Ron Paul? What are your thoughts?

respect said:
They wouldn't work there if it wasn't better than what they were otherwise doing.

If they want a better job, they need to develop more marketable skills. No one is entitled to a high wage from another person.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. I see lots of people in jobs that are beneath their skills and education, particularly in this economy, though not exclusively. This is often more true of people who are older, it's much harder to find work appropriate to your skills if you're past 45, there is very real age bias in hiring.

When it comes to the job market, you have to look at both the supply of jobs and the demand for jobs to understand what is going on.
 
Mycroft said:
Not necessarily true. I see lots of people in jobs that are beneath their skills and education, particularly in this economy, though not exclusively. This is often more true of people who are older, it's much harder to find work appropriate to your skills if you're past 45, there is very real age bias in hiring.

When it comes to the job market, you have to look at both the supply of jobs and the demand for jobs to understand what is going on.
Click to expand...

Underemployment is common during economic downturns of course. However, it is still superior to being unemployed. Presumably a person who takes a position at Wal-Mart that they are overqualified for did not leave a better job to go there, rather, they took it because it is better than what they were otherwise doing, being unemployed. There is no requirement that they stay at Wal-Mart. They can look for a better job, and also pursue additional skills as well during their down time. A recession is a much better time to be a student than a recent graduate, so a person who was considering getting a master's degree may decide to do so for example.
 
Story today that R.Paul jr is making presendential noises, so R Paul Sr might not run in 2012.
 
KoihimeNakamura said:
Y..ou want me to keep a track of their job postings? OK. (I'm actually tangenting off it, since really, I have little problem with Walmarts except their rotating shift structure. I mean, it's not the ANTICHRIST as posted upthread.)
Click to expand...

Me either. I like WalMart quite a bit, it's convenient and saves me money, and offers better pay and benefits than anything local could hope to.

But to answer your question, I don't believe that WalMart has any more significant turnover at some of their jobs than something comparable. Nobody wants to work as a cashier forever, and people that work as cashiers aren't making a career of it. However, the implication is that WalMart fires them to withhold benefits. I don't believe that.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
Oh dear god. If he gets in, the US is totally done for.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about that. If Rand Paul was in a national race, someone will point out how he lied about being board certified as an ophthalmologist after he failed to become certified by the real organization. Rather than actually becoming board certified, he made his own personal certification board, he and his wife and one more person were the only members. He then awarded himself "board certification". That kind of fraud can make for a pretty damaging TV ad.

Past lies come back to haunt oh so many politicians.

Rand Paul's "National Board of Ophthalmology, Inc". The address is a mail box. But hey, it's a free market.
 
Last edited:
respect said:
Underemployment is common during economic downturns of course. However, it is still superior to being unemployed. Presumably a person who takes a position at Wal-Mart that they are overqualified for did not leave a better job to go there, rather, they took it because it is better than what they were otherwise doing, being unemployed. There is no requirement that they stay at Wal-Mart. They can look for a better job, and also pursue additional skills as well during their down time. A recession is a much better time to be a student than a recent graduate, so a person who was considering getting a master's degree may decide to do so for example.
Click to expand...

Again, developing more skills doesn't help everyone get jobs. Many people, particularly older people, find that getting work is difficult even in good financial times.
 
Ron Paul bases his political views on sound economic theory.

He is a good man, but will be violently opposed by those who benefit from the State.
 
Mycroft said:
Again, developing more skills doesn't help everyone get jobs. Many people, particularly older people, find that getting work is difficult even in good financial times.
Click to expand...

It helps, but doesn't guarantee anything. For the elderly, entry level jobs in professional fields are hard to come by. For example, insurance adjusting is a well paying field that many companies offer on the job training for in well paid entry level jobs. They probably won't hire you into their high paying training programs if they expect you to retire two years later. If you are very old you are better off developing your talents in a field you have experience in than trying to start from scratch elsewhere.
 
I respect his consistency, even if his beliefs are the exact opposite of mine.
 
Last edited:
respect said:
LMAO



And those who understand economic theory.
Click to expand...

I think Ron Paul is the only one who does understand economic theory.

Violations of private property rights do not lead to beneficial outcomes.

Therefore Keynesianism is flawed at its core assumptions.

In order for Keynesianism to operate, it assumes that groups of people have a right to violate the property rights of other groups of people by using coercion.
 
michaelsuede said:
I think Ron Paul is the only one who does understand economic theory.

Violations of private property rights do not lead to beneficial outcomes.

Therefore Keynesianism is flawed at its core assumptions.

In order for Keynesianism to operate, it assumes that groups of people have a right to violate the property rights of other groups of people by using coercion.
Click to expand...

Can you point out the part of Keynes' work that assumes that?

I don't deny that Keynesianism is flawed, but that's a new one on me.

I can give a basic counterexample, however... coercing funds from citizens for military protection. I think that has led to a very beneficial outcome, in that we have been able to protect ourselves from invasion reliably.

Do I think we should make a habit of taking private property, certainly not. But I think the example illustrates that property is not absolute.

I would furthermore add that anyone advocates a return to the gold standard has lost track of how the economy works. Heck even Adam Smith knew that gold <> wealth.
 
Last edited:
gnome said:
Can you point out the part of Keynes' work that assumes that?

I don't deny that Keynesianism is flawed, but that's a new one on me.

I can give a basic counterexample, however... coercing funds from citizens for military protection. I think that has led to a very beneficial outcome, in that we have been able to protect ourselves from invasion reliably.

Do I think we should make a habit of taking private property, certainly not. But I think the example illustrates that property is not absolute.

I would furthermore add that anyone advocates a return to the gold standard has lost track of how the economy works. Heck even Adam Smith knew that gold <> wealth.
Click to expand...


Sure.

Keynesianism assumes the government has the legitimate authority to engage in monetary stimulus and interest rate adjustments.

In order for the government to be able to accomplish these tasks, it by default, must have a monopoly of the money supply.

1. Coercion is necessary, through the implementation of fiat money laws, to force people to use the currency that government can then manipulate.

2. The manipulation of the money supply, through the "printing of money" by increasing debt levels, is tantamount to counterfeiting.

Counterfeiting itself is a violation of all money holders property rights, because the value of the money is stolen from all money holders. Those who get the new money first have "stolen" the value of those who get the new money last, since newly printed money still has the same value as the old money until it is spent into the economy.
 
Last edited:
michaelsuede said:
Sure.

Keynesianism assumes the government has the legitimate authority to engage in monetary stimulus and interest rate adjustments.

In order for the government to be able to accomplish these tasks, it by default, must have a monopoly of the money supply.

1. Coercion is necessary, through the implementation of fiat money laws, to force people to use the currency that government can then manipulate.

2. The manipulation of the money supply, through the "printing of money" by increasing debt levels, is tantamount to counterfeiting.

Counterfeiting itself is a violation of all money holders property rights, because the value of the money is stolen from all money holders. Those who get the new money first have "stolen" the value of those who get the new money last, since newly printed money still has the same value as the old money until it is spent into the economy.
Click to expand...


Hoo-Boy. Another Anarcho-Capitialist to amuse us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom