0 votes

Question: Is This What We Are Advocating?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

1st link

"Around the world, neo-liberalism has been imposed by powerful financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. It is raging all over Latin America. The first clear example of neo-liberalism at work came in Chile (with thanks to University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman)"

Milton Friedman was of the Chicago School of economics, he felt that the free market principles of non-aggression ended when it came to monetary policy, he advocated a somewhat Keynesian approach when it came to central bank monetary stimulus.

Does that sound like the advice of those who adhere to the Austrian school?

So, those who wrote this article hate the actions of central banks and monetary authorities like the world bank or IMF... OK!

Does that sound like something Ron Paul, Mises, Rothbard or any of us would advocate?

They even say:
"Economic liberalism prevailed in the United States through the 1800s and early 1900s."

Then, they go on to promote the same policy of proactive monetary easing by monetary authorities to increase employment after the Great Depression of the 1930s (which occurred after the Federal Reserve was instituted to monitor and regulate the economy):

"Then the Great Depression of the 1930s led an economist named John Maynard Keynes to a theory that challenged liberalism as the best policy for capitalists. He said, in essence, that full employment is necessary for capitalism to grow and it can be achieved only if governments and central banks intervene to increase employment. These ideas had much influence on President Roosevelt's New Deal -- which did improve life for many people. The belief that government should advance the common good became widely accepted."

Are they on the same planet as me?

Are they for or against monetary easing and it's detrimental effects?

Should we be placed into the same collectivist mold as those who champion central banks?

PS:
The 5th plank of the Communist Manifesto is:
Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a Central bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

You really should Google all 10 if you don't know what they are!

Do I need to go on?

Please do..

Maybe you could give an opinion as to why this seems to be coming up as if we're linked to it somehow.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

You should read all the links...

For you would get the point. Touche`.

Against the Neoliberals

A little background on The Mont Pèlerin Society and the battle that took place to guide it's direction.

Mises Daily: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 by Jörg Guido Hülsmann

Against the Neoliberals
http://mises.org/daily/6022/Against-the-Neoliberals

also

Here's an excerpt from a Lew Rockwell interview by Jedrzej Kuskowski for the Polish Libertarian Website Liberalis:

KUSKOWSKI: What do you think about the mainstream more-or-less libertarian groups, like neolibertarians, neoliberals, "Beltway libertarians," or "vulgar libertarians"? Is it better to treat them as part of the movement, or should we remain neutral, or maybe denounce and criticise them?

ROCKWELL: This phenomenon proves that libertarians are not immune to seduction by power. Indeed, there is a special premium that the State pays to libertarians who sell out. The State wants nothing more than to be seen as promoting liberty, so when libertarians assist in providing that cover, the State is pleased to oblige. It is, however, easy to tell the difference between the phony and real libertarians by observing their proximity to the centers of power.

Source:
http://mises.org/daily/2557/

Pardoxically

How does Rand Paul compromising to get into that position of power, save him from this same fate??? THAT is the real question here... Since Ron Paul is done.

In my opinion, Rand Paul has shown that he is susceptible to...

political threats - which is a display of insecurity (a personal weakness). That doesn't make him inherently bad. It just means that those interested should keep a watchful eye on his future political actions.

I think the jury is still out. I always try to remain skeptical. It never hurts to question.

I had a "discussion" recently with someone trying to say

that Dr.Paul was a neoliberal.. I tried to point out that he was a classical liberal but the guy insisted.. lol

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

You can lead a horse to water...

But you can't make it drink!

;)

No but they make tasty burgers!

.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Hmmmm?

BUMP

Ez

No.

There is a key difference between us and the Neolibs, neocons, keynsians, marxists, and even Freidman and the Chicago School. They all want to perpeuate the fraud of the central bank and the lie that money can be printed out of thin air without serious consequences. What makes Ron Paul so unique is that he has championed this issue for his entire career from within the belly of the beast. Remember this was THE issue that drove Ron Paul into politics in the first place. The importance of the monetary issue to our movement cannot be understated.

Read the articles

They call Hayek and von Mises the fathers of Neoliberalism...

quantitative easing is not "trickle down" economics?

I love asking that question, the look on their faces is priceless. Most people still have no idea what it is and those that have a clue try to wiggle out of a straight answer.

A Great Way To Reclaim The Term

Imagine if Dr. Paul had characterized Fed monetary policy as trickle down economics.

Imagine someone accusing Paul Krugman of advocating trickle down economics.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Read "Globalization"

"A Very Short Introduction" by Manfred Steger. This is the issue of the 21st century. This is what they are fighting in South America, and are protesting all over the world...

It is nothing to be proud of. And yet, look who the father of it is... This should give everybody pause, and have them to reevaluate what they believe and if they really believe it...

Interesting socialist slant

Interesting socialist slant on the "pitfalls" of a free market. Talking points from just the first article alone shows how its being used to twist it to their own agenda:

THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

[Me ~ a free market wouldn't necessarily reduce wages. People will work the jobs that pay the best causing competition among the companies to keep good employees. Price controls are not needed. People will stop buying things that are priced too high, forcing companies to lower their prices. The wealth didn't trickle down in the Reagan era because we didn't have a free market. Duh.]

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

[The best safety net for the poor is the understanding that they must work for a living and put away for their retirement. Education should be handled on the local level with freedom of choice for parents to decide where their kids go to school. This will force a community to fund the best education for their kids and force the schools themselves to improve their services in order to compete for enrollment. The state has no business in education since its ultimately the parents' job to educate their kids. A free market capitalist opposes subsidies for businesses and all taxes.]

DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

[Well yeah! If you regulate everything and diminish profits, how is the business to grow and employ more people? If the job isn't safe, don't work there. If the business destroys the environment, bring a lawsuit and don't buy their product. Those businesses will change if they want to stay in business]

PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

[The private sector always outperforms the Govt. LOL How do they think those railroads, highways, schools, and hospitals began? The Govt didn't start those businesses, private businesses did.]

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

[Yep, sometimes people need pressure to do what's best for themselves. Necessity is the mother of invention. BTW, nobody lacks healthcare, hospitals are required to treat people for all emergencies regardless of their ability to pay.]

Blessings )o(

No, this is

what the mainstream Dems and GOPers are advocating.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

Good question.

Good question.

-
"Stand up for what you believe in. Even if you stand alone."
~ Sophie Magdalena Scholl
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."
~ Ron Paul
"You must be the change you want to see in the world."
~ Mahatma Gandhi