Ron Paul Being Crazy Again

I agree that leaving things to the experts is a good thing, but even experts are not always right. Until recently, many (most?) expert economists believed that market forces caused markets to be self-correcting. It turns out that it wasn't as simple as that. That said, I'd still prefer to trust experts.

On the subject of education (which I realize you brought up only tangentially), I've never understood the desire in some to abolish the Department of Education. People want local control in education, but perhaps because of the Department of Education, I'm not aware of any state that doesn't control curriculum to at least some degree at the state level. I think that the fact that there is still a debate in parts of this country about whether the theory of evolution ought to be taught in science classes is a pretty good reason not to leave educational decisions entirely under local control. I believe in oversight. (I also believe that can and should [and MUST] do better in teaching the basics .. reading, writing, and arithmetic.)

Carl

I don't believe this! How can we, as Americans, not be behind auditing the fed? In your post you mention protecting the people form big corporations. That is what this bill will do. The fed is a private institution and as such mostly concerned with profit.

As far as the DoE is concerned. Do you see better education coming from public schools or private schools? I think most people will tell you that better education comes from private schools. We are taxed to provide schools and it is a failure in most areas. Does anyone know how much of tax dollars go to what it is collected for? I do not know the number, but I am sure it is inefficient. Just look at social security.

Lastly, what do you trust the most?

Policy made in privacy, or transparently, with regards to responsibility over the public interest?

Or, more basically, would you trust publicly accountable politicians or entrepreneurs granted special powers over their market?

-=T=-

As I said, we already audit the fed. It's very open, actually. The main thing that's not open is the tweaking of interest rates, and this is for a very specific reason–WE DON'T WANT POLITICIANS GETTING THEIR STUPID, GREEDY HANDS IN THAT PROCESS.

Why? Because they'll destroy it out of self-interest.

That is what Congressman Paul's bill will do–it'll give greedy politicians the ability to second-guess experts in monetary policy in the name of their own ignorance and greed.

This is not a good thing.

“Accountable politicians require an intelligent, educated, and engaged population. We don't have one of those.”

That is not a good enough reason for me to stay silent and let self serving businessmen feed their avarice while isolating themselves behind layers of congressional allowances.

Even if their both in bed in a symbiotic relationship, wherein just who is answerable for each situation becomes vague, there isn't a good enough reason to sit down and take everything they can think up for my economy.

To do so is to give up on my rights. If I do that, I deserve whatever they can do to me.

Have you given up?

-=T=-

you are assuming that we should have the fed and leaving out all the harm that interest rate controls (money price controls) have on the economy. Price controls cause shortages or excesses and make it difficult for market actors to make decisions. Price controls on money are no different. Adding zeros to banks accounts to loan out (inflating the money supply) devalues all of the money that normal people have actually worked for and transfers wealth from the normal person to the bankers and government. It is the modern day equivalent of the Romans clipping and debasing coins in order to pay their debts. The Fed/government are stealing money from us in this way and distributing it to whom they will. Pauls strategy is to weaken the Fed so that we can eventually abolish it. We don't need a central body controlling interest rates, just like we don't need a central body controlling how much bread, steel or whatever else we produce.

Actually, on your FDA concern, you also ignore all the good drugs that they keep from the market. As far as safety goes, why couldn't several private companies start up certification/approval systems that consumers came to trust. Drug and food companies would get tested by these independent testing bodies to make them more marketable. Consumers could choose to self-medicate based on whatever amount of knowledge they would want to collect based on their risk preference. The food and drug industry would advance more quickly and be safer because it wouldn't be regulated by a monopoly (FDA). If you don't respect individuals as owners of their bodies, I could see that this wouldn't be acceptable though.