@ZULLY

To be fair, you started it.



No, really? A claim is not an argument. Obviously we're referring to previous threads.

Would you two just have sex and get over it?

Don't you mean three?

The burden of proof is on you, Obi. Prove that laissez fair works, not that we can't prove it doesn't. Besides, it is by definition: extreme. And most economists that are in favor of it agree that it'd require a "reset" of the economy, not just something you'd introduce. Pepsi needs to not be able to immediately buy all of the soda corporations up when we remove control over industry size. There needs to be freedom of size at the start of a community for laissez fair to even have a chance of working.

Well, any economy needs restrictions. I mean, you can't have any economy at all with out law. Unless Paul has some kind of other law in mind for monopolies that is different/better than the Sherman anti-trust act, I would have to disagree with him there. A lot of the things he says seem far fetched, but if you can find somewhere where he is able to elaborate on them, he is pretty realistic about their implementation. I haven't really heard a whole lot that he's had to say about that political issue.

And really, as long as the government keeps the playing field level with laws, laissez faire will work. I mean, it has. Laissez faire doesn't guarantee that there will be no economic downturns. It just says that if you don't fool with the economy, it will right self and keep going. The argument is weather the government can actively regulate the economy via interest rates or deficit spending and do a better job.

I'm also not too sure about his gold standard thing. Fiat money seems to work a lot better if it's regulated prudently, but then, it's not being regulated prudently at all. When I have time, I'll have to read more of his arguments on the subjects.

We have a moderated laissez fair right now. There's not a lot of laws that restrict corporations besides certain size [anti-trust] laws, employee laws (which are more negotiations between unions and companies, not strict laws. The only real law is their right to unionize and strike), and safety regulations. Government monopolies are the only other restriction, otherwise we have a rather strict modern laissez fair inspired economy. Purist libertarians would see absolute laissez fair implemented, which is unheard of after a nation's development, and historically works poorly on too large of a scale.

That's usually why we say "extreme."

Well, you'd really have to find a more informative article before you say that. Sound bytes and complex economic arguments don't really go well together. The point is, though, he raises a lot of very good points that all the other candidates have simply ignored. Dismissing everything he says as crazy because you disagree with him in a few areas is just dumb. The whole situation is looking rather dire, and all the mainstream candidates are bickering about trivialities and spewing platitudes. Even without nationalized health care, we may have a lot of trouble keeping up with our debt even if we cut services and raise taxes.