Yeah, sure. So why are you concerned if someone is anti-Paul, rabid or otherwise?
....The fed is wrong, it is unconstitutional and it is not based on capitalism.
LOL! We should let Congress control the supply of money. With Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd, Kennedy, Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, et al, in control what could possibly go wrong?
Do you believe prices were stable before the Fed was created? Because we didn't have booms or busts prior to the Fed?
If you do not believe, no, rather if you do not KNOW this is true, then you are not for the US constitution
This coming from someone who thinks central banking in this country began with the Federal Reserve? Never heard of the Bank of the United States, huh?
you are not for freedom
Are you for or against the ability of free people to freely trade their assets with other people? I mean, without government interference?
....and you are not for Capitalism as it is meant to be practiced and the only way it works, that is to say, without the involvement of the government.
Yeah, no police force to arrest bad guys, no judicial system to adjudicate contract disputes and no military to ensure the free flow of trade around the world. I suppose you are also against antitrust laws. What do you think our economy would look like today without antitrust laws? Do monopolies allow for more freedom or less?
When hyperventilating, I recommend placing a paper bag over your head while breathing slowly.
***LOL! We should let Congress control the supply of money. With Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd, Kennedy, Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, et al, in control what could possibly go wrong?***
He didn’t say that.
***Do you believe prices were stable before the Fed was created? Because we didn’t have booms or busts prior to the Fed?***
We had central banks and centralized banking before the fed and when we didn’t, the government often let banks suspend specie payment taking away their incentive not to expand the money supply through fractional reserve banking.
***Yeah, no police force to arrest bad guys, no judicial system to adjudicate contract disputes and no military to ensure the free flow of trade around the world.***
Police, military, and and a judiciary are necessary to capitalism to prevent fraud, embezzlement, murder, etc. and to protect property rights and ensure contracts. It isn’t capitalism without these things.
***I suppose you are also against antitrust laws. What do you think our economy would look like today without antitrust laws? Do monopolies allow for more freedom or less?***
Anti-trust laws are totally unnecessary. In the free market, a monopoly comes into existence if it can create a better product at a lower price than all its competition (which is rare). That benefits consumers which is why the company takes all the market share. If it starts raising prices, competition will begin to reemerge since at these higher prices, they can now compete again. The monopoly will have to keep prices low or else lose market share.
This assumes of course that the government doesn’t get involved and, say, pass heavy regulations on the industry that the monopoly can afford while those trying to enter the market or small competitors can not afford. That is a monopoly kept alive by government intervention. In essence, the government prevents the market from working. The government can also simply grant legal privilege to a company over a certain industry much like what was done during the depression, although those were cartels.
Cartels can also not exist long on the free market because if a group of firms tries to fix costs, it is always in someone’s interest to lower cost and take market share. Cartels and monopolies can not exist in the free market if they do not benefit consumers, meaning they will be taking losses rather than turning profits.
And most cases of the use of anti-trust law have been against firms that have benefited consumers. Standard Oil, IBM, and Microsoft were hardly guilty of harming consumers (and in any case they didn’t have 100% of the market share).