http://zeitgeistmovie.com/
don't necessarily believe everything the movies say, but this i absolutely agree with: capitalism is a system based on infinite growth on a planet with finite resources
Capitalism is a system based on feedback and voluntary action. The finite resources argument isn't a strong one given glaring examples such as oil, which was virtually worthless to humans only centuries ago, yet once its use was discovered, we suddenly had many more "resources". It isn't as straightforward as what zeitgeist might have one believe and that really isn't a good source for strong or realistic economic theory.
Are you kidding that you haven't said anything about him? read the 1st page of this thread. And its clear you subscribe to this Austrian economics crap.
Care to show me one post where I mentioned the Austrian school or Ron Paul before my response to your post?
I am not here to butt-heads politically- I can care less about the talking points. If you want to do that, find someone else to do it with. If you want to logically discuss economic theory, etc. in a respectful way then I am all ears.
Oh and I posted a Milton Friedman video a page back- not exactly Austrian, huh?
Getting rid of federal student loans would be disastrous. What makes you think banks will be willing the dish out money to pay for peoples education. They haven't been giving out loans for small businesses to stay afloat or people to buy homes.
Banks would make loans on the profit motive. You can't use the current situation as an explanation for not lending- they aren't lending to anyone (ironically because of a bubble fueled by similar easy money policies in housing as you seem to currently support in education) because of the nature of the market and Fed policy.
This article sums up paul's position clearly.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...-blueprint-for-balancing-u-s-budget-view.html
He doesn't care if companies dump in our water and air. It doesnt take a genius to realize that tainted air and water creates health problems and there have been numerous studies to support that. This isn't stuff companies regulate themselves. Even since the industrial revolution the only time pollution has been under control is when countries have stepped in to regulate it.
I am not sure why you are still trying to get me to defend Paul, but I will say that you clearly do not understand the property rights stances in the Austrian school. Either way, I am not saying I support open pollution or something to counter negative externalities.
And getting rid of medicare would leave many seniors without health insurance. You think private insurance companies are going to be willing to insure them. Free market in health care is a bad idea and inherently evil. There are many ways to make medicare solvent like raising taxes on the wealthy, who have done pretty well since the last decade.
Even with massive increases on the wealthy (and at some point you do run into the Laffer curve problem), it can't be solvent infinitely due to its strong reliance on population growth and employment growth. Longer lifespans also do not help.
As for private coverage- this is really something that needs to be slowly phased out and yes, in that case coverage would increase over time. Unfortunately, with the pushback, it probably won't happen- until all the money is gone and the future is stuck with the burden. Sorry, but I am not okay with government fiat insurance for all seniors so that the next generation is born into massive debt.
We can stop spending money in all these foreign entanglements which paul supports.
And herein lies the clearest indication of your ignorance. Paul has undoubtedly been the most anti-war and anti-military-interventionist on the Presidential debate stage FOR BOTH PARTIES for DECADES. The guy wants out of Iraq (which he voted against), wants to pull out of Afghanistan, and out of most other countries (if not all) where we have bases and especially where we are not wanted- Saudi Arabia, Japan, etc. etc. He has publicly criticized most of the GOP and the Democrats including Obama for their relatively pro-war/interventionist agendas.
One thing i dont understand is why as a pre-pharm you would support medicare cuts. Health care would take a huge hit and that wouldn't bode well for pharmacists who are seeing their jobs already in jeopardy because of saturation and all these chains trying to save money.
Well for one, I think medicare hurts pharmacy. Second, I think it hurts the overall health of this nation. Third, it hurts economically. Fourth, I do not believe in the principle of borrowing from my children even before they are born so that I can have some luxury.
Draconian spending cuts might seem like a good idea but when you look at what's being cut it would hurt our economy which is pretty much on life support as it is.
It is arguable. All government money comes from the private sector, after all. A better debt outlook can also be beneficial (Moody's has hinted at a rating cut again recently, by the way). I am not taking any particular position here, but saying it is most definitely arguable and any old spending won't cut it- especially things like the "stimulus". Certain things can also be cut with little negative economic effect.
I suggest that before you try to somewhat aggressively and at times disrespectfully argue anyone's points whether it be mine or a politicians or an economists or whatever, that you actually learn that person's position. Not doing so only hurts your ethos.
