I still can't believe Ron Paul named his son after an intellectually inept philosopher.

The root problem is not Government deficits, that is a result and a possible solution. Wars, bailouts, offshoring manufacturing, job losses and are root problems causing a trade deficit, which is not the same thing as a Government deficit.

"He's not charming or debonair, but there's something about his wonky passion for debt and trade imbalances that seems to inspire people."

I think that trade imbalances is an issue that more and more Americans are coming to realize is our most important economic consideration today. I don't know though what a Libertarian would do to alter the status quo, do Libertarians beleive in protectionism??? Democrats are out ahead on that issue, Chuch Schumer is leading with letters to the President and the Treasury Sec. saying we should repeal NAFTA and get out of WTO. Smart Dems should start using these issues as the 2010 campaign begins, Obama needs to get on board too. Free Trade has been a disaster and it seems only the leaders of the country haven't realized it yet.

Speaking of trade imabalances: in a bi-partisan effort, more than 100 members of Congress called on the Obama administration to label China a currency manipulator.

The root problem is not Government deficits, that is a result and a possible solution. Wars, bailouts, offshoring manufacturing, job losses and are root problems causing a trade deficit, which is not the same thing as a Government deficit.

#2 | Posted by nutcase

So....let's ignore the root-causes of a trade-deficit (lack of competitiveness) and then try and use to powers of governmental force to 'protect' politically-favored industries and individuals vis a vis tarrifs. But, all we are doing is exacerbating the inherent weaknesses that cause certain favored entitities to be uncompetitive in the first place. All we do is buy a bit of time, but only accelerate the eventual fall.

Free Trade has been a disaster and it seems only the leaders of the country haven't realized it yet.

That shit will only accelerate the 'sucking sound' known as work fleeing this country.

You are attempting to overturn some of the most fundamental laws of economics and human nature - it won't work. Never has - never will.

I still can't believe Ron Paul named his son after an intellectually inept philosopher.

#1 | Posted by taxman

LOL!

Why do people unjustly criticize others just they can't agree with their work?

I don't agree with the philosophy of Karl Marx, but I never would call him an idiot.

I guess that I have a better grasp on reality...

LOL!!!

Any conservative that does not win this year by double digits lives where total complete and utter morons dwell.

do Libertarians beleive in protectionism???

#3 | Posted by danni

If you want to label Ron Paul as a Protectionist, then a better question is, What's wrong with Protectionism? If it's the way that everyone else behaves, then why not?

But, I would like to see how Ron Paul is a Protectionist.

"So....let's ignore the root-causes of a trade-deficit (lack of competitiveness)"

Riiight....we should all strive to compete with workers in China working for state owned companies for slave wages.

"You are attempting to overturn some of the most fundamental laws of economics and human nature - it won't work."

We protected our industry for our entire history and it worked fine. Virtually all of our competitors still protect their own industries through various methods. Fortunately free trade is becoming synonymous with recession and depression by more and more people.

"If you want to label Ron Paul as a Protectionist, then a better question is, What's wrong with Protectionism?"

I believe in some protectionism but I was just surprised that a Libertarian would be also. It doesn't say in the article that he does believe in protectionism, only that he has a passion for trade imbalances, whatever that means.

Paul, the Bowling Green ophthalmologist whose chief claim to fame is that his father is the world's most famous Libertarian, now leads a race he was never supposed to enter.

Remember when righties were wetting themselves over families like the Kennedys and Clintons.

PS, ron isn't a Libertarian, he's a Republican.

Mitch McConnell can go fuck himself, the primaries belong to the people, not fucking arrogant party elites who think they own the party. Go Rand go!

"So....let's ignore the root-causes of a trade-deficit (lack of competitiveness)"

Riiight....we should all strive to compete with workers in China working for state owned companies for slave wages.

I don't think what is being attempted to be said there Danni.

It would be foolish to say that we are paying appropriate wages in a lot of areas. Most of the time wages in America are payed out not based on performance, but rather based on position. It doesn't matter how well they complete the job, it matters that they work the required number of hours, to get paid the salary indicated by those hours.

Recently I heard a story of a person who could go from making 30,000 dollars to 100,000 dollars a year just by taking a class or two. He is in a union, and does minimal work in regard to his job, and yet will be making 100,000 dollars?

This is part of the problem with America. When are industries were booming, we were producing something good and working hard to do so. Now it is "eh, I get my wage for the hour whether I work my butt off or not, why work hard" or "Eh, the union will make sure we get an 8% wage raise yearly, so why bust my butt trying to do my job when I can do mediocre and still get paid.."

Wages need a little fixing here, I would prefer pay based on performance alone. You get paid for what you do. Give people a little more incentive to put more effort into their work and appreciate the things they earn and buy with their work a little more.

Everything in America is inflated, especially the standard of living.

"So....let's ignore the root-causes of a trade-deficit (lack of competitiveness)"

Riiight....we should all strive to compete with workers in China working for state owned companies for slave wages.

#9 | Posted by danni

Danni,

In my tiny sphere of influence, this is what I experienced. I'm a SW developer. in 1999 through 2001, I was landing jobs making $125+ an hour working me for 60+ hours a week and then they were begging me for more! There was no end in sight.

In 2002, I lost my job and couldn't get another, when at the same time they were hiring Indian programmers for $15/hour!!!

I developed a philosophy that if I could be 3 times as productive and be worth $45/hour, I could make an ok living here, in the US. So far it's working. However, the Argentineans are better than the Indians. It's becoming more difficult to compete with them. However, Argentineans are limited in number.

We can't ignore that the part of the world is becoming as skilled as us and we'll need to compete.

I still can't believe Ron Paul named his son after an intellectually inept philosopher.
#1 | Posted by taxman

You are right comrade, he should have named him Karl ater the great Marx.

Sincerely

The Left

I believe in some protectionism but I was just surprised that a Libertarian would be also.

#10 | Posted by danni

Probably because he's not a protectionist.

#15 | Posted by mitch at 2010-03-17 11:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

Right, because if you think Ayn Rand was simple minded you automatically believe Marx was a genius.

Nice logic there, brainiac. Just supports my theory regarding Paul and his supporters.

We can't ignore that the part of the world is becoming as skilled as us and we'll need to compete.

#14 | Posted by Eddie at 2010-03-17 11:02 AM

We can't ignore that the part of the world is becoming as skilled as us and we'll need to compete.

Agreed, but when China is manipulating its currency, it's even harder to compete.

We can't ignore that the part of the world is becoming as skilled as us and we'll need to compete.

Agreed, but when China is manipulating its currency, it's even harder to compete.

#19 | Posted by taxman

And we don't?

And we don't?

Are you saying we do?

Uh oh. A coherent post from Eddie. This is going to be a long day.

#18 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Perhaps you're letting loose and transcending?

It happens.

Welcome to the light...

And we don't?

Are you saying we do?

#21 | Posted by taxman

If you are saying that routinely expanding the supply of the world's reserve currency is not manipulating, then I'm not going to say we do...

#23 | Posted by Eddie at 2010-03-17 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

What I am saying is that China has pegged its currency to the US dollar and refuses to allow it to appreciate knowing it allows Chinese goods to be purchased on the cheap in essence artificially creating a trade disparity.

#24 | Posted by taxman

I am not arguing with that.

Perhaps you're letting loose and transcending?

It happens.

Welcome to the light...

#22 | Posted by Eddie at 2010-03-17 11:43 AM

Smart Dems should start using these issues as the 2010 campaign begins, Obama needs to get on board too. Free Trade has been a disaster and it seems only the leaders of the country haven't realized it yet.

Obama did get on board...He used NAFTA as a political football and lied to the American people about repealing it. Of course when the Canadians got wind of it, he sent Goolsbee to let Canada know there was nothing to worry about.

I'm sure Ron and Rue must be proud.

#27 | POSTED BY CBOB

Rand Paul went to DUKE?!?!?!?

The guy doesn't stand a chance in hell. LOL

When are industries were booming, we were producing something good and working hard to do so

That was back at the height of the unionized work force. Before massive automation of production. Back when the difference between product producers and CEOs was much smaller. And jobs weren't being outsourced to the cheapest country. I guess you're saying America only works when Americans work. Can't argue that.

As for competing, 80,000 Chinese workers died in industrial accidents last year. (at least the ones reported) Probably 10X that many are quietly kicking ff from industrial diseases. And this is the paradise libertarians want-virtually no regulations, unions or oversight.

yeah, sure JJ, you can say the root cause is lack of competitiveness. I can't argue with that. $2/hr can never compete with $20/hr so the jig is up and there's nothing we can do.

China can fix its currency exchange rate but we can't, Brazil can impose tarrifs but we can't. All we can do is mouth Aynn Rand's bullshit until Wall Street is rich enough and everyone else is dead.

We can not have free trade if othe country's governments are involved in their economies. We will only have free trade when there is smaller government across the board and invidduals around the world, not trade ministers and lobbyest, decide what to trade without government restriction.

I think we need reciprocal free trade. Let's have free trade with countries that are not protectionist.

Also we need to have American leaders who worry about American insterest only. The idea that we can not push the Chinese regarding their currency because want to bring people out of poverty is ridiculous. We are in America, we don't give a crap about the internal politics of other countries. It's time Americans leaders put America first and only.

Speaking of trade imabalances: in a bi-partisan effort, more than 100 members of Congress called on the Obama administration to label China a currency manipulator.

www.ft.com

#4 | Posted by taxman

Caaaarrrreeeffffuuul--you do not want to tick off your banker too much----he might take away your credit. This is the pot calling the kettle black. We're debasing our dollar like crazy, printing money all over the place (1 trillion plus a year) and we have the temerity to tell them how to run their monetary ploicy---the thieves in congress want to print all the money they want and then try to tell other nations to appreciate their currencies. The U.S. is no longer the big bad wolf and China just snickers when we huff and puff. All the Chinese have to do is intimate they're going to unload their U.S. treasuries and we would be deadmeat. The race to the bottom by currencies has begun and only will pick up steam---it'll be extremely interesting to watch.

So total public debt is 12 trillion and china owns 772 billion of it.

Matsop I am not quite sure I would call them our bankers. In fact for the most part the fed is our bankers with the FED and other government institutions holding 6 trillion of the debt. Our total foreign debt is only about 3 trillon. So yes China is our biggest foreign banker but only to a tune of 1/15th of the total debt.

Part of the reason I say get rid of the fed. If we wiped out the debt held by the federal reserve we would suddenly find ourselves in a much stronger position in terms of debt and interest payments.

Part of the reason I say get rid of the fed. If we wiped out the debt held by the federal reserve we would suddenly find ourselves in a much stronger position in terms of debt and interest payments.

#36 | Posted by TaoWarrior

It's great to hear someone else talk about getting rid of the Fed---however, if we got rid of them acutely, the dollar would plunge and all the bad paper would still be present and the banks would be history---the problem with the potential of the Chinese pulling out of treasuries is that the fed would have to pick up the difference and quantitative easing and deficits would increase even more. Also, if China pulls out, Japan (big lender) and others will head for the exits as fast as they can move their fannies.

The chinese will raise their currency slowly---they'll do it as they pull out of our treasuries---why would they do it now and watch the value of their investment in our treasuries decrease 25+ percent---they're too smart for that.

I am very happy to see Rand doing so well. I have been steadily donating money to him and will continue to do so. Having him in the Senate will be a major deal.

Win, Rand, Win!!!

Actually, the Paul's are a couple of only a handful of semi-reasonable Republicans.

Actually, the Paul's are a couple of only a handful of semi-reasonable Republicans.

#41 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

And democrats?

Libertarian economics doesn't work. Reagan and Nixon reverted to Keynes the minute their reelection was on the line, meaning neither believed what they said.

But the Paul's are honest, they believe what they say, they don't deliberately bullshit us or dodge questions. This puts them into a small group of our most important politicians.

Mitch, who is the US's largest trading partner?

No fair using the google.

As for competing, 80,000 Chinese workers died in industrial accidents last year. (at least the ones reported) Probably 10X that many are quietly kicking ff from industrial diseases. And this is the paradise libertarians want-virtually no regulations, unions or oversight.

#31 | Posted by northguy3

Or you could have the unions, the regulation... and , what? No jobs...

You're a little too naive, aren't you?

Actually, the Paul's are a couple of only a handful of semi-reasonable Republicans.

#41 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

How many "Resonable" Democrats are there?

There's one, Kucinich.

Can't say that there are many more than that.

So, you're calling one of the most 'liberal' Congressmen 'resonable' (sic)?

Sanity has arrived in EDDIE's head!! LOL

I still can't believe Ron Paul named his son after an intellectually inept philosopher.

no, he named him after a corporation.
The RAND Corporation (Research ANd Development) is a nonprofit global policy think tank first formed to offer research and analysis to the United States armed forces by Douglas Aircraft Company. It is currently financed by the U.S. government, a private endowment, corporations, including the healthcare industry, universities and private individuals.

Leaving aside the obvious that either Rand Paul or Greyson would be a marked improvement over Jim "Wotta Silly Bunt" Bunning Spud finds it interesting that Rand chose to announce his candidacy on the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC.

Spud appreciates Paul's commitment to tax reform and fiscally conservative sanity and if forced to decide between the two would prolly go fer RP over Greyson.

The fact that he's also an eye doctor played only a minimal part in that decision.

The Eyes have it.

Be Well.

I still can't believe Ron Paul named his son after an intellectually inept philosopher.

~Taxman

no, he named him after a corporation.

~Ichiro

So, you're calling one of the most 'liberal' Congressmen 'resonable' (sic)?

As a libertarian, I agree with his statement. While I certainly do not agree with everything Kucinich says, there is plenty I do agree with.

Go Rand!

no, he named him after a corporation.
The RAND Corporation
#48 | Posted by ichiro

If you're going to joke about something, then be sure it's funny...

Why would someone name his kid after something he's been fighting against for his entire career?

Personally, Spud thinks Ayn Rand was a half-baked philosopher with a lifetime crush on raw power and a very limited understanding of the inter-connectedness of all things.

#50 | Posted by dethspud

Why does the Left ridicule things they don't understand or worse, the truth that threatens their beliefs?

I guess it's a natural response... Muslims will kill someone who dis' their religion.

Why does Ayn Rand piss you guys off so much?

I think that Karl Marx is a smart guy and had a good "Vision" for humanity, however, we all know how that worked out. Does it piss you off because you refuse to believe that mankind needs time (perhaps another millennium) to get there?