Why Rand Paul is Winning

By
Friday, February 26, 2010 at 9:54 am

A friend passes on this high-quality video of Rand Paul’s closing statement at a candidate forum for Kentucky U.S. Senate candidates. If you’ve watched enough video of his father, Ron, debating Republicans, the resonances and contrasts are remarkable. Rand looks and sounds like his father, but he’s got a yen for partisan combat and a crispness to his arguments.

Ron, who vastly expanded his support as a kind of cult figure in the 2007 campaign, was always more comfortable making philosophical arguments than grappling with his opponents. Rand makes those arguments, then fires bullets back at his opponents, Trey Grayson and Bill Johnson. It’s an illustration of how a candidate whose first media coverage was of the “isn’t this an amusing sideshow” variety has put himself in position to be the GOP’s nominee in Kentucky.

Video after the jump:

Follow David Weigel on Twitter


Categories & Tags: Elections 2010| | | |

Comments

55 Comments

MaryJo
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 11:52 am

Half-truths, fear mongering, fuzzy math. The rest of the world is working to find alternative energy sources. The great USA is already bitting dust from China. Brazil is energy independent and it is working feverishly in alternative sources. Mr. Paul will continue the trend of keeping America behind. We are losing our leadership mojo and our innovative edge. Mr. Paul is pandering to the uneducated masses of Kentucky, people who never left the country, who never has seen the modern infrastructure other countries have developped.
I fear for the future of this great country.


gordon
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 12:23 pm

Your post is appalling.
The Constitution does not keep this country behind.
Not following it in the strict form our founders' intended has been whats kept this country behind.
YOU FEAR, and thats your issue.
He touts term limits and following the Constitution.
He does not pander to the religious right.
He has the votes of Independents and liberals as well.

Liberal=Liberty
Conservative=To Conserve

conservative liberal= conserve liberty.


CS
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 12:52 pm

Gordon, you're setting up a straw man argument. Mary Jo never said anything about the Constitution keeping us behind. What she said, and I think rightly, was that Dr. Paul was over-simplifying complicated questions down to cheap catechism (as if those who believe in climate change are “anti-freedom”?!”). By blending arguments, Paul has taken this issue into nonsense. What does President Obama have to do with what Third World dictators have to say about capitalism? It's nonsense, but jumbled up just the right way, and you create straw men.

As to the Constitution. Since you want to follow it to the letter like some modern day Baptist literalist, does that mean we abolish, say, the Air Force? What about money for the highway system? I could go on, but seeing as how the point is clear that we follow the Constitution not by trying to relieve the 18th century, but by prudently passing laws that upholds our freedoms and expand our opportunities.

And how can you be both a liberal and a conservative? The two are not the same, despite a cute but illogical connotation.


uberVU - social comments
Trackback posted February 26, 2010 @ 1:06 pm

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by TWI_news: Why Rand Paul is Winning http://bit.ly/at6eQc...


Almaca
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 1:35 pm

Republicans are using the Constitution to NOT-WORK. They are Lazy.

Why do Republicans want to be in power, if they are not going to work for the people?

True American Patriots work every day to support Lazy Republican who do not work but whose salaries and Health Care are paid with our blood.

This kind of Republican abuse is called Feudalism and Tyranny.


GlennD
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 1:45 pm

Unfortunately in American politics, a few sound bites coupled with anti-government rhetoric is enough to get elected. The irony of these anti-government politicians is their desire to becoming a paid and working member of the very body they claim to be the problem…What ever happen to the theory that government be used to improve the lives of the American people. While the republicans lament about the inequities of government and thus the need to keep it out of our lives, the American public suffers from their lack of leadership and desire to really do their job.. We should demand that government do more with our tax dollars to improve and protect America in terms of regulation and infrastructure . Rand Paul is just another power hungry politician that has benefited from his fathers reputation…


John
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 2:25 pm

I actually think Rand speaks more eloquently and organized than his father. I really liked his closing remarks.


Rich Hill
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 2:39 pm

Rand has exactly the same wacko positions as his father. He wants to surrender in Afghanistan and Iraq, close Guantanamo and release the terrrorists “back to their countries”, he is against the Patriot Act, he wants to gut the military in order to “balance the budget”, he is anti-Israel. He thinks “Iran is not a threat”. He thinks terrorists exist because of our policies. His economic ideas are kooky like his father's. Nominate him and the Republicans will lose the sea, the MSM is licking their chops to tie him father as soon as he is nominated.


Rich Hill
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 2:39 pm

Rand has exactly the same wacko positions as his father. He wants to surrender in Afghanistan and Iraq, close Guantanamo and release the terrrorists “back to their countries”, he is against the Patriot Act, he wants to gut the military in order to “balance the budget”, he is anti-Israel. He thinks “Iran is not a threat”. He thinks terrorists exist because of our policies. His economic ideas are kooky like his father's. Nominate him and the Republicans will lose the sea, the MSM is licking their chops to tie him father as soon as he is nominated.


Rich Hill
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 2:39 pm

Rand has exactly the same wacko positions as his father. He wants to surrender in Afghanistan and Iraq, close Guantanamo and release the terrrorists “back to their countries”, he is against the Patriot Act, he wants to gut the military in order to “balance the budget”, he is anti-Israel. He thinks “Iran is not a threat”. He thinks terrorists exist because of our policies. His economic ideas are kooky like his father's. Nominate him and the Republicans will lose the sea, the MSM is licking their chops to tie him father as soon as he is nominated.


eric
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 2:51 pm

Dude have you seen the military budget. Lets take it back to developing our military, so we are ready instead of running around likeclowns


eric
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 2:51 pm

Dude have you seen the military budget. Lets take it back to developing our military, so we are ready instead of running around likeclowns


eric
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 2:51 pm

Dude have you seen the military budget. Lets take it back to developing our military, so we are ready instead of running around likeclowns


Kam
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 3:36 pm

My God, none of that sounds remotely crazy. All of what you just said he suggests are legitimate ideas with logic and actual facts behind them, completely unlike what's been happening since the Reagan years. I didn't even know the guy existed and your response made me want to vote for him.


Dr David
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 3:37 pm

This article is full of lies. Rand Paul is not even close to competitive. The FRONTRUNNERS in this race are candidate Bill Johnson & Trey Grayson.
didnt you see the latest KY poll?
http://kentuckybill.com/page/johnson-overtakes-…

Johnson and Greyson are the frontrunners, Rand has some catching up to do. I hope this website will write an article on Mr Johnsons solid Conservative record. and his surge in the polls. Kentucky Bill is the best choice for Conservatives because he will make the War on Terror Permanent as well as FISA and the Patriot Act to protect us from the terrorists. Rand paul is a known Islamofacist sympathizer and prochoice baby killer who is aiding the terrorists against America. please interview Elkton Businessman Bill Johnson the FRONT RUNNER IN THIS RACE with a rocksolid Conservative mesage


d49nj
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 4:56 pm

Poor Rand has NO solutions for the country's problems.


mrgoodbar
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 5:04 pm

The reason Republicans shun discourse is because they can't win at it. Their ideology and their arguments fail in the light of both reason and history.

Rand Paul's (really, you named you kid Rand? I guess if had a girl she would be “Ayn”) philosophical arguments may be refreshing, but they don't stand up to any sort of honest scrutiny.


thisiswhatIthink
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 5:28 pm

I am tired of hearing that the rich create jobs because it is a fact that 65% of all new jobs are created by small businesses. I am a job creator with my small business. I am a job creator with the money that I have invested through my 401K and others savings. I am not rich. And, if you combine my 401K with all the other small investors in this country, WE are job creators and we are tired of hearing about the rich creating jobs.


McClarinJ
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 5:59 pm

It's Randall Paul. He prefers to be called Rand.


McClarinJ
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 6:03 pm

Have you seen anything beyond this short video clip? He has advanced solutions for health care and the economy for starters. Why don't you check out what he says on his Web site?
http://www.randpaul2010.com/


McClarinJ
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 6:05 pm

Trey, is that you? Why don't you log in with your real name?


million
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 6:13 pm

dude, what?

biting China's dust? China is about to collapse in on itself. it's been building empty cities for the past decade and paying for it by printing money. there's no real wealth there, just debt. central planning fails, just ask the former USSR. it's unsustainable and a MASSIVE misallocation of resources.


d49nj
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 7:20 pm

I checked out Rand Paul's website, I'll just address one topic.

He claims health care is over regulated, his solution, ensure that real market principles are applied to fix the problem. Free markets are based on free competition, right now we do not have any competition with health insurance.

Free Enterprise Webster's
Function: noun
Date: 1890

: freedom of private business to organize and operate for profit in a competitive system without interference by government beyond regulation necessary to protect public interest and keep the national economy in balance. ——- The insurance company's are taking advantage of the public and destroying our economy, all for profit.


McClarinJ
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 7:42 pm

Boy! I just googled up a statement from him saying the insurance companies should be permitted to sell multi-year-term policies sort of like term life insurance operates, and I've also seen where he has advocated allowing insurance companies to offer policies nationwide. At present each plan must be entirely within state lines. I'm not sure what level of government dictates this but ending the restriction would enhance competition and lower prices.

Your claim must be at least partly valid if he has not fleshed out these ideas on his Web site. I trust Rand's philosophical underpinnings but it sounds to me like he needs to author a few white papers on key issues.


ksav
Comment posted February 27, 2010 @ 8:47 am

It's the same companies in each state, just sometimes with different subsidiary names. How would interstate competition between the same few companies do anything? It wouldn't. That's just a red herring.


McClarinJ
Comment posted February 27, 2010 @ 10:43 am

Easy. There are only a relative few companies permitted to offer plans in each state. Open it up to all and the competition will avail more variety at lower cost.


MaryJo
Comment posted February 27, 2010 @ 11:26 am

Million,
I just came back from China. They have become the world's manufacturers. While we have 10% unemployment, they have labor shortages. They are sitting on trillions of dollars in reserves. They are planning to build 100 new superfast train tracks in the next 10 years, linking most of the country. They are the #1 producer of wind and solar energy equipment. Their major ports and airports are modern and efficient. I almost cried when I arrived at JFK in NY. China is poised to become the next superpower. They do have challenges – separatism, poverty, environmental mismanagement – but they have no need to print or borrow money. With more than a billion people, they don't have empty cities. (Where did you get this idea?) Try to read reputable financial information. It feels good to say “we are #1″, but it is more important to work hard to remain at the top. Some of our politicians and our uneducated masses are doing their best to transform this country into a third world mess.


MaryJo
Comment posted February 27, 2010 @ 11:59 am

CS,
Thank you for defending my point of view. I believe this is the problem with political discourse in this country: people feel entitled to their opinions AND their facts, too. Dr. Paul has distorted Evo Morales' words, who, in my view, is a very reasonable person. He sees the glaciers that provide water for Bolivia's highlands disappearing and he knows his people, with one of the lowest carbon footprints on the planet, are not the ones causing it. I've traveled extensively throughout my life. No other society lives as wasteful as we do. I do believe that adjusting our way of life into sustainable moderation will create jobs, improve our diet and our health. We can bring manufacturing back into the economy, family farms back in business and our communities closer together. Economically, it does not make sense to have a 12,000 mile supply line, dependent on fossil fuel. But that is what our capitalist heads decided to do decades ago.
If politicians were responsible and truly worried about our children's and grandchildren's futures, they would have mapped the USA for the 21st. century 30 years ago. As China, we would be implementing it by now. Instead, they are worried about what Mr. Morales and Mr. Mugabe are saying about capitalism. Those men have no influence whatsoever on how the world's most powerful nation will decide its energy policies.
About Mr. Obama going to Copenhagen: I believe Dr. Paul does not understand the strategic risks for our country when billions of people go hungry and thirsty and loose their lands. When entire countries collapse because of droughts lasting decades. Or when the oceans start swallowing island nations and low lying coastal areas (including here). The economic, environmental and security implications are enormous. But, it is easier to focus on the next elections and rail against cap and trade.
Dr. Paul is a fraud, like most politicians. The sad thing is that a lot of people can't see it. And like Gordon, they create false arguments, choose to be ignorant of the facts and reshape reality as they want it, not how it really is.


realitycheck2021
Comment posted February 27, 2010 @ 2:09 pm

We should elect this guy. He sounds as reasonable and thoughtful as George Bush. The free market works best if banks and insurance companies are allowed to operate without state or federal regulations. Trillions in tax cuts will create millions of jobs in the private sector. Tax cuts always increase government revenue and will balance the budget.

The only caveat is that if after four years these policies work the way they worked the last time, he should go to prison for four years.


BeyondKen
Comment posted February 28, 2010 @ 6:17 am

“When you hear about the 'Amero,' a new North American money,” he said, “you might say that those people are just conspiracy theorists. But if you said the same thing about the euro 30 years ago they would have said, 'Oh, you're crazy, we'll never get rid of the pound and those currencies, and lo and behold we have a euro currency. So some of the fears of world government are legitimate.”
-Rand Paul, to Benjamin Sarlin

Good lord this man is ignorant! Europeans have been talking about monetary union for almost _40_ years, and no one said “you're crazy”. What they did was establish the European Monetary System in 1979, which eventually led to the Euro replacing most of Europe's separate currencies. (Except for the Pound)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Monetary_…


Jason
Comment posted February 28, 2010 @ 10:49 pm

Respectfully, Bill Johnson is even too far-right for the teabaggers. He'll be fortunate to place 3rd in the primary. Bill can't muster the financial resources needed to win not only the primary, but get national support for a top-tier general against a solid Democrat opponent.

That said, I'd encourage all conservatives to vote for Bill Johnson. Having him as your candidate in the general assures a Dem victory in KY-SEN.


rgilley
Comment posted March 1, 2010 @ 5:44 am

The fact that a Libertarian/Anarchist is doing well in kentucky, says more about Kentucky than it does about the candidate.


rgilley
Comment posted March 1, 2010 @ 5:47 am

Ignorance is an asset in some corners of the country. The fearmongering republicans like to use is easier swallowed……so expect conspiracy theories to abound


rgilley
Comment posted March 1, 2010 @ 5:53 am

He is like a parot for the republican ideas that got Bush elected twice. The “free market” does not and has never existed in the US, trillion dollar tax breaks for the rich helped get us where we are, and he wants to continue to allow the market to dictate the American health care system……another right wingnut republican in my opinion.


docallen001
Comment posted March 1, 2010 @ 7:41 am

Wouldn't bet on it as long as their have an antitrust exemption. They can get together and set prices. House just passed legislation to revoke exemption. Would you care to guess what the Repubs will do in the Senate? Since they want competition, they should jump at opportunity to revoke.


mrwolfy
Comment posted March 1, 2010 @ 8:39 am

There is a bit of a contradiction with the pro-life crowd. they don't support abortion, and usually are also opposed to practical means of contraception, yet they are also fiercely against immigration, social welfare, and climate control. If there are more “breathers” in this world where in the H. double L do they think that these people should live, work, eat, and breath.


brendand
Comment posted March 1, 2010 @ 8:47 am

“Anarchist” is an awfully strong word, don't you think? Heck, even “libertarian” is a bit strong in describing someone running for the federal government. The federal government itself is antithetical to small-government aims, so I'm not really sure it says anything about anything, except that Rand Paul is turning out to be a pretty good politician.


Jsalley
Comment posted March 2, 2010 @ 12:32 pm

No contraditions with the pro-life crowd. They are against the murder of defenseless, innocent children. Thomas Jefferson said that government's ONLY purpose was to PROTECT LIFE, liberty, and property.
They are FOR supporting the Constitution, which gives the federal government the authority to protect the borders. Now, the immigration laws could be revisited, but MUST be followed.
They are against “social welfare” because it has been the excuse of every kind of government tyrrany in history, from Hitler to Stalin. The “progressive” version is a different spin of the same theories : just promote certain classes, instead of attacking certain classes. The other side of the same process.


Lewis Habben
Comment posted March 2, 2010 @ 1:05 pm

The theory that gov't be used to improve the lives of the people has been disproven. It may be hard to believe, but no, there is actually no Santa Clause.

This gov't hasa played wag the dog one too many times, it has got to be dismantled and relegate it's actions to it's initial charter, protecting the rights of the individual from the wishes of the supposed masses.


Lewis Habben
Comment posted March 2, 2010 @ 1:20 pm

Mary Jo said “When entire countries collapse because of droughts lasting decades. Or when the oceans start swallowing island nations and low lying coastal areas (including here). The economic, environmental and security implications are enormous. But, it is easier to focus on the next elections and rail against cap and trade.”
I doubt you have credible facts to back that obvious bout of fear mongering. All that fear, is supposition, a false argument.

The first step in building the nation again since the destruction of globalist policies like NAFTA is to put up tariffs again. Its not efficient to ship our food to China and then allow them to export it back to us.
and yes. libertarians are socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. Which goes to show us all how much your defender CS knows about political ideologies.


MaryJo
Comment posted March 2, 2010 @ 2:10 pm

Mr. Habben,
Nation islands in the Pacific are already drawing plans to relocate their populations. Vuanatu (I'm not sure about the spelling) will be under the waves in the next decade. The war in Sudan started because of prolonged drought. I don't have the time to educate you. Turn off Fox News and start studying, because the facts are real.
Isolating ourselves is not a solution either. The rest of the world is moving towards change at a much faster rate than we do. As I said before, Brazil is completely energy efficient. China is the #1 producer of solar and wind energy equipment. We're here calling each other names and watching our country further deteriorate. The topics people like yourself like to blabber about (like “what is the correct definition of a libertarian” ) are completely irrelevant to solve the problems were are facing. Try to imagine how you want the US to be in 100 years and how the current discussion and the small minded politicians could bring your vision about. They can't. Period.

CS correctly pointed out that I never said the Constitution kept us behind. Keep to the facts, sir. They are the only things that can guide us out of this mess.


Darryl Schmitz
Comment posted March 3, 2010 @ 7:38 am

I don't consider it “wacko” to want to try to get our financial house in order. All it takes is to look at what happens to any household that maxes out its credit cards but continues to spend uncontrollably. The only difference here though is that our federal government has an escape hatch in being able to “monetize the debt” – that is, dump all of the debt on the value of our currency thus destroying its value.
Seniors, if you think that the national debt is being levied on our grandchildren, think again – it's going to annihilate the value of your life savings. And very likely within just afew years.


Darryl Schmitz
Comment posted March 3, 2010 @ 12:38 pm

I don't consider it “wacko” to want to try to get our financial house in order. All it takes is to look at what happens to any household that maxes out its credit cards but continues to spend uncontrollably. The only difference here though is that our federal government has an escape hatch in being able to “monetize the debt” – that is, dump all of the debt on the value of our currency thus destroying its value.
Seniors, if you think that the national debt is being levied on our grandchildren, think again – it's going to annihilate the value of your life savings. And very likely within just afew years.


King George
Comment posted March 5, 2010 @ 5:03 am

Do you not realize what your saying? You are supporting the use of extreme violence against your neighbors? What if I dont agree with your plan for the world? Will you support me being thrown in a cage for not paying for your highway? Guess what pal, you dont own me or anyone else. Until I have done some injustice to you, you need to leave me alone. What does it take to get through to people like you. Your ego is unbounded. You are Mao without an army.


matt
Comment posted March 5, 2010 @ 5:23 am

“philosophical arguments…don't stand up to any sort of honest scrutiny.”

That's about the dumbest statement I've ever seen.


MaryJo
Comment posted March 6, 2010 @ 1:34 am

You're raising a straw man. Where did I support the use of violence against any one? I don't have a plan to save the world, so you don't have to agree with me. It is obvious we can't live the way we have lived. We won't afford paying or gas, or heating/cooling our mac-mansions. We can't afford to keep our manufacturing jobs in China. We have to grow our food. Why do you think we need to impose “extreme violence” on my neighbors or “throwing you in a cage” to achieve this? Isn't this something we all can agree upon? Are you sure you are responding to my posts?


Caleb Pittman
Comment posted March 9, 2010 @ 2:57 pm

The comment would still hold true if you changed “30 years ago” to 50 or 60 years ago. The point is that there was a time when such an integrated European Union would have sounded like crazy talk, and that over time such ideas that initially sound crazy can be implemented and seem normal. So there's no reason to brush off concerns of an NAU as pure crazy talk just because it doesn't seem imminent. Such ideas have seriously been thrown around in the past (by supporters as well as the more “paranoid” crowd who are against it), and may come to fruition at some point.


b2bdown
Comment posted March 9, 2010 @ 7:29 pm

So what kind of solution should we have Mary-Jo? You're obviously a big fan of the Chinese system. Do we need a radical change in the way of socialism, or just keep going with the incremental transformation that has been happening for quite some time now? The success you see from China is due to their industrial explosion and saving money. Now, it seems like Mr. Paul is attempting to get America back on track financially. The process includes getting people to realize that the government is part of the problem. But of course there's the the problem is whether or not these politicians will stay true to their word. I guess that's where this man's name draws support in that regard. They think he will keep his promises. And that's no small miracle in these days.

Anyways, what the hell is your argument anyway Mary Jo? Maybe you see people throwing up “straw men” because you have no stance or position to speak of. You don't have any answers of your own, you just criticize and say look at China and Brazil, how much better off they are, implying that Mr. Paul is somehow ignorant in the need for alternative energy just because he thinks there is a lot of bullshit when it comes to climate change. You probably believe that capitalism is what caused the economic calamity. Talk about a HALF TRUTH, that's the biggest one of the decade. What I see with Mr. Paul is someone who wants to return to the libertarian intentions of the founders- in several respects. That means breaking up the ever corrupt, wasteful, and downright evil relationship between big government and big business. I don't think that is unreasonable.

You don't get to say that “Mr. Paul will continue the trend of keeping America behind” without backing that up and without really understanding his ideas.
But, I'm probably creating a “false argument” by pointing out that you are full of shit.


MaryJo
Comment posted March 10, 2010 @ 4:47 am

Dear b2bdown,
Sometimes it's very frustrating to talk to people who can't think on their feet. I thought my point was obvious: We need to think forward because what worked well for our country in the last 60 years is not working anymore. When the GIs came back from WWII and Congress passed the GI bill to help them get into the universities, there was a big uproar from conservatives. The move “would cheapen higher education”, they said. The result, however, was the creation of a strong middle class and the emergence of the US as a hyper power, after the Soviet Union's collapse. The government, was part of the solution, on moving an agricultural economy into the industrial era. A highly educated work force pushed an accelerated modernization of American plants. They brought innovation and creativity to a new level.
We face a new challenge at this time: how to move our economy into what is shaping to be a highly competitive global economy. My position is that as a nation, we are failing to meet these challenges. Even with all the problems they face, China has chartered a course to become the next superpower. They are modernizing the country, building infrastructure and educating their people. Brazil and India are doing the same. While they are in a race towards the future, we are here criticizing each other and supporting politicians who can't see beyond next elections. Mr. Paul's ideas, as a whole, will not withstand the global challenges we are facing. I'm not a fan of the Chinese system, but I do admire their capacity for long term planning. They have a vision for China in the next 50 years and they are working to achieve it. Have you ever heard one of our politicians to delineate a vision for America for the next 5 years?
Unbridled capitalism DID cause the global meltdown. Denying it is denying the facts. I support the idea of separating government and business, but I can't support Dr. Paul on this fact alone. Now, I DO have my own ideas of what this country needs to shape up but I'm not running for office. I have no need to publicize them in this forum.
Now, I won't call you names, because you disagree with me. I just invite you to educate yourself. Travel outside the US. Start reading serious economic publications. Learn how our capitalist elite shipped jobs overseas in the last 20 years. Learn about the global economical trends. Maybe you will look at our politicians – even the so called libertarians – with different eyes.


b2bdown
Comment posted March 10, 2010 @ 8:03 am

When it comes to the economy, the government has very little power to do good but it has great power to do harm. If you don't realize that the people have been screwed over badly by those in Washington, you've been living a very sheltered life. Overall, the government HAS done more harm than good. Don't lecture me on traveling and reading, I do enough of that to understand what's happening to my country. I'm worried about complete collapse our economy because of the devaluation of the dollar. That is the challenge I recognize, one that is closely linked to our massive debt. “Unbridled capitalism” is what Alan Greenspan blamed the economic collapse on. But he said that to cover his ass. You on the other hand, must be regurgitating this nonsense based on a misunderstanding of the situation. The federal government was a huge part of the economic collapse. http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/13/housing-bubble… Denying THAT is denying the facts my friend. I'm sorry to break it to you, but the status quo is not working anymore. More corporatism, more bailouts, more central-economic planning, more socialism is not going to change our future for the better. To think that the same people or ideas that got us into this mess is going to solve the problem is just plain foolish. Oh, and here's a serious economic publication for you: Wealth of Nations. get yourself a copy


MaryJo
Comment posted March 10, 2010 @ 11:58 am

I don't agree with your first sentence completely. Things would be different if there was strong regulation rules on American banks and hedge funds. The house bubble happened because banks decided to give loans to unqualified people. Wall St. invented derivatives, to gamble with pensioners' funds. Goldman Sachs is involved with Greece's debacle. This is what unregulated capitalism causes: the destruction of livelihoods on a global scale.
Forbes wants to cover the lack of responsibility of the leading characters in the private sector. Do you really believe bank executives did not know what was coming? Countries that regulated their banks closely escaped the worst of the crisis.
I do believe the bail out was wrong because risk is part of capitalism. You pay for your screw ups. Because there is no risk, banks and hedge funds are back at their games. People are betting on Greece's going under, again with pensioners' funds. This is an absolute shame. We need tight financial regulation and a clear separation between gambling and banking.
America is not a socialism country. The government does not control the economy. Now, the Scandinavian countries, who are all socialists, have a higher quality of life than we do. I have read Wealth of Nations. The book was published in 1776 and advocated a free for all capitalism. No child labor laws. No minimum wage. No health benefits. No OSHA rules. No unions. Is this the way you want to work under? The world has changed a lot since Adam smith was published in 1776. But I believe the chinese workers who are virtual prisoners in their factories are experiencing a first hand taste of Mr. Smith's theories.


b2bdown
Comment posted March 11, 2010 @ 1:30 am

Funny, I actually agree completely with your first two assertions. Of course things would be different, conditions can always be worse (until you're dead anyways), and yes the housing bubble occurred because banks gave loans to unqualified people. That much is obvious. What isn't so obvious to the lay man is that the federal government essentially sets interest rates. By providing banks with loans at the discount rate (in the name of stability), the Fed encourages them to be reckless.
Of course, since it's the market, the goal is to maximize profits, that's it's nature. So if you enable the market and these big ass financial corporations to make risky loans they are going to do it. And that is the crux of the issue.
I'm going to take from what you just wrote, if you'll allow me, to assume that you believe more and/or better regulation could fix the problem. I think this idea is easily refuted by the track record of the U.S. government and governments throughout history. Jefferson said “In matters of Power, let no more be heard of the confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.” This warning from a man who was like a prophet concerning the centralization of power in America. Step one is admitting that you as a species have a problem. If you have a large enough scope of vision, you can say with conviction (at the risk of being wrong) that you really don't want to hear any more about the confidence in man.
You're right, the government does not control the economy. No one has the power to control the economy for very long. But the government DOES try. There is so much political pressure to do so. Obama's unemployment numbers are scary as hell for his administration.
Alan Greenspan promoted derivatives trading, to guess what? -To stabilize the market-to regulate it. Of course you might reply that if we only had someone in that seat of power that would do a better job of regulating the economy, none of this shit would ever happen. Mr. Paul's response: don't hold your breath for that utopian vision to come about. Greenspan was hailed as a genius not too long ago. Simply put, man does not have good foresight when it comes to the economy. Apparently government does not even have good hindsight.
I'm afraid your comment about Chinese factory workers is irrelevant. The study of economics is less about 'the way things should be' as it is about 'the way things are'. Adam Smith made observations about how people produce, distribute, and exchange wealth and understood well the futility of central planning. While the world may have changed, the way economics works has not. Man has not changed. Smith's work is THE classic on economics. And I for one am not willing to abandon the philosophical high ground. On the other hand, if the most important thing for us to do is make everyone rich for a couple months, or even the make economy look good for decade, never mind the forgotten man or the future generation, then central planning does have merit.
Oops, got a little wordy there. I just got off work and I'm riled up.


b2bdown
Comment posted March 11, 2010 @ 7:30 am

Funny, I actually agree completely with your first two assertions. Of course things would be different, conditions can always be worse (until you're dead anyways), and yes the housing bubble occurred because banks gave loans to unqualified people. That much is obvious. What isn't so obvious to the lay man is that the federal government essentially sets interest rates. By providing banks with loans at the discount rate (in the name of stability), the Fed encourages them to be reckless.
Of course, since it's the market, the goal is to maximize profits, that's it's nature. So if you enable the market and these big ass financial corporations to make risky loans they are going to do it. And that is the crux of the issue.
I'm going to take from what you just wrote, if you'll allow me, to assume that you believe more and/or better regulation could fix the problem. I think this idea is easily refuted by the track record of the U.S. government and governments throughout history. Jefferson said “In matters of Power, let no more be heard of the confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.” This warning from a man who was like a prophet concerning the centralization of power in America. Step one is admitting that you as a species have a problem. If you have a large enough scope of vision, you can say with conviction (at the risk of being wrong) that you really don't want to hear any more about the confidence in man.
You're right, the government does not control the economy. No one has the power to control the economy for very long. But the government DOES try. There is so much political pressure to do so. Obama's unemployment numbers are scary as hell for his administration.
Alan Greenspan promoted derivatives trading, to guess what? -To stabilize the market-to regulate it. Of course you might reply that if we only had someone in that seat of power that would do a better job of regulating the economy, none of this shit would ever happen. Mr. Paul's response: don't hold your breath for that utopian vision to come about. Greenspan was hailed as a genius not too long ago. Simply put, man does not have good foresight when it comes to the economy. Apparently government does not even have good hindsight.
I'm afraid your comment about Chinese factory workers is irrelevant. The study of economics is less about 'the way things should be' as it is about 'the way things are'. Adam Smith made observations about how people produce, distribute, and exchange wealth and understood well the futility of central planning. While the world may have changed, the way economics works has not. Man has not changed. Smith's work is THE classic on economics. And I for one am not willing to abandon the philosophical high ground. On the other hand, if the most important thing for us to do is make everyone rich for a couple months, or even the make economy look good for decade, never mind the forgotten man or the future generation, then central planning does have merit.
Oops, got a little wordy there. I just got off work and I'm riled up.


Mary
Comment posted April 21, 2010 @ 5:59 am

And the Democrats don't use fearmongering? I can remember pictures of a little girl in a field with a flower and the voiceover talking of how the country would be closer to a nuclear war if a Republican were in the WH. The fearmongering has not stopped as the Republicans were accused only recently of wanting to kill off (fill in the blank with grandma, the poor, African Americans….) because they don't support the left's version of healthcare. And who can forget when the right and even returning military were grouped with TERRORISTS by the DHS, but then it's been a year and the admin is STILL trying to paint conservatives as the next Weather Undergound violence-against-the-government radicals. Wait, has Obama checked his own house lately? Just who has actually committed violence against the government?


rgilley
Comment posted May 11, 2010 @ 10:17 am

30 years of conservative republican rule has gotten us to where we are. They managed to transfere 80% of the country's wealth to less than 5% of the richest families and corporations, they then left the tax payers to clean up the mess under the democrats, who are nearly as bad as republicans. But Rand Paul, he is no more than an anarchist, or libertarian if you wish, they are esentially the same philosophy, eg survival of the fitest, strong living off the weak.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.