The cartoon is appropriate, being that even though Ron Paul looks more like Pinocchio, Barr is the greater long-nosed liar of the two.
I agree about Ron. He used the same sort of conservative justifications for his conservative votes. But Barr is now pretending that he was trying to do the opposite of what he actually did.
Ron Paul is easily the smartest of the candidates for President. Those others would get us into worse of an economic mess than Bush did & Bush really made a mess of it especially with the involvement in Iraq. We need to get out of that quagmire ASAP! Ron Paul is economically conservative and smart enough to know this. Smartest candidates ought to win the elections instead of whoever has the best speeches. They generally say anything they think will get them elected. The voting records tell the accurate story
Cooltruth: I suspect by "smartest" you mean he agrees with you more. While he might be preferable to a really bad lot, when it comes to the issues, he is not the smartest in my opinion. But none of them struck me as being really bright. As wrong as she is I suspect Hillary is smarter but that just makes her more dangerous.
Hillary would impress me as smarter if she would lose the word mandatory from her vocabulary when campaigning, at least as regards anything anybody has to pay for. Who wants 'mandatory' healthcare insurance? I sure don't! I think if McCain manages to beat her in the general election, assuming she can 'steal' the nomination from Obama that part of the blame will be people dislike the implication that they'll be required to go buy any healthcare insurance policies or risk her wrath. NOT SMART if you're trying to get elected! McCain & both Democrats will be expensive Presidents when we're in serious need of a more frugal type of President. Yes, I do agree with Paul on most of the issues. Most important though is he would be a comparatively economical President. (better for the country = better for Americans) This is something to think about before we vote.
There are errors that smart people make and errors stupid people make. The stupid demand someone to tell them what to do thinking that helps. The smart believe they are capable of telling others what to do. The "mandatory" aspect is fallcy of the intelligent.
Paul is a dead issue since he won't be on the ballot for president.
There's nothing 'intelligent' about making it mandatory to buy healthcare insurance! It just looks like attempt at pander to the insurance industry at the expence of people with other priorities to spend money on... I can write in Ron Paul even though it's a slim chance of him winning. The other candidates aren't really who I think would make the quality President that we need. Clintons were bad exporting jobs to China & Bush wasn't any good at bringing back those jobs. McCain or one of the remaining Democrats? That's the pathetic choice voters are left with in November. Might as well write in Ron Paul as to hold my nose while I'm voting a lesser candidate.
Cooltruth: You are redefining intelligent to mean "agree with you". Many people who I think are very wrong on issues are intelligent. And many people who are very right on issues are rather dumb.
For instance some people, ignorant of economics talk about "exporting jobs".
Me, I won't vote for any of them. Scum is scum and a vote for scum is a vote for scum. And that is the choice I'm being given so far. Even the bloody libertarians look like they want to push low lifes like Root and Barr. Leave me out of the entire bloody mess.
'Intelligent' doesn't necessarily have to agree with me. I just don't think it particularly intelligent to make something 'mandatory' in trying economic times for many of us. Where to cut back to pay for the healthcare insurance? Obama & McCain have both been more subtle about how they would be expensive than Hillary. She seems scary for people on limited incomes. While I might not agree with Paul on everything, I agree with him on many things & think he would be the most economical President. He would bring troops home from Iraq sooner rather than leaving them indefinately. Other things I agree with him on would save the country money, indirectly saving me money by not adding onto the cost of living. Aren't things expensive enough without the added inflation of a big-spending President?
There have been a lot of good jobs we don't have anymore because they have been exported to other countries. If I want clothes-pins, it's difficult to find anything except tiny imported pathetic looking ones in the stores. The old American made ones were a lot better & stronger than the imported junk they insist 'consumers' want to buy. I refuse to waste money on junk just because it is cheap & imported from China... 'Ignorant of economics' my hind end! If it's substandard, I'd leave it sitting on the shelf instead of wasting money buying that imported junk. Losing the ignorance by holding out for quality is my economics. Let them buy their cheap imports if that is all they want to sell. I boycott shoddy quality & the places that sell it.
Cooltruth: You are merely repeating the old Luddite fallacy. Cars put blacksmiths out of work but created more jobs in the process. Economics is not just what is seen but what is unseen, as Bastiate explaind about 150 years ago. Read his essay on the seen and unseen. I recommend an essay by Dwight Lee on "creating wealth not creating jobs". The jobs creation thing is an old Marxist labor theory of value idea. If we could have unlimited wealth for no effort we'd want it. The idea is to make people wealthy not labor a lot. As we have become wealthier we have worked less and less.
The low priced "junk" you complain about means the average person spends less on these items than before, adjusted for inflation. That means they are wealthier not poorer. This really is econ 101 type stuff. Some of us aren't as well off as others and we are thankful for "cheap" products that are in our budgets.
Yeah? How does this 'Bastiate' create wealth without creating more jobs? If wealth could be created THAT easily, I think more of us would be wealthier than we would know what to do with! I don't know anybody with any unlimited wealth obtained with no effort. Takes efforts to earn money. Usually having a job of some sort helps. Spending on cheap junk just means you'll have to go buy it again when it wears out. No savings there! You never get past the poverty buying shoddy imported junk because it needs replacing too often. Having to go to Walmart every couple of months to replace junk can get quite expensive (or didn't Bastiate cover that?) I just have to seek out the older general store places when I want to buy American made quality. It may cost somewhat more initially, but saves on having to drive back to the store to replace inferior items that wear out sooner than they ought to. I shop thrift stores & yard sales when on a tight budget. A true 'bargain' lasts better than those cheap imports Walmart hawks. Do you like constant shopping to replace the shoddy junk? I have other things I'd prefer doing besides shopping for more new junk. I would just as soon whittle my own clothes-pins as buy those tiny little imported cheapie versions that can't hold up much more than a sock apiece! Getting wealthy means somebody labors a lot or is ripping off other's labor to roll in unearned wealth. Sending money to China isn't getting us any wealthier. Having work available when we are looking for work beats 'having unlimited wealth for no effort' as if THAT were possible. Maybe inherited wealth by the super-rich, but average income people usually labor for what they earn. Fortunately for me, I'm a farmer so nobody gets to outsource my job. If the weather is right, should have enough food to eat & plenty left to sell. I might not get rich doing this but would be considerably poorer if I didn't have farming available as an option. There are people stuck in cities that are worse off than I am because of the outsourcing of jobs.
Wealth can be created without creating jobs and jobs can be created without creating wealth -- in fact you can have many jobs and destroy wealth. You need to get away from the labor theory of value -- one of Marx's biggest mistakes. The Dwight Lee article "Wealth Creation vs. Job Creation" is excellent at describing this.
No doubt when a job moves to another department, another country or another technology someone is hurt. But the increased wealth means a step forward for everyone in general. When cars came along smithies were hurt because they weren't needed to shoe horses. But wealth for everyone increased and eventually increased even for smithies who moved on to other professions.
Working people work less today for wealth than at any time. And one reason is because we destroyed labor intensive jobs for capital intensive jobs. The net result is that the value of the laborer went up as a result so that working people started earning more. On that subject I suggest F.A. Harpers Why Wages Rise.
The policies that flow from your assumptions would stagnate economies, prevent innovation, and freeze people at wealth and wage levels of today. There would be no progress.
Earning more would be good except for the fact that companies use that as their 'excuse' for outsourcing jobs. Those Chinese workers earn less than American workers do. Never asked what the American workers might settle for before exporting manufacturing jobs. Now they're expecting us to be their consumers & buy their shoddy imported junk. Well I'm NOT buying it anymore! It'll deteriorate on the shelves til somebody else buys it. The economy is already stagnant thanks to outsourced jobs & more immigrants than remaining jobs. Unless one is self-employed the economy is terrible. Got a link for these essays you're recommending? If time permits, would like to read them.
So what? They earn less but we then buy the produce for less meaning we have more to spend on other things increasing total demand. No one is forcing you to buy anything. But if you oppose free trade then you do wish to impose your preferences on me. In free trade you are free to buy or not buy any product. Under protectionism that freedom disappears.
I believe the Dwight Lee essay is at the fee.org site and perhaps the other booklet as well.
Commenting by HaloScan
