Ron Paul: Inflation is Theft!

Hello, this is Ron Paul with your weekly update
for January 31st. Unemployment continues to plague our economy.
In spite of constant claims that we have just turned the corner into recovery, the jobs
report remains grim with no real signs of improvement. While Keynesian economists and
big government apologists scratch their heads about persistent unemployment in spite of
unprecedented government so-called “investment” in the economy, free-market economists understand
the problem perfectly well. In short, they understand that we are looking to the Federal
Reserve to solve an unemployment crisis that the Fed itself largely created. For example, the Fed is supposed to maintain
full employment as half of its dual mandate. But the Fed simply has the wrong tools to
do this. In fact, its credit expansion and manipulation of interest rates cause harm
when they are applied to “help the economy.” As we saw with the housing boom and bust,
Fed-created inflation cannot be sustained without harmful consequences. The Fed’s artificial
boom led to the unemployment we’re suffering today. The Fed is not a small business or a manufacturer
that creates value or increases productivity to sustain real job growth. It literally destroys
value by printing more money and distributing it through sweetheart deals to well-connected
banks and corporations, including foreign banks. The only success the Fed has had in
maintaining full employment has been on Wall Street, where it props up crony banks and
investment houses to protect them from going bankrupt as they should. Instead they survive
to malinvest another day while their executives enjoy jackpot bonuses. The Fed also pumped up employment in the housing
industry with artificially low interest rates that created an unsustainable demand for housing.
Millions jumped into the sector when the money was loose and the bubble inflated. Besides
the many who bought houses they could not afford and now face foreclosure, there were
also those who became employed in housing-related fields. These people invested time and money
in training and spent years establishing careers in real estate, mortgage lending, construction
and contracting. Careers that all vanished into thin air with the burst of the bubble.
Now they face considerable disruption in their lives as they struggle with unemployment,
underemployment, and decisions about retraining for different careers. This amounts to a tremendous
amount of unnecessary waste that would not have occurred had the housing industry be
allowed to develop naturally according to market demands. Jobs are properly created by entrepreneurs
who are willing to work hard and take calculated risks. Jobs are also created through real
increases in productivity, resulting from real investment profits or conservative borrowing
at market interest rates. But the Fed has made those risks impossible to calculate and
made borrowing money artificially cheap. As a result, economic growth has been chilled
while unemployment skyrockets. Until those in power understand the harm they
do with central economic planning, we will continue to slide backwards and lose jobs.
The Fed needs to stay out of the job-creating business altogether, and the federal government
needs to focus on its constitutional duties. Just when we need government to back off,
we hear about more government intervention in the economy in the form of “more spending”,
only they call it “investment”. It is more properly called “malinvestment”, and the resources
that are funnelled into industries by government policies will only hurt employment more in
the long run. Thanks for calling this update. A new update
is placed on this number, 888-322-1414, every Monday. The written text can be found on my
website under the heading “Texas Straight Talk”. Thanks for calling.

100 thoughts on “Ron Paul: Inflation is Theft!

  1. Golly, what does it take to entice you to run! You are the real voice of America.

    How can we sue this private company? I'm a private comapny and I can get sewed.

  2. Golly, what does it take to entice you to run! You are the real voice of America.

    How can we sue this private company? I'm a private company and I can get sewed.

  3. Excellent video. Remember the financial bailout that nearly every intelligent American was against? Well, when it passed, what you just witnessed is called a Financial Coup D’etat. . Our Democracy has been slowly eroding towards a full-blown Plutocracy. Sometimes I wonder if we haven’t already arrived.

  4. "The only success the FED has had in maintaining full employment has been on Wall Street, where it prompts up crony banks and investment houses, to protect them from going bankrupt as they should.." couldn't said it better.

  5. Well, Ron, you cannot try to simplify the situation by blaming those who wanted to buy houses for the financial crisis. For, the crisis is more than the real estate market. Also, those who bought houses have no say so in what accounts are sold to other banks nor what rates their APR's will increase to every year. It is the "market" that decides that. If you want to blame someone, blame those that control the market.

  6. These bonuses which were funded by stimulus money are the same ones that your party refused to demand repayment of. So, which is worse: Given the money to the banks, or letting them keep it?

  7. Develop naturally through market demands????? Uh, the number of sales in real estate show how the demand was. Are you only addressing this from a business aspect?

  8. Unemployment skyrocketed because businesses looked at layoffs as the most cost-cutting tool available in order to maximize or not fall below project profits.

  9. If the federal gov't stay out of the job creating business, then you are suggesting no regulation. Human nature teaches us that the only way to keep greed from running ramped is to set guidelines, rules, and (dare I say it) regulations to keep everything fair for the consumer.

  10. As they call it? Investing IS spending! How do you invest in something without spending any money at all? No one can invest in the stock market unless they spend money on stocks. Nothing's free!

  11. What about money funnelled into industries by mobsters or drug lords? How about those like the Rockefella's? How about foreign entities? Is it okay for them to funnel money into industry? Why does it only hurt the US when the money comes from gov't?

  12. Your overall point only makes sense when you look at it from a bird's eye view. But, when you get down to street level, it doesn't fit with common sense.

  13. @rpierre777 He blames the Government for PROMOTING home ownership beyond what the market said was feasible. hey did this through the FED keeping interest rates super low (which led banks and individuals to make stupid decisions that would not have been made without the GOVs promotion) as well as the subsidization of Freddie and Fannie.
    And he does blame "those that control the market", because if we had an actual FREE MARKET, this would not occur, because we, the consumer would be in control.

  14. @rpierre777 Well, now you just don't know what you are talking about.

    You are making incorrect inferences.

    He was damn well against the bailouts. but he is also against government getting involved in setting pay rates, or bonus rates, of private companies.

  15. @rpierre777 Try to pay attention… when the government is actively promoting home ownership through artificially low interest rates and subsidization, you get artificially high demand. Thus you get inflated prices since the market reacts to this artificial demand.

    Basic accepted government intervention economics – When you tax something, you get less of it. When you subsidize something, you get more of it.

  16. @rpierre777 No, they do not. Most regulations HURT the consumer… directly though higher prices, indirectly from the negative effect on the job market, as well as requiring more taxes to operate the bureaucratic regulatory bodies.

    The market can regulate far more efficiently than anyone in washington. You need the government to enforce contracts and a court system to litigate lawsuits… that's about it.

  17. @rpierre777 Read the Constitution dude. It's spelled out in there specifically.

    We have issues today because they government exploits the Commerce and General Welfare clauses.

  18. @rpierre777
    I can breakdown any issue you are having trouble understanding. But i can guarantee i know some stuff about you just by your posts.

    1. You have never owned a business or worked in a managerial position where you deal with the finances or regulations of a business
    2. You have limited economic education, with no knowledge about austrian economics.
    3. You think the government does do good, but would be unable to point to any agency/program/unit that does a good, efficient job

  19. @rpierre777 I'm not trying to rip on you. I used to be you! I used to think exactly how you did, because no one ever taught me different or explained that there were other options.

    i thought Government could do a lot of good. If you just got the right smart people together, gave them enough money, we could do almost anything. But the real world doesn't work that way. Government definitely doesn't work that way.

    What works, is a free society where citizens can build their own prosperity.

  20. @Syphalis1 "3. You think the government does do good, but would be unable to point to any agency/program/unit that does a good, efficient job"

    Hmmm….so the fact that people can be incompetent means that the institution of gov't is wrong? Can't the same thing be said about a bank? Yet, I'm pretty sure you have a bank account and "trust" the bank to secure your money….

  21. @Syphalis1 "What works, is a free society where citizens can build their own prosperity."

    But, aren't the people who make up the gov't citizens and members of this same society that can build prosperity? Why does it matter who they work for in building it? How does that change? So, if all govt personnel quit and worked for private companies, THEN they would understand about building prosperity and society would be free? That doesn't make any sense.

  22. @Syphalis1 I am responding to the video. Ron Paul talks about the gov't funneling money in the economy and how wrong it is, but he never address the financial influences on the economy by private corporations, gangs, mobs, or governments of other countries.

  23. @Syphalis1 I have read it. There is nothing in there that shows that the gov't is overstepping its bounds. Just because Paul doesn't like it doesn't make it illegal, or unconstitutional.

  24. 1 ~ @Syphalis1 "Most regulations HURT the consumer… "

    In what way? The gov't don't set the prices of products-companies do in the name of profit. It is regulations that ensure our planes don't fall apart in air. It is regulations that won't allow our food to be sold with parasites and fecal matter all over it. It is regulation that requires a bank to insure your money when you deposit it into your account. It is regulation that says which side of the road you can drive on.

  25. 2 ~ @Syphalis1 "Most regulations HURT the consumer… "

    If you take those away, you hurt the consumer. The only people who benefit from less regulations are the ones trying to increase profits. You mention that we need the govt to enforce contracts. Well, it is regulation that says you are protected in a deal if you have a contract. Contracts are bound by law because the govt made a law that binds it. If not, anyone can legally break the contract by just refusing to honor it.

  26. 4 ~ @Syphalis1 "Most regulations HURT the consumer… "

    If the govt should only enforce contracts and run the court system, who should be responsible for amending and upholding the constituion, securing the borders, overseeing national defense, etc.?

  27. @Syphalis1 No, I'm looking at both. The "symptoms" are the layoffs, which causes suffering for those laid off. The "cause" is the desire to maintain profits. It's like IBM (for example only), if they are are billion dollar a year company (profit focused), would it really hurt them to be a multi-million dollar a year company (profit focused)? No. The only thing that changes is where they stand on the Fortune 500 list. They would still have enough in their payroll to maintain jobs.

  28. @Syphalis1 "you get artificially high demand."

    "Artifical"? Are you suggesting that those who "demanded" a home didn't really want one. They just got it because interest rates were low? Only those with that much extra money buys houses just because rates are low. Most of those people never owned a home and having lower rates was the only way for them to afford it. Banks understand this. That's why they always advertise how low their rates are. Lower rates means higher sales.

  29. @Syphalis1 In what way are my "inferences" incorrect? It is a known fact that AIG paid out bonuses with TARP funds. So, is he against getting the money back? If he is so against the gov't gettting involved, he should be the main one demanding the money back from the private companies. That way, if the companies fail, they fail. And, the tax payers would not have lost a dime. "A tree is known by its fruits."

  30. @Syphalis1 So, a bunch of people working in a bank (the same banks who sold the accounts overseas to make profits) can decide what is feasible for the average citizen on the basis of what…? He can't blame the gov't because a bank chose to sell a house to someone who didn't qualify for it. That's the fault of the person who reviewed the mortgage app. They are the ones who made the decision-regardless of why the consumer applied.

  31. @Syphalis1 If I walked into a bank right now (which anyone could have done BEFORE Freddie and Fannie existed) and filled out a mortgage app for a house that costs $50M, the bank is responsible for deciding whether they will approve it or not. If they approve it (unless someone can show me that the gov't REQUIRED them to approve all apps) then that's on them. Now, if I get this approved app and sign the dotted line, then it falls on me for signing it knowing it's out of my budget.

  32. 1 ~ @Syphalis1 "if we had an actual FREE MARKET, this would not occur, because we, the consumer would be in control."

    That's assuming that the seller would do the right thing. Retailers set their prices based on 2 main things: competition and profits. Having a free market won't make the consumer in charges of setting prices. If the market was truly "free" you still couldn't buy a jaguar for $15K. The consumer would NOT have that much control over the economy.

  33. 2 ~ @Syphalis1 "if we had an actual FREE MARKET, this would not occur, because we, the consumer would be in control."

    The consumer being in control means that the consumer can buy whatever they wanted because the decision would be theirs. So, do you mean the consumer would be in charge, or the businesses?

  34. @rpierre777 Yes, the role that our government plays is wrong, because of the natural falliablity of an unnaccountable institution that size.

    And no, I do not have a bank account. I use a credit union that I researched. I do not trust banks because of their illegal ties to the Government and the extreme moral hazard that was created when the feds "Bailed them Out" and how the FED continues to help them out with ridiculously low interest rates. Banks will almost always try to screw you over.

  35. @rpierre777 Why? I am simply inferring based on your statements. They express a misunderstanding of how businesses and regulators operate.

  36. @rpierre777 Your reply to my comment on the consumers shows a rudimentary lack of knowledge concerning true free market operations.

  37. @rpierre777 When you enter government, you are no longer a private citizens. Only private citizens/companies/corporations can create prosperity and grow an economy.

    Government can only help by enforcing contacts, providing the most basic/simplistic forms of regulation, and by providing some infrastructure.

    You see, the government cannot produce anything. By nature they can only take from the private sector.

    The less people employed by the Gov (you need some) the more that can be productive.

  38. @rpierre777 Ok. When the government gets involved in the markets, they distort (go against the forces) of the free market. This is because Gov has no competition and can use force to back up what they do. The easy example of this is how under Clinton and Bush, the Gov decided it was a good idea to encourage people to own homes. So the Gov (& the Federal Reserve) took action with Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae Guaranteeing home loans while artificially reducing interest rates… (cont.)

  39. @rpierre777 This of course led to loans being made to people that the free market would never allow (not enough income, poor credit, no collateral, etc) but since the Gov guaranteed the loans, banks would make them. This became one of the root causes of the financial collapse, once all these guaranteed loans started going bad.
    Now if a private bank (or a bank owned by mobsters?) wanted to do that, they couldn't. Because they would fail. Private business cannot lose money, or they won't exist.

  40. @rpierre777 How can the Government mandate that a free citizen buy a private produced product? Where does it give the federal government the right to wage the war on drugs or to even outlaw drugs? Where does it give the Federal government any power over education, health care, fighting undeclared wars, having a central bank with a Fiat (not backed by anything) money, the TSA, etc.

    The Constitution is specific in that any powers not specifically listed are to be left to the states.

  41. @rpierre777 So you think planes would fall apart if the government wasn't involved? Well, first of all, the government has very little to do with mechanical/functional inspections of planes. They provide the Theater of Safety brought to you by the TSA.

    Ever hear of the Yugo? Named one of the worst cars ever… because it broke down all the time. What happened? People didn't buy it, the company went bankrupt.
    If an airline has a poor safety record, no one would fly them. they would go away.

  42. @rpierre777 And yes, government does set prices. It's the main reason that Healthcare costs have skyrocketed. Notice that costs were always under control until Medicare/Caid was instated, along with it's mandated "price ceilings", leading to extreme inflation in costs across the board.

    Also, I run a restaurant. If my food made people sick, would anyone eat here? It's almost always in a company's best interest to provide safe and quality products/services or consumers would go to competitors.

  43. @rpierre777 And traffic laws are fine… when left to the states. As an example, look at the new push by the federal gov to illegalize texting while driving. Sounds great! Everyone hates when some punk kid is swerving all over cause they are texting. But what do reality and studies show? That states with anti-texting laws have INCREASED risk of death in accidents because people still text, but try to hide it, making it more difficult to see the road.

  44. @rpierre777 Who writes most regulation laws? The biggest corporations or lobbyists in their employ. They agree to regulation because they can afford it and because they know that it will cement them in as the top in their field since regulation often makes it ridiculously difficult for a new startup to enter the market and compete. Thus under the guise of "regulation", we consumers are harmed by limited choices and competition (which naturally lower prices and increase quality).

  45. @rpierre777 Contract enforcement has nothing to do with regulation. It is a spelled out function of government (the judiciary) to enforce legally binding contracts.

  46. @rpierre777 National defense is also a required Constutional duty. But the problem is we go way beyond defense into Militarism. We have an empire with a military greater than all the other nations of the world combined. Is that necessary?

    In Ike's farewell address, he warned in 1961 of the "Military Industrial Complex". That's why today you have the President, Sec Def, and many in congress fighting to kill an unnecessary weapons system supported only by Reps paid by defense contractors.

  47. @rpierre777 Securing the borders is part of national defense. If we stopped our illegal occupations/wars, reduced our empire (We have over 750 bases in over 100 countries… we still have 30000 troops in Germany and Korea respectively!), we could easily secure our borders, still have the strongest military in the world, and save tons of money.

    Congress is responsible for amending the constitution, or representatives if a Constitutional Convention is called.

  48. @Syphalis1 "Your reply to my comment on the consumers shows a rudimentary lack of knowledge concerning true free market operations."

    No, it is from the perspective of the consumer-not the company.

  49. @Syphalis1 A credit union is a bank (at least they consider themselves a bank)….they're just a different type of bank. I use one, too. The size of an entity is irrelevant to falliability and unaccountability (e.g. Berny Maddoff). The true moral hazard is being profit-driven. THAT's what hurts the consumer in the end-whether it's the business or govt personnel.

  50. @Syphalis1 No one loses any rights or priviledges of a private citizen just because they work for the gov't. There are senators and such who owns business that hire people. They just can't pass legislation that is specifically for their own businesses. Now, there are thousands of jobs with the govt, which means they have produced thousands of jobs. How many people that are on the govt's payroll is irrelevant to production. GM won't make more cars if the govt shrink the Dept of Energy.

  51. [email protected] The govt shouldn't be about companies competing. They should be about protecting the consumer. Gas prices rise partly due to competition. (E.g. Exxon goes up by $.03, Shell goes up by $.025) At some point, though, the prices are higher than what the consumer can afford. Competition btw companies is only about prices being comparable with each other. It doesn't care how those prices fit in the budget of those needing the service. So, I don't mind the govt telling a company to keep…

  52. 1 ~ @Syphalis1 …which was a decision by the banks and the purchaser. Also, that statement is based on the assumption that everyone who foreclosed didn't qualify originally to purchase the home. There are a lot of people who foreclosed due to layoffs-not poor credit. Banks have been granting mortgages to many people that should not have gotten a loan due to corrupt realtors. Atlanta, GA, is ranked #1 for the most corrupt realtors in the nation. It isn't always about the govt backing a mortgage.

  53. 2 ~ @Syphalis1 Many private businesses take financial risks and have lost money. Even Trump has admitted he made some real estate mistakes that cost him millions. Yet, he is still in business. In theory, you are correct, but in real life, private businesses can lose money can stay in business. There are private businesses who have had 1-3 years of losses. They replaced the person who they held responsible and bounced back to profits rising. It happens all the time.

  54. @Syphalis1 Yet, it doesn't spell out specifically what those powers are…Are you telling me that you believe your local governor will take the responsibility to ensure that those graduating from high school will have a sufficient level of knowledge to be successful in college, even if it's out of state?

  55. 1 ~ @Syphalis1 "The Constitution is specific in that any powers not specifically listed are to be left to the states."

    So, what are the powers listed? Well, let's look at them as it relates to what you are saying…Congress has the power:

    1) to provide for the general welfare (i.e. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being) of the United States2
    2) To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

  56. 2 ~ @Syphalis1 3) To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    These can be found in Article 1 Section 8 for Powers of Congress. Now, healthcare is about the general welfare of the country. For the war on drugs, the power to wage war does not specify an enemy. So, they can declare war on whomever they deem as one.

  57. @Syphalis1 "So you think planes would fall apart if the government wasn't involved?"

    No, but the manufactures would be free to use the cheapest labor and not put as much of an emphases on safety. This is one reason many companies ship production overseas. There, they can use parts that are lead-filled, torque bolts not properly torqued, sanitation not enforced (employees not required to wash hands before handling food), etc..

  58. @Syphalis1 "Well, first of all, the government has very little to do with mechanical/functional inspections of planes."

    And, they have just as much to do with how much a company produces on their production line. I heard of the Yugo. Have you heard of Ford? It is famously referred to as F.O.R.D.: Found on Road Dead, Fix or Repair Daily. Yet, they are still in business. They modified how they manufacture cars/trucks and they're going strong.

  59. @Syphalis1 "If an airline has a poor safety record, no one would fly them. they would go away."

    Sure, if you find other airlines that are following safety standards. That's where regulation comes in. You don't have to "guess" whether the seats are in good condition. You don't have to worry about whether the engines are working correctly. It's like buying a car. No matter how much research you do, you still sit in the car and check everything out before you buy it.

  60. [email protected] Actually, the only reason a private company increase the cost of their private services due to the installment of Medicare/caid is because they were given the opportunity to administer the programs-thereby increasing their overall overhead. THIS is what led to them increasing their premiums. So, if we remove the private companies out the picture for these programs, their overhead would decrease. Price ceilings are caps on what the patient will pay…

  61. [email protected] …The only reason an insurance company would raise rates due to ceilings is because they are maximizing their profits as quickly as they can (almost in a rebellious mindset) knowing there is a limit on what they can charge. So, they are just trying to reach that limit while hurting the patient in the process.

    People eat at your restaurant not just because they don't get sick, but also, because they know your employees are required by law to wash their hands before handling…

  62. [email protected] …food. They know you are required by law to throw out your food once it has been sitting out for too long. They know you are required to keep the trash away from food preping areas. They know you are required by law to have your cooks follow safe and sanitation standards. That's why those who eat at restaurants look at your inspection grades. That's why restaurants display their "A" grades for customers to see. Why do you think people complain about the products from other…

  63. [email protected] …countries? Because they aren't required to follow any standards. So, there are a lot of people who are skeptical about their products. You know a restaurant isn't required to examine their food for mold or keep their restaurants clean, would you eat there? You know you wouldn't.

  64. @Syphalis1 The anti-texting laws are actually state mandated laws-not federal. That's why it's not in every state. So, the increase in risk of death is a result of state laws. Either way, how people respond to a law is not determined by who made the law. In other words, no one is going to say, "I won't text and drive because the governor said not to, but, if the president tells me not to, then, gosh darn it, I will do it all the time." It won't matter to any kid who want to text while driving.

  65. @Syphalis1 A hotel being required by law to be sanitary has nothing to do with them wanting to keep other hotels from opening as competition. A restaurant being required to maintain a certain level of sanitation has nothing to do with whether someone else can open a restaurant. Anyone can open a restaurant as long as they can meet the standards. It doesn't hinder competition, unless the competition don't want to meet the standard. And, who would want to eat at a place that refuses to be clean?

  66. @Syphalis1 "Is that necessary?"

    You never know whether something is necessary until you need it. I agree that we don't need a military this large, but we cannot cut military spending (to a degree) during a conflict. When the conflict is over (hopefully soon) then we should cut military spending a little.

  67. @rpierre777 You misunderstand the power a consumer possesses in a free market. They are the ultimate regulator. Because corporations NEED consumers to buy their product, and since as long as there's not a Monopoly (pretty much only found in heavily government regulated industries, or where Government operates like a private corporation(ie Post office, AmTrak))they then they must compete with other Corporations for customers. Leading to better/safer/cheaper services/products.

  68. @rpierre777 I don't follow what Madoff has to do with anything other than to point out the ineptitude of Gov regulation (since they were notified of his activities several times and did nothing). And size is most definitely relevant. Do you ever deal with bureaucracy? Ever notice that it takes forever to get most things done! When an organization becomes so large, it is impossible to operate efficiently. Remember 9/11! The Report even blamed the size of the intelligence community!

  69. @rpierre777 & no, profit driven is what makes us an amazing country and has enabled us to improve the lives of BILLIONS. Google and FaceBook have changed the way the world works (arguably for the better) because they are profit driven. Cell Phones and Computers have ALWAYS gotten better, and cheaper because of the drive for Profit. Food supplies around the world have continued to rise steadily because of the drive for profit!
    Don't confuse the illegal acts of few as "drive for profit"=Bad

  70. @rpierre777 It is most definitely relative to production! You can point to Gov creating Gov jobs, but you can't point to how many jobs were NOT created because of the taxes levied to pay those Gov employees! The Gov does NOT produce anything, they only tax and take away from the productive.
    GM would make cheaper cars! And would probably have introduced affordable electric cars by now!

    Only savings and capital investment can lead to production/job creation/economic growth… NOT Gov spending

  71. @rpierre777 Why did the Soviet Union Collapse? They had zero unemployment. Everyone had a job!

    It collapsed because of TOO MUCH central planning. Too many price controls, Too much rationing because the Government was in control to "Protect" its people.
    And guess what will happen if gas becomes too expensive for people? The market will demand that other options be provided, and whoever does so 1st/best will be rewarded by the market!
    I encourage NO ONE to own their home if they can't afford it!

  72. @rpierre777 Yes, there were corrupt Realtors and shady moves by loan officers, but this was a symptom, not the cause! This is the Manifestation of the "irrational exuberance" caused from loose credit (FED) & a policy of the Gov to encourage & subsidize home ownership,all under the guise that property would always rise in value.
    This artificial demand created by the Fed/Gov led to inflated home prices,so when the Market adjusted to correct home prices, people owed more than their homes were worth

  73. @rpierre777 Exactly, that's the free market! Just look at the difference between Ford and GM/Chrysler.
    Ford new that after the late 90's, early 00's, car companies could no longer function the same way. So they readjusted their business strategy leading to a couple years of losses (which they could absorb because they had stockpiled enough operating capital). Chrysler/GM did not adjust. So who became profitable and who went into bankruptcy? Then the Gov had to (illegally!) step in and bailout

  74. @rpierre777 No, I expect my local school board to make sure students are being educated properly! And if they do a poor job, people leave the area for one with "better schools". If they do well, more people move to that city and funding rises. And if it becomes known that a certain area produces quality students, companies will move there and create jobs because they know there is a quality workforce available! Then other districts can take notice of what works and adopt it!

  75. @rpierre777 Who regulates the value of money? The Federal reserve… and independent cartel of bankers with no regulation from congress. Ever notice how the value of money ALWAYS goes down?

    And when was the last time we declared War? WWII. It's such BS

    And what if my pursuit of happiness came from drug use and I harmed no one else through it? And who exactly is the enemy in the "war on drugs"? The millions of Non-violent offenders locked behind bars?

  76. @rpierre777 Price ceilings are caps on what they can charge!

    And here, again I sort of agree. With healthcare, it needs to be all or nothing. Either completely socialize it or complete free market (i prefer free market, but would accept Socialized over this BS).. but instead we are left with more of the same Crony-Capitalism that benefits no one except politicians and insurance companies.

  77. @rpierre777 but with free market competition, unless the Insurance companies were illegally price fixing, one company would offer a better deal, better pricing, better service and consumers could use them!

    Law doesn't make my employees wash their hands, I do and would do so whether or not I was health inspected.

  78. @rpierre777 When I went through Food Safety in college, at absolutely no point did "LAWS" come in to play. It was about whats the best/safest/smartest practice. Laws are too slow. And they are made without examining the consequences.

    Restaurants are only inspected twice a year. That does not make sure everyone always washes their hands.

    And go watch Ramsays Kitchen Nightmares, and see how "Clean" some of your "A" rated restaurants are.

  79. @rpierre777 Because as with Seatbelt and Speed limit laws, the Feds do not have the power to make them, but they can hold funding ransom to the states unless they do pass the laws. So it's BS.

    And again, I'm not making shit up. Google it, their are studies that show fatality rates rise. But politicians don't really care about facts/studies.. another big reason to support them having less power.

  80. @rpierre777 but you have no experience in dealing with the regulations. Sure, they look great on paper! Keep us safe, protect us! But implementation is a pain! I wanted to open my restaurant in Down Town Royal Oak, but it would have taken me over a year to become compliant with every regulation! But who can open it quickly? Those with political connections and deep pockets!

    And being clean is such a small part of health inspection. You should see what I get knit-picked over!

  81. @rpierre777 When will it be over (Obama said he would end the wars, instead he escalates and some how calls having 60,000 troops in Iraq the end of the war)? Why are we fighting it? What does victory even look like? Why have we been in a state of perpetual war since WWII? Ever read 1984? It's all BS and control… and the american people/media don't even care! Nor do they ever make the connection between are economic peril and the multiple "wars" we are always fighting

  82. @zombiefitnezz My Girlfriend's mother works for BC/BS here in Detroit and I often ask her about it, but no, I have never worked for an Insurance company.

    But how much does Government regulate Auto Insurance (other than mandating it)… or house, or renters insurance for that matter? The regulation seems to be fairly limited, and I am able to "Shop Around" to see which offers the best coverage for the best deal.

    I am also currently shopping for health insurance and learning more.

  83. @deficithawker So you are defending that practice? Why should government subsidize insurance at all? Especially when private companies are making the profits off that, meanwhile being encouraged to take tons of risk because they know they'll be bailed out if shit hits the fan?

  84. Anyone who thinks that a lack of regulation caused the housing crisis is either being ignorant or fooled by our congress. What made all those bankers give out bad loans? Have any of you pro regulation looms thought of that? Banks don't make that kind of error all at once… Unless their incentives are perversed by a government. You simply cannot tell banks that Fannie and Freddie must buy their bad loans and expect the banks to continue to deny bad loans… It's just a beautiful cycle for power

  85. Success for Managers means: I want to be in healthy relationships. I want a real connection with people I spend so much time with.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *