The Paul File

[Michael]

I got to thinking about this theory of corporate subjugation of people... which seems to be the big fear and need for more BIG government protection (as if the rule of law somehow wasn't sufficient... THAT I still don't get). Not only that, but the government has to be centralized, you know, where's it's "harder" to corrupt a few officials at the top (yeah, that's sarcasm). Anyhow, your fear that Apple (one of the largest wealthiest companies in the world) is somehow out to subjugate you, I was wonder.... IS there ANY examples of a company ever in the history of humanity subjugating people WITHOUT using government as a proxy?

I mean, I can think of examples of Big Government subjugating people all f-ing day long: North Korea, Communist Russia, Nazi Germany, Theocratic Iran/KSA/, Syria, Egypt etc... etc... etc.... YET, I don't seem to be able to come up with a corporation actually subjugating people. YET, this is the big argument... we need government to "protect us"? Protect us from who??? The only examples I see of people getting subjugated IS from government.

Corporations run with their tails between their legs the minute class action law suits are tossed into their face. USUALLY to their mates in BIG government to try to "do something" to change the law or delay it.

See, what it seems to really come down to for most people is they don't want to loose their entitlements. They love big government because big government steals from one group to give to another. Well, THAT is violence. If you want to address THAT issue then I think it can be addressed monetarily. Let's face it, most people actually would like to work in a productive job. So, it's again, a monetary issue.

 

[joepistole]

Better economy for who - some poor sap who has to act as a greeter for Walmart? I'm positioned well in Asia (sort of straddling the West and East) I suppose a good place to be as the flow of prosperity flows out of the USA on over to Asia :shrug:

Yeah a better economy for every one, including that poor sap working for Walmart. The economy today is certainly much better than it was when President Obama was sworn in to office in January of 2009 and the economy continues to grow under President Obama. In 2014 that poor sap will have full access to complete and affordable healthcare, assuming Republicans (e.g. Paul) don't achieve power, something he/she does not now enjoy.

How was money created before there was a Federal Reserve. Why should the American public pay a private bank interest when it could, at the very least, pay itself interest. Milton Friedman was opposed to the existence of the Federal Reserve. He's an "Economist" (ooo aahhh) and a nobel laureate.

Also to note:


Bernanke Is Either Not Very Bright or Not Very Honest. He Admits He Doesn’t Know Why We Have a Weak Economy … But He’s the One Who Weakened It

One would think the "Scientist" In Chief would have a clue....

Former chief IMF economist Simon Johnson:


Economists: End Or Drastically Downsize the Fed

I thought you said Economics was a "Science". Here we have hundreds of Professors of Economics, many nobel laureates who are in favor of ending the Federal Reserve system, or the very least, shrinking it down to a tiny staff with little power.

OR maybe you agree with that douche bag Paul Krugman when he suggested that a Fake Alien Invasion Would End Economic Slump? Do you agree with that douche bag Joe? Is that how Economic "Scientists" do things?

Yeah, but it's "Ron Paul" who is the crazy one :bugeye: The MAIN policy I support of Ron Paul is to END THE FED - just like those Professors of Economics and nobel laureate.

Michael, not everything you read from right wing whacko blogs is truthful especially when they immediately contradict themselves. per your reference,

"In “Bernanke Admits He’s Clueless On Economy’s Soft Patch”, Forbes blogger Agustino Fontevecchia notes:

Brutally honest, Bernanke admitted that he had no clue what was actually causing the current fragility in the U.S. economic recovery. While the FOMC statement assigned blame outside of the U.S., pointing at Japan along with rising food and oil prices, "

Saying in one sentence that Bernanke admits he is clueless about the slowness in the economy and then in the next sentence giving the Feds/his explanation for the slowness.

Two, you need to stop referencing advocates who are being paid to advance a position rather than independent objective credible sources. Milton Freidman, while popular with right wingers, has been debunked. Additionally, Freidman's theories applied to a condition we do not now have nor have had for decades - stagflation. Friedman endorsed the Federal Reserves roll in moderately expanding the money supply.

ON a different tract, suppose a State like Michigan, who is admittedly f*cked, wanted to print it's own currency, interest free, would you support the Citizens in the State of Michigan having the right to do that?

No for several reasons, one being the Constitution does not allow it.

 

[joepistole]

New Nobel Laureate Warned Against Obama Stimulus Package, Calling It ‘Surprisingly Naïve’

ANOTHER "Economist" the 2011 Nobel Prize winner calling to END THE FED.


Yeah, 'Crazy' Ron Paul and his 'Crazy' Ideas..... try again

In short, Ron Paul (who probably deserves a Nobel Prize himself has studied this relationship with society for decades and has been calling to End the Fed for years ... he even wrote a book called ................END THE FED!!!

A couple of things Michael, first hearsay is not proof which is what your article amounts to, hearsay no less from a partisan advocate. Two, no one including the current Federal Reserve Chairman, Bernanke is saying that monetary solutions are the cure to all that ails the nation. In fact Bernanke has testified before Congress on many occasions noting that fact. There is this little thing called fiscal policy that needs to work in conjunction with monetary policy to move the economy to full capacity. But it just so happens that given Republican intransigence and devotion to irresponsible fiscal behavior (e.g. intentionally causing an unnecessary default), there is little room for responsible fiscal policy until at least after the election.

And finally, you want a case for the Fed? Just look at what is happening to Europe. The EU now has a mess on their hands in no small part because they have chosen to go down the path you and your fellows are advocating. That is why they are now choosing to form a stronger central government and enhancing the roll of the European central bank - moving more similar to the US central bank.

 

[billvon]

Second question: Why is it again that you think a BIGGER more powerful corrupt central government is better than a SMALLER neutered one? Because that makes no sense.

Why do you think a powerless, ineffective government will be more effective than one that has the authority to perform its functions? That's even dumber.

 

[joepistole]

Why do you think a powerless, ineffective government will be more effective than one that has the authority to perform its functions? That's even dumber.

Michael doesn't seem to think or realize that corruption exists outside of government.

 

[Michael]

Why do you think a powerless, ineffective government will be more effective than one that has the authority to perform its functions? That's even dumber.

To perform what functions? Why will it be powerless? It won't be powerless. We will still live under the rule of law. Who said small Government will be ineffective? Government's enforce the Law - regardless if it's a big or small the government is.

A good example of ineffective government is Corzine - he literally stole money directly out of people's accounts (something that has NEVER been done since the East Indian Tea Company created Markets) and he's not going to go to jail. Big government, is doing nothing to prevent Banking theft. Yeah, they wrote a new bill, and it did nothing. Why don't you go down and take some money directly from a private account - see how fast you find yourself in prison.

How many Banking CEOs, who stole TRILLIONS, are in prison? NONE. How many OWS protestors are in or went to prison .... THOUSANDS!

 

[Michael]

Joe, I'm awaiting your opinion on the fact that numerous Nobel Prize winning Professors of Economics support ending the corrupt Federal Reserve system.

Do you agree? I mean, these are "Scientists" (to you anyway) and they've "Done the Math" and Won the Nobel Prize in Economics and are calling to END THE FED!

Do you agree with Science Joe? Should we END THE FED?

 

[Michael]

Michael doesn't seem to think or realize that corruption exists outside of government.

The Rule of Law is how corruption is dealt with.

As I said, Apple Corp is one of the largest corporations on the Planet (in History) and I am in no way shape or form worried about Apple. I do not think that Apple did not become some evil empire only because some douche bureaucrat in Washington came up with some regulation. Markets just don't work that way unless there's monopoly - for which we have laws. Those Laws came out of a pretty small government. My guess is Apple wouldn't want to tarnish it's image by doing something that was overtly against the population.

Take the example of an executive groping a woman at Apple. Paul said she could leave. But that's only part of his answer. He suggests that the employer would probably fire the executive as this would tarnish the brand. I agree. In a healthy economy that woman could probably go and work at another business. AND, get this, it is against the law to grope. She could sue him. Lastly, making personal sexual wisecracks that if they were really intrusive would probably see the executive canned because productivity would decrease as lots of employees wouldn't be happy at work. In a competitive market there's no place for it. But, you seem to think NO what we need is a BIGGER more intrusive bureaucracy... as if this is magically dong to change a pig into a man. THAT'S what's crazy talk. Paul's the only one that actually makes any logical well thought out sense.

JUST like in the case of the Federal Reserve. He wrote a book called End the Fed. Now we have the 2011 Nobel Prize winner calling to end the federal reserve system. THAT should tell you the actually Paul is on to something. He's thought about it, he understands it. Both as a person who has been in and out of government for 3 decades and as a business person and as an economist.

Lastly, Obama just signed into Law on New Years Eve the National Defense Authorization Act into Law. Now the military can pick American Citizens up inside America and detain them Indefinitely without trial.

There's your Big Government Joe. I hope you're happy. Keeping you safe from Scary Islamic Terrorists and Scary Apply Corporation one Civil Right at a time.

 

[joepistole]

The Rule of Law is how corruption is dealt with.

As I said, Apple Corp is one of the largest corporations on the Planet (in History) and I am in no way shape or form worried about Apple. I do not think that Apple did not become some evil empire only because some douche bureaucrat in Washington came up with some regulation. Markets just don't work that way unless there's monopoly - for which we have laws. Those Laws came out of a pretty small government. My guess is Apple wouldn't want to tarnish it's image by doing something that was overtly against the population.

Take the example of an executive groping a woman at Apple. Paul said she could leave. But that's only part of his answer. He suggests that the employer would probably fire the executive as this would tarnish the brand. I agree. In a healthy economy that woman could probably go and work at another business. AND, get this, it is against the law to grope. She could sue him. Lastly, making personal sexual wisecracks that if they were really intrusive would probably see the executive canned because productivity would decrease as lots of employees wouldn't be happy at work. In a competitive market there's no place for it. But, you seem to think NO what we need is a BIGGER more intrusive bureaucracy... as if this is magically dong to change a pig into a man. THAT'S what's crazy talk. Paul's the only one that actually makes any logical well thought out sense.

JUST like in the case of the Federal Reserve. He wrote a book called End the Fed. Now we have the 2011 Nobel Prize winner calling to end the federal reserve system. THAT should tell you the actually Paul is on to something. He's thought about it, he understands it. Both as a person who has been in and out of government for 3 decades and as a business person and as an economist.

Lastly, Obama just signed into Law on New Years Eve the National Defense Authorization Act into Law. Now the military can pick American Citizens up inside America and detain them Indefinitely without trial.

There's your Big Government Joe. I hope you're happy. Keeping you safe from Scary Islamic Terrorists and Scary Apply Corporation one Civil Right at a time.

I think you clearly demonstrated my point. You don't understand that corruption exists in private industry. I suggest you go back and read some recent history (e.g. the great recession of 2008). You don't have to look far to find cases of corporate corruption.

In your example of the woman being wronged, you clearly don't understand what it takes for a woman/individual to bring a law suit against a fully staffed money rich corporation. It isn't as easy as you seem to think.

And yeah we have laws against monopolies, but that does not mean they don't exist. Because they do. They have gotten Congress to exempt them from the antitrust laws. Our antitrust laws are riddled with exemptions just like our tax code, because special interests can buy the legislation they want.

And two, you don't have a Noble Prize winning economists calling for the end of the Federal Reserve - that is just more fantasy. No one of merit is seriously calling for the end of the Federal Reserve/the central banking system.

 

[joepistole]

To perform what functions? Why will it be powerless? It won't be powerless. We will still live under the rule of law. Who said small Government will be ineffective? Government's enforce the Law - regardless if it's a big or small the government is.

A good example of ineffective government is Corzine - he literally stole money directly out of people's accounts (something that has NEVER been done since the East Indian Tea Company created Markets) and he's not going to go to jail. Big government, is doing nothing to prevent Banking theft. Yeah, they wrote a new bill, and it did nothing. Why don't you go down and take some money directly from a private account - see how fast you find yourself in prison.

How many Banking CEOs, who stole TRILLIONS, are in prison? NONE. How many OWS protestors are in or went to prison .... THOUSANDS!

There is just one small problem with your position which has been repeatedly pointed out to you and for which you have repeatedly ignored. There is no evidence to support your claims - one of those minor details you like to repeatedly ignore because reality does not support your notions.

 

[adoucette]

That aside, railroads were created by private investment.

You are as ignorant of the history of Civil Rights in this country as you are of the growth of the Railroads in the US which led to the Robber Barons which led to the large investment Banks which you routinely disparage.

The federal government operated a land grant system between 1855 and 1871, through which new railway companies in the uninhabited West were given millions of acres they could sell or pledge to bondholders. A total of 129 million acres (520,000 km2) were granted to the railroads before the program ended, supplemented by a further 51 million acres (210,000 km2) granted by the states, and by various government subsidies.

http://www.raken.com/american_wealth/Gilded_age_index4.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railway_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transcontinental_Railroad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877

 

[adoucette]

Lastly, Obama just signed into Law on New Years Eve the National Defense Authorization Act into Law. Now the military can pick American Citizens up inside America and detain them Indefinitely without trial.

And yet the NDAA does NOT allow the Military to do any such thing.
Why do you feel the need to lie?

 

[adoucette]

As I said, Apple Corp is one of the largest corporations on the Planet (in History) and I am in no way shape or form worried about Apple.

True, but then I don't expect Apple to promote domestic tranquility or keep the peace or regulate the money supply or do any of the many things that I DO expect the government to do.

It's not even comparing Apples to Oranges its more like comparing an Apple to a whole grocery store.

 

[adoucette]

How many Banking CEOs, who stole TRILLIONS, are in prison? NONE.

Why yes, because no Banking CEOs in fact stole TRILLIONS.

You just make this BS up don't you?

How many OWS protestors are in or went to prison .... THOUSANDS!

More BS, a few got arrested most on misdemeanors but NONE went to Prison.

 

[Michael]

Two things we have to clear up now:

1) National Defense Authorization Act

The National Defense Authorization Act greatly expands the power and scope of the federal government to fight the War on Terror, including codifying into law the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without trial. Under the new law the US military has the power to carry out domestic anti-terrorism operations on US soil.

“The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the“requirement” of military detention,”. “For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.”

Really Arther? You support this bullshit? You're really THAT worried about "Islamic Terrorists" that you're willing to give up even more freedoms and to give the government even MORE legal authority over your life? I really don't know what to say??? I suppose I didn't realize Americans had been reduced so low.

Sure, I was expecting Obama to repeal the Patriot Act... instead he has strengthened it. I knew Americans were cattle but I hadn't realized they'd been domesticated to this extent.... I really don't know what to say. The country is f*cked. Thank the Gods I can watch from the sidelines.

Three myths about the detention bill

Myth # 1:
This bill does not codify indefinite detention
Myth #2:
The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF
Myth #3:
U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill


Think about this logically. We've fought two World Wars - we didn't pass any draconian laws like this. The whole 9/11 official record is that a minority of radicals from a small group of fanatical Muslims drove some plans into the buildings. Well, Osama is dead and the network dismantled. Why more restrictions on US and why NOW? It just makes NO logical sense to restrict our freedoms. For f*cks sake. Even if it's theoretically possible we need to get rid of these laws. Who in their right mind could support Obama after this?

It's crazy.



2) Argument FROM Professors and Nobel Prize winning Economists to either END or severely curtail the Federal Reserve System.

Famed economist Milton Friedman and Nobel Laurette wanted to end the Fed:

This evidence persuades me that at least a third of the price rise during and just after World War I is attributable to the establishment of the Federal Reserve System… and that the severity of each of the major contractions — 1920-1, 1929-33 and 1937-8 is directly attributable to acts of commission and omission by the Reserve authorities…

Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes — excusable or not — can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic — this is the key political argument against an independent central bank…

Joseph Stiglitz – former head economist at the World Bank and a nobel-prize winner – said yesterday that the very structure of the Federal Reserve system is so fraught with conflicts that it is “corrupt” and undermines democracy.

If we [i.e. the World Bank] had seen a governance structure that corresponds to our Federal Reserve system, we would have been yelling and screaming and saying that country does not deserve any assistance, this is a corrupt governing structure.

Thomas Sargent, current 2011 Nobel Prize winner of Economics:

Thomas Sargent, the New York University professor who was announced Monday as a winner of the Nobel in economics … cites Walter Bagehot, who “said that what he called a ‘natural’ competitive banking system without a ‘central’ bank would be better…. ‘nothing can be more surely established by a larger experience than that a Government which interferes with any trade injures that trade. The best thing undeniably that a Government can do with the Money Market is to let it take care of itself.’”

While I'll agree he didn't come out and say END THE FED he does hint around that this is his feeling. Perhaps he's worried he'd tip over an already f*cked up system had he been more direct? There's no denying he thinks it should be dramatically changed.
Original interview here.


Again, logically speaking, you should be OPEN at least to the idea that the Federal Reserve system can and should be improved (even ended) - which may mean reducing it's size and stranglehold over the economy. Any "Scientist" must be open to their pet theory being proven wrong. That's how it works Joe. You wanted to be an scientist - - start acting like one

 

[Michael]

Why yes, because no Banking CEOs in fact stole TRILLIONS.

What caused the financial crises of 2009? What role did Banks play? ANY?

Oh yeah, I forgot, you still think Cortzine is innocent of any and all wrong doing and hey, so he pilfered people's private accounts, something that's never been done ever - f*ck em.

Yeah, you'll never agree the Bankers ever did anything wrong or illegal because they will never be prosecuted. Nice little trick. Really no different than most mafioso if you think about it. Most of them never did anything illegal either - as most never went to prison. Only someone living in la la land would think that.


Yes, innocent until proven guilty. But you know what, when dead bodies are found in a Bankers' backyard YOU GOD DAMN look into it You know what Obama did instead - hired the bastards! More than any previous POTUS. Can't look into the Banks misdeeds.... THAT might upset the market. He's not doing anything about it, he's part it. People keep clamoring for the government to save them from the Banks and Corporations - the government sold you to the Banks and Corporations and they're doing their utmost to seal the deal.

 

[joepistole]

What caused the financial crises of 2009? What role did Banks play? ANY?

Oh yeah, I forgot, you still think Cortzine is innocent of any and all wrong doing and hey, so he pilfered people's private accounts, something that's never been done ever - f*ck em.

Yeah, you'll never agree the Bankers ever did anything wrong or illegal because they will never be prosecuted. Nice little trick. Really no different than most mafioso if you think about it. Most of them never did anything illegal either - as most never went to prison. Only someone living in la la land would think that.


Yes, innocent until proven guilty. But you know what, when dead bodies are found in a Bankers' backyard YOU GOD DAMN look into it You know what Obama did instead - hired the bastards! More than any previous POTUS. Can't look into the Banks misdeeds.... THAT might upset the market. He's not doing anything about it, he's part it. People keep clamoring for the government to save them from the Banks and Corporations - the government sold you to the Banks and Corporations and they're doing their utmost to seal the deal.

You are great at accusations, but you have yet to produce a shred of evidence to support your accusations. Unfortunately for Republicans/conservatives we just don't throw people into jail in this country on a whim or because it is politically expedient to do so.

 

[joepistole]

Ron Paul looses in his strongest state. The real question now is does Ron Paul run as a third party candidate?

 

[Michael]

You are great at accusations, but you have yet to produce a shred of evidence to support your accusations. Unfortunately for Republicans/conservatives we just don't throw people into jail in this country on a whim or because it is politically expedient to do so.

OK, Joe, I have a couple questions for you.

Do you think that the Bush administration purposely misled the American public into the Iraq War with false claims of WMD and tying 9/11 to Iraq in the minds of most Americans? Tens of thousands of American Citizens are either DEAD or missing limbs, eyes, arms and/or permanently damaged mentally. Where is their justice Joe?

 

[Michael]

Ron Paul looses in his strongest state. The real question now is does Ron Paul run as a third party candidate?

He's going to stay in the GOP primary race. Sanatorium is evidence of one thing in my mind: Americans will not elect a Mormon no more than they'll elect an Atheist. At least not that massive Conservative Christian fundamental base that is the GOP. Even I, were I to run for office in America, would pretend to be a Christian. That leaves Paul.


Santorum is like a Gingrich or Trump or Bachmann etc... they peak and subside, while RP supporters redouble their efforts and continue the fight. 90% of Santorum voters picked him that day or the week before, they'll leave him just as quickly.

That's the way I see things anyway :shrug:

That said, I'd love to see a third Libertarian party in the USA. Sign me up.