw&feature=channel_video_title]YouTube - Evil Monopolies Are Fairy Tales In Free Markets[/ame]
    Anyone who thinks evil monopolies will occur in a real free-market is either retarded, or a liberal, but then again the two words are pretty synonymous nowadays.
     
  4. #205 SonnyCheebah, May 13, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2011
    Why are you missing the point? Why?

    I've tried re-wording it, but I just can't seem to get it through.

    This is irrelevant in all honesty, because we're talking about the free market idea applied in a different sense. If it were irrefutable, I wouldn't be able to argue about the rising gas prices. That is a direct contradiction to the point he was trying to make. He only mentions oil. In a competitive market, oil wouldn't be the only option.
     
  5. What. Is. Your. Point. Question mark.
     
  6. #207 SonnyCheebah, May 13, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2011
    That oil isn't the only option. By saying that it is, it shows that the oil companies have a stranglehold on the country.

    I can't say it any plainer than that.

    The problem is that you all are somehow shifting the blame off of the oil companies. If you were truly for free markets, you'd see that they'd be subject to competition. The competition would, of course, be alternative energy.
     

  7. I don't think that's what was said at all...

    In a truly free market, the people would decide what fuel they would use, and it probably wouldn't be oil based...
     
  8. Read my edit.
     

  9. lol but i don't get it, the market is inhibited by gov't intervention, and therefore oil companies have the iron grip....

    what are you suggesting?
     
  10. #211 aaronman, May 13, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2011


    Oil isn't the only option, it's just the best currently available.

    This has nothing to do with my post on free market monopolies though, so that explains the confusion. :smoke:


    You can't blame the corporations for taking advantage of the opportunities presented to them. If they didn't then they would lose to those that do. You have to blame the state for creating those distortions in the first place.

    I am for free markets and competition... the substitutes would be competitors, but there would also be greater competition within the oil industry.
     
  11. The funny thing is that we're almost saying the same thing. Almost.
     
  12. Good enough for me. :smoking: :D
     
  13. I agree. :smoke:
     
  14. ron paul as president could be tha pivotal administration that we thought obama would be
     
  15. we?

    :p :poke:
     
  16. too many ppl
     
  17. This seems pretty off-topic. This thing we're using to communicate right now (the world wide web) will probably still exist in some form. Medicare, which many people rely on for health care probably will not and it's not just me who is worried about the future of Medicare...

    Medicare, Social Security Funds Expiring Sooner, U.S. Says - Businessweek

    I think sending people to war is pretty lulzy.

    Libertarians are opposed to conscription as far as I know. If someone wants to volunteer to go "fight for freedom" halfway around the world, I don't see why they need a war or some government to send them, but whatever floats their boat.
     
  18. Ron Paul steps up to the plate and knocks it out of the park, again:

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz689NHcAKo]YouTube - RON PAUL Interview on economics - part 1[/ame]

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_B2STQuUXA]YouTube - RON PAUL Interview on economics - part 2[/ame]
     

Share This Page