Yeah - that’s my point. Ron Paul is heavily invested in gold. Ron Paul’s economic policy just so happens to be one that will substantially raise the price of gold.
Funny, a lot of Paul’s supporters seem to have holdings in the metal as well.
Just as an aside: anybody else remember the thalidomide tragedy? That drug didn’t make it through FDA testing, and the U.S. was mostly spared the effects that folks suffered in Europe.
Ok I’ll buy that. So do you believe the current reserve system to be a-ok? Doesn’t it make war funding more easy? What about all the conflicts of interest among members of the board?
I don’t think the reserve is inherently evil. I just believe it has been put to use for evil purposes.
Anyway. What is the harm of introducing competition. If the public chooses to stick with reserve notes let them.
My only qualms are that he is not more explicit about exactly what he wants to replace the Federal Reserve structure with and the fact that he does not eliminate affirmative action.
Such as? Can you stop speaking in vague pronouncements and say something meaningful? It’s rather hard to have a debate when it’s not at all clear what your position is beyond “things I don’t like are evil”.
I’m betting he disagrees with the cheap money policies under Bernanke, and thinks the deflation-fearing rock-bottom interest rates led to more borrowing and debt - and thus our precarious balance sheet.
Well, let’s get specific. Who should you give more credence to, an FDA expert panel or Merck? Who is more likely to give you factual, unbiased information, the CDC or www.whale.to?
Rational people tend to find those choices very easy to make.
It’s not a matter of “trusting” a nebulous, scary entity like The Government. In the instances I cited, it’s the value of having well-trained scientists working in the public interest who have the tools to evaluate research and health claims (difficult for those without such expertise) and enable us to choose optimal medical therapy and minimize fraud.
By the way, “doing your own research” is one of the all-time most misused phrases among alternative medicine proponents. What it means in practice is “surfing the Internet for rants and testimonials by people who think like me, while ignoring inconvenient facts from expert sources”.
Yes, of course it makes war funding more easy. It also makes peace funding more easy. In short, it makes funding of anything more easy. Are you seriously arguing that the world would be better if it were harder to fund everything?
Actually, that would seem consistent with libertarian principles. You can limit government power by making it hard for it to spend any money on anything.
However, it seems unlikely he meant to say anything so nuanced.
Except you wouldn’t just be limiting the government’s ability to spend; you’d be limiting everyone’s.
exactly. Cheap money and malinvestment caused our current crisis. right?
Thalidomide was actually approved a few years ago as a treatment for a type of bone marrow cancer, but its use is tightly controlled.
Do you have any idea about how the system works? I’m not an expert, but my wife worked for a drug company as part of an approval process, is a biologist, and is now a medical writer who looks at the data all the time. I know a reasonable amount of statistics.
Is your average person going to have a clue about the statistical validity of studies? is a drug company going to do the study for three years instead of two or with 5,000 people instead of 4,000 unless the FDA is breathing down their necks? Who evaluates the studies? If there are three rating agencies and one of them is in the pocket of the drug companies, how do you stop them from publishing flawed results, and how do you stop the drug companies trumpeting the approval. Sure, eventually the papers might get on it, but how many people are going to die or get sicker for Paul’s paradise?
The problem isn’t corruption, the problem is that there are incentives to take more risks for more profits. I’m eagerly awaiting your response to the point that the bond rating agencies worked the Paul way, and contributed to the meltdown. At least people didn’t die as a direct result of it.
I’ve got a PhD in computer science, I got 800s on my SAT achievement tests, back before they re-normalized them, and I’ve been on Jeopardy - and I sure as hell would trust the FDA over what I could do for myself. Reading and understanding the studies requires specialized knowledge.
Doctors could mostly understand it (though my wife ran into some who had no clue about design of experiments or statistics) but do you think they have time to study each drug they might prescribe? If they see fewer patients they will have to charge more, and that will cost the people far more than the FDA does now, besides being inefficient, besides being dangerous.
Paul is a dangerous lunatic.
Thalidomide is a very useful drug. It is terribly dangerous when used by pregnant women, and this kind of side effect limited to a subpopulation is exactly the kind of thing the drug companies could miss without the proper supervision. Today we are a lot more sensitive about the effects of drugs on fetuses, but there are plenty of other cases out there, no doubt.
This isn’t very subtle, guy. No difference in topic, no difference in writing style, no difference in approach.
I was about to say that you can do better than this, but that’s obviously untrue. You are not, in fact, capable of doing better than this. Which, yet again, comes as no surprise.
This question, I believe, is applicable not just to the issue of FDA approval of medication and review of drug studies, but also to practically every aspect of Paul’s, and most other libertarians’, ideas.
We don’t need the EPA - the market will just clear out the polluters. But how many people will die or get sick, how many acres of land or acre-feet of water will become contaminated, before the magical market accomplishes that feat?
We don’t need the FDA - people will educate themselves, and bad drug companies will be driven out the market by market forces. But how many people will take contaminated drugs, drugs will no utility, drugs with horrific side effects, before that happens? Even WITH the relatively strict controls of the FDA, some of that already happens.
We don’t need taxes - communities will decide how best to meet their own needs. But who determines that roads are built that not only allow the wealthy to travel, but also provide roads that will allow the poor to also be able to participate in community life?
Libertarian ideas, it seems to be, involve sacrificing human lives in the service of an unreachable goal.
Not quite, and that doesn’t follow from what I said. You’re all over the place here. Why not pick one or 2 issues that you understand well, and post a coherent position? As it is it’s impossible to have a debate with you.
By the government? Or by oh so wonderful private industry?
So, in other words, the appropriate alternative to having a bad economy is to have no economy at all? People spending money is exactly what an economy is.
Sarcasm was an adolescent curiosity of mine, since then I’ve opted for a more sincere approach. I apologize if I failed to wow you with my wit.