# The Media Treatment of Rand Paul - Knee Jerk Reactionism by Mental Midgets **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 23, 2010, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445 "2010-05-23T08:12:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/121 "2010-05-24T03:43:50Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I don’t know what it is either, and that’s after reading through his campaign materials. So I think it’s safe to conclude that whatever his position is, it is nowhere close to the top of his priorities. Which is hard to reconcile with his otherwise hardcore libertarianism, given the huge scope and impact of the drug war compared to his other priorities (e.g. voluntary funding of the United Nations). Its funny how some people are really hardcore libertarian when it comes to letting people be racist and letting rich folks take advantage of poor folks but when it comes to stuff like gay marriage or pot… not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/122 "2010-05-24T03:46:41Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK. Let me further add that it wouldn’t surprise me if he prioritized issues by their practicality and popularity. Bashing the UN is pretty popular in many parts of the US. Legalizing drugs isn’t popular in very many places. How about just pot? ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/123 "2010-05-24T03:49:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Pretty simple, you don’t spend more than you take in in revenue. Like any responsible American household. This makes perfect sense… if you actually think that every American household pays for everything (home, cars, furniture, college, etc.) with cash instead of credit. And if you think that, well, you are a moron. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/124 "2010-05-24T03:56:25Z")
> [@Frostillicus](#): > > This makes perfect sense… if you actually think that every American household pays for everything (home, cars, furniture, college, etc.) with cash instead of credit. And if you think that, well, you are a moron. You’re not allowed to insult other users in this forum even if you phrase it as a conditional. Please don’t do this again. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/125 "2010-05-24T04:06:31Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > As I get older, the answer becomes simpler - use the biggest, most massive one, because they have the largest print font. The vision here is getting worse and worse 😃 Well between books on tape and the ipod, I look forward to the day when I can hear the bible verses being recited in random order. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/126 "2010-05-24T04:07:42Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > Well if you ignore those people who were engaged in transactions in which supply and demand set prices, then I guess there were no examples of the invisible hand. Aside from that Mrs Lincoln, how was the play? They were a minority who were looked down upon, who didn’t start corporations, and couldn’t take loans. One single component of the free market, taking place among a few ignored souls and repressed, is not the same thing as the free market. A piece of the puzzle and the full puzzle are disparate things. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/127 "2010-05-24T04:15:11Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Its funny how some people are really hardcore libertarian when it comes to letting people be racist and letting rich folks take advantage of poor folks but when it comes to stuff like gay marriage or pot… not so much. This kind of gets back to my question in the other Rand Paul thread of why Libertarians and hardcore racists are so often inseparable fellow travelers. You’d think there would be some separation between the hardcore conservatism of most racists, and the (hypothetical) Libertarian position of allowing people a relatively free hand to determine their own moral postures, but scratch many claiming to be Tea Party Libertarians and there’s often a die hard racist underneath. Why does this paring occur so often? ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/128 "2010-05-24T04:49:35Z")
> [@astro](#): > > This kind of gets back to my question in the other Rand Paul thread of why Libertarians and hardcore racists are so often inseparable fellow travelers. You’d think there would be some separation between the hardcore conservatism of most racists, and the (hypothetical) Libertarian position of allowing people a relatively free hand to determine their own moral postures, but scratch many claiming to be Tea Party Libertarians and there’s often a die hard racist underneath. > > Why does this paring occur so often? Hardcore racists tend to be idiots. The free-marketeers find them easy to demagogue by convincing them that government is only interested in benefiting poor minorities (or Jew bankers) at the expense of economic opportunity for regular Americans. The government enacts social legislation that they disagree with, so obviously the government can’t get anything right. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/129 "2010-05-24T05:21:23Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Trust me, I’d rather have you convince me. > [@](#): > > Here’s what you need to understand. Obama has been bred and pampered for this job for a long time. I would never claim that Harvard is not a good school, but it as well as Princeton and Yale are merely political stepping stones for power in this country. Bush went to Harvard, for Christ’s sake! All presidents go to one of these three schools. Nearly all Supreme Court justices do. And many members of Congress and the Senate as well. Half the people I know have a degree somewhere along the line from one of these schools and none of them have been elected President, heck I know a guy that went to ALL these schools and he teaches for a living. Did you know that if you go to Japan, almost every business executive or political heavyweight graduated from a single school. Same in Korea, China, and a host of other countries. > [@](#): > > 1. Bailouts Just like Bush’s invasion of Iraq, it was constitutional but unlike Bush’s invasion of Iraq the bailouts were necessary. > [@](#): > > Back in October 2008, the CATO Institute looks at the constitutionality of the auto bailouts. After exploring the fact that the government “created this crisis with everything from artificially low interest rates to political pressures for affordable housing, quick loans for bad credit risks, and the subsidization of agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I think we have had this conversation about fannie and freddie and their role in this entire debacle and I think you lose before you start. Fannie and Freddie were problems but they were not the cause of the problem. I am sitting in the eye of the hurricane and I can tell you a few things: Fraud played a HUGE part in all of this. The banks that securitized this stuff KNEw that fraud was rampant. The funds that bought this stuff had SOME idea that fraud was rampant. The rating agencies SHOULD have known that fraud was rampant. Noone cared because they were making too busy making money. There are three specific items that I would like to address here: No doc (or stated income) loans: were originally meant for small businessmen who chose their own income by deciding how much they wanted to take out of their business and the town banker knew their business well enough to know that they could afford a frikking house. They were also used by folks who were cheating on their taxes but the banker knew had assets and could make payments. There was enough history with these mortgages to give bankers a feeling for how these mortgages performed. The some bankers said “hey iwe could sell a lot more of these if we don’t limit these loans to people who we know actually have the money, lets make them available to anyone who claims to have enough money” and then they were shocked SHOCKED when these mortgages didn’t behave the same way that the original no doc loans behaved. Subprime mortgages: People have been lending to people who didn’t meet fannie and freddie standards for a long time,they just charged them more because fannie and freddie wouldn’t buy them. Then the CRA came along and Fannie and Freddie suddenly started buying subprime mortgage but this didn’t mean all bets were off. They were buying mortgages for borrowers who had subprime credit but otherwise met the income requirements and the debt equity ratios. After 25 years of experience, wall street was able to compile enough statistics on subprime borrowers to give them an understanding of how subprime mortgages reacted through good times (e.g. the mid to late 90’s) and bad (the late 80’s early 90’s). Then they somehow reached the conclusion that the same results could be achieved even if you didn’t apply the same formula, so they started selling NO DOC subprime mortgages and were shocked, SHOCKED when they didn’t react the same way that subprime mortgages with income and down payment requirements. Reverse amortization mortgages: These mortgages hearken back to the days when inflation was high and rising and people wanted ARMs because the interst rates were in the double digits, but they also wanted protection from having their payments rise too quickly so lenders would cap the rate at which the mortgage payment could rise but not the rate at which the underlying interest rate could rise. So when the underlying interest rate rose faster than the payment cap would allow you have reverse amortization going on. There was enough data on these mortgages for bankers to get some idea of how these mortgages performed. Then some bankers said “hey lets start them off in reverse amortization status and forget about the down payment or income verification” and then they were shocked SHOCKED when they didn’t act the same way as the mortgages they had based all their models on. Now there was certainly pressure from the libruls to make mortgages available to poor people. Libruls had been beating that drum for decades through 40 years of Democrats controlling both houses of congress. Well, they waited until there was a Republican house, senate and President before they finally gave in and started giving out subprime loans en masse. It weird how that happened. > [@](#): > > Levy then discusses the rationale of using the commerce clause to legitimize the spending, but he clearly decides that any reasoning for this position is a misinterpretation. And why do you think Levy’s opinion wold convince anyone? What does his opinion prove? > [@](#): > > [Moreover, it is not a commerce clause argument to say that Congress created the mess and, therefore, Congress can do whatever it wants to fix the mess. I think the commerce clause argument is based on how big the frikking problem had become. > [@](#): > > Indeed, the bailout quite clearly violates the Constitution’s separation-of-powers principle-in particular, what has become known as the nondelegation doctrine, which states that Congress may not delegate its legislative power to any other entity, including the Cabinet departments of the executive branch….A plain reading of that text shows that lawmaking is for the legislative branch, which does not include the Treasury Department. And yet the treasury department has been regulations with legislative authority since at least 1913 when the IRS was created and congress passed laws that specifically instructed the Secretary of treasury to write regulations that would have the force of law. I think the same probably holds true for other departments where congress has specifically instructed the secretary of some department or another to issue regulations that will fill in the details. > [@](#): > > 1. Supreme Court > President Obama has expressed his desire to see his Supreme Court nominees embrace “empathy” in their decisions and opinions. Nevermind the the oath that a Justice swears to (yadda yadda yadda) How is that desire unconstitutional? > [@](#): > > Additionally, if the President keeps his oath of office, he will not require a Justice who uses “empathy” to decide a case, because empathy is unconstitutional and unfit for the U.S. Supreme Court: Wut? > [@](#): > > The only way for the Constitution to take a breath is through an amendment. There is no other way. Outside of amendments, the Constitution is ageless, and it awaits it’s use as a service to all Americans, but not at the whim of an activist Judge. > Interpreting the Constitution as a “living, breathing document without amendments, renders it practically impotent, because it no longer has the power to protect our rights. Unfortunately the opinions of the justices of the supreme court differ from yours. As does the most famous of the libertarian judges, Judge Posner in chicago: “A constitution that did not invalidate so offensive, oppressive, probably undemocratic, and sectarian law [as the Connecticut law banning contraceptives] would stand revealed as containing major gaps. Maybe that is the nature of our, or perhaps any, written Constitution; but yet, perhaps the courts are authorized to plug at least the most glaring gaps. Does anyone really believe, in his heart of hearts, that the Constitution should be interpreted so literally as to authorize every conceivable law that would not violate a specific constitutional clause? This would mean that a state could require everyone to marry, or to have intercourse at least once a month, or it could take away every couple’s second child and place it in a foster home… We find it reassuring to think that the courts stand between us and legislative tyranny even if a particular form of tyranny was not foreseen and expressly forbidden by framers of the Constitution.” 1. The Czars The appointment of the many “czars” by the Obama administration are unconstitutional. [/quote] How? They derive their power from the executive and do not have any legislative or article 3 judicial authority. > [@](#): > > Here’s the problem with Czars. They report to no one but Barack Obama. Exactly and they cannot exercise power that they do not derive from the President. > [@](#): > > these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress neither is the white house chief of staff. What’s your point? > [@](#): > > 1. Government ownership in private business > The seizure of ownership of private business is unconstitutional. The government ownership of GM is unconstitutional. We’ve beat this horse to the ground. No need to say more. Youngstown steel combined with we paid at least market price = whats the constitutional problem again? > [@](#): > > 1. Redistribution of Wealth > Engineering the redistribution of wealth in the GM stock debacle is unconstitutional. I’m not sure I have the latest figures, but nevertheless, it’s not good for shareholders who I believe end up with 10 percent of their investment or five cents on the dollar. The government gets 50 percent of the stock, about 87 cents on the dollar. The Unions get 40 percent ownership, plus $10 billion in cash – about 76 cents on the dollar. Doesn’t this make you want to throw-up and then find a quiet spot and grieve for our country? You mean the shareholders who were going to get ZERO nada zilch if GM went bankrupt? Thats sounds like ignorance or false outrage. > [@](#): > > 1. Health Care > Obama’s health care plan is unconstitutional. The first thing that comes to mind is his plan to pay for his health care plan by taxing the wealthy to pay for it. Redistribution of wealth is unconstitutional in America. Says who? We have a constitutional amendment that specifically allows taxation (which has been progressive since the first day we had an income tax). > [@](#): > > In the fall of 2008, Obama told Tom Brokaw that health care “should be a right for every American.” The Constitution says nothing about guaranteeing health care. The Constitution doesn’t say anything about national highways, a standing army, or an air traffic control system either, why aren’t they unconstitutional? > [@](#): > > Ron Paul is a constitutional law scholar. Nah, he’s just nucking futz. Obama is probably not what I wold call a constitutional scholar but as someone that taught con law at chicago, he is a much closer to that definition that someone who parses through the constitution to find an interpretation that supports their beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/130 "2010-05-24T05:25:00Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > He is playing more politics than I would like, but I will take what I can get. Politics is a messy game. Weren’t you in favor of rand paul in part because of his intellectual honesty? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/131 "2010-05-24T05:33:18Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > No they don’t. If I let the poor starve because I refuse to feed them that isn’t murder. If I refuse to provide life support for a fetus, that isn’t murder. Yeah, unless you get someone to stick a sharp object into them so that they die. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/132 "2010-05-24T05:34:50Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > The invisible hand has only been working since about 1800 and racism has significantly decreased in that time period. I’m pretty sure the “invisible hand” has always been there. The law of supply and demand has been around before someone wrote about it just like the law of gravity existed before Newton. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/133 "2010-05-24T05:36:43Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think it’s fair to say that the “invisible hand” was tolerated in in a limited fashion until Adam Smith convinced enough people that it should be encouraged and not discouraged. And even then, the acceptance was still spotty. Allowing prices and wages to be set by the market and working towards lower (or no) tariffs are all relatively modern ideas that would have seemed crazy to people in earlier times. Tell that to the merchants and traders. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/134 "2010-05-24T05:51:04Z")
“The Catholic and the Communist are alike in assuming that an opponent cannot be both honest and intelligent.” – George Orwell I guess now we can add the Libertarian to that list. ---
**Author:** ![Dante\_Fevah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Dante\_Fevah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dante_Fevah)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/135 "2010-05-24T06:08:35Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > You’re mistaken in that people disagree with you out of ignorance about libertarianism. We disagree because we know enough about libertarianism to reject it. I don’t have to read a book about homeopathy to know it is junk science. thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/136 "2010-05-24T07:07:35Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I’m pretty sure the “invisible hand” has always been there. The law of supply and demand has been around before someone wrote about it just like the law of gravity existed before Newton. Supply and demand was irrelevant in most of history. People didn’t produce things for self-interest or profit. Without social mobility that’s impossible. Without private property that’s impossible. Saying, “If you let people do as they want, it will turn out well.” May make it seem like it all could have happened at any time, but people weren’t allowed to do as they were inclined to for nearly all of human history. Proscriptions on wealth and loans, class systems, feudal rivalry, etc. all stopped a free market just as dead as Communism. If anything, Communist Russia was closer to the state of the world from the time of Ancient Egypt to the Renaissance than it was to a modern economy. People produced for the state in return for military protection, if they didn’t produce, they were forced, and everything they did produce was taken and shipped around based on gaining position and favors rather than based on need. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/137 "2010-05-24T09:23:27Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Supply and demand was irrelevant in most of history. People didn’t produce things for self-interest or profit. Without social mobility that’s impossible. Without private property that’s impossible. Saying, “If you let people do as they want, it will turn out well.” May make it seem like it all could have happened at any time, but people weren’t allowed to do as they were inclined to for nearly all of human history. Proscriptions on wealth and loans, class systems, feudal rivalry, etc. all stopped a free market just as dead as Communism. If anything, Communist Russia was closer to the state of the world from the time of Ancient Egypt to the Renaissance than it was to a modern economy. People produced for the state in return for military protection, if they didn’t produce, they were forced, and everything they did produce was taken and shipped around based on gaining position and favors rather than based on need. Fortunately for my PhD research program into the political economy of ancient states, this is quite thoroughly wrong. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/138 "2010-05-24T09:31:53Z")
Appeal to Authority plus internet-claims to specialized real world experience. Neat. You might want to try to argue your point with evidence and reason rather than claiming credentials on an anonymous message board. Hell, I think **Sage Rat** is wrong, but “Trust me. I’m an internet expert.” just doesn’t have the oomph that an actual cogent argument does. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/139 "2010-05-24T09:41:57Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > Fortunately for my PhD research program into the political economy of ancient states, this is quite thoroughly wrong. The qualities of ancients are generally drummed up as more significant than they are. You can look at the complex mechanisms of Ancient Greece and say that they were technically advanced, but the fact is that no one took those devices, took out a loan and capital, formed a production line, and started selling things on the open market. They were curiosities and nothing more. The potential for being a technically advanced state and actually being one are entirely different things. And anyways, how exactly do you intend for me to sum up the myriad differences in the local markets of thousands of nations over a period of 30,000 years and be particularly accurate? Outside of giving a quick and general coverage of subsistence farming, mercantilism, and serfdom, what more do you expect me to say to demonstrate some of the key differences between ancient economies and modern? If you want to write something, go ahead. But if your conclusion is that modern banking, meritocracy, modern ideas of ownership, and the idea of the mutual benefit of trade were all **common** , **widespread** among the general population, and **appearing all together in the same place** through history, I’d want to see some pretty damn good cites. But so far as I’m aware, and to which the Wikipedia agrees, Capitalism didn’t start to form until starting around the 16th century, and certainly didn’t reach something like a completed form until the 18th century. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/140 "2010-05-24T10:20:36Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Appeal to Authority plus internet-claims to specialized real world experience. Neat. > You might want to try to argue your point with evidence and reason rather than claiming credentials on an anonymous message board. Hell, I think **Sage Rat** is wrong, but “Trust me. I’m an internet expert.” just doesn’t have the oomph that an actual cogent argument does. He made a sweeping assertion. I denied it in a sweeping way. Some claims can be met with argument, while others deserve little more than abject dismissal. This claim happens to be in the latter category. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > The qualities of ancients are generally drummed up as more significant than they are. How do you know? > [@](#): > > You can look at the complex mechanisms of Ancient Greece and say that they were technically advanced, but the fact is that no one took those devices, took out a loan and capital, formed a production line, and started selling things on the open market. They were curiosities and nothing more. The potential for being a technically advanced state and actually being one are entirely different things. By “Ancient Greece” I am going to assume that you mean classical Athens. This is not my specialty, but I can certainly give you some immediate counterexamples off the top of my head. The rhetor Demosthenes owned a shield factory in Athens that employed over 100 people. He produced shields not for his own consumption but for the market. There are large numbers of loan and credit documents from Athens alone. Paul Millett, whose work I don’t ordinarily love, wrote a book about Athenian lending and credit instruments about fifteen years ago. There is substantial extant Athenian law on business parternships, liability, and debt. A recent Law & Economics [article](http://www.springerlink.com/content/u074402uur08q367/) argues the following: > [@](#): > > In this paper, we formulate for the first time the Persian–Athenian conflict of the fifth century as a signaling game. A specific approach to path dependence and regime change is presented. Following the successful outcome for Athens, it was transformed into a seapower. This again resulted in the fourth century into an unparalleled change of the Athenian economy, which shows a number of characteristics that makes us call it the first “modern” economy. We analyze the sectorial structure of the Athenian economy, its trade pattern, contribution to employment/GDP, tax system, banking and services and the emergence of new organization forms like private banks, joint-stock companies and offshore services. > [@](#): > > And anyways, how exactly do you intend for me to sum up the myriad differences in the local markets of thousands of nations over a period of 30,000 years and be particularly accurate? Easy. Don’t. If you are going to be completely wrong, then perhaps your summing up has little value. > [@](#): > > Outside of giving a quick and general coverage of subsistence farming, mercantilism, and serfdom, what more do you expect me to say to demonstrate some of the key differences between ancient economies and modern? If you want to write something, go ahead. But if your conclusion is that modern banking, meritocracy, modern ideas of ownership, and the idea of the mutual benefit of trade were all **common** , **widespread** among the general population, and **appearing all together in the same place** through history, I’d want to see some pretty damn good cites. You are backpedaling. Your original claim was that “supply and demand was irrelevant”, “people didn’t produce things for self-interest or profit”, etc. Do you not feel this way any longer? It is self-evidently true that ancient economies were different and that they were not “modern”. But we have a great deal of evidence for trade networks throughout many ancient states. The first case that comes to mind is for the Roman _terra sigillata_. This stuff was mass-produced pottery that turns up all over the empire and beyond, all fashioned in exactly the same way. But chemical analysis of the pots themselves reveal that these pots were not only traded widely but also produced locally for some provincial markets. The patterns of trade and manufacture for these objects was quite complicated. Closer to my own research is agriculture in Roman Egypt. Wine was produced in Egypt, Gaul, and elsewhere largely as a cash crop. Even grain producers in Egypt, to great popular discontent, preferred to let their grain rot in storage than sell at an undesirable price. Ideas of ownership were complicated and are often difficult to extract from the surviving documents. I’m writing an article on property rights now in Roman Egypt, incidentally. The short answer is that our best guess is that at least half of the land in Egypt by the second century AD was private, and that its cultivators owned not only the income stream that the land could produce but the land itself. The rest was a form of public land, whose owners competed on a more or less open labor market to find tenant farmers. Inducements to work land could include the payment of rent in advance, a preferred interest rate on seed loans than one could ordinarily get in the open market, the landlord’s guaranteed investment in immovable factors of production, etc. If you happen to be interested in reading actual lease & moneylending documents, well, they are out there and are available in digital repositories on the internet. I can certainly make some suggestions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445.md?page=8)