[media-credit name=”Erika Frost” align=”aligncenter” width=”250″][/media-credit]Gather round, all ye children, for I haveth a tale for thee on why Ron Paul is oh so wrong…
Once upon a time (two weeks ago, actually), MF Global filed the eighth-largest bankruptcy in history, with debts leveraged 40 to one against its capital. That means that for every one dollar of capital MF Global owned, it was buying 40 dollars’ worth of debt. To put that into perspective, Lehman Brothers was leveraged 30 to one when it collapsed in 2008 along with the housing market, flushing our economy down the toilet. Yet while we lingered in that economic sewer, with the scent of Lehman Brothers’ crap still fresh in our nostrils, the jackasses at MF Global decided to pursue those exact same risky practices that got us into this mess in the first place.
But wait, it gets even better. Jon Corzine, the then-CEO of MF Global, is a former senator who has spoken out many times for the need for better regulation of Wall Street. In a speech he gave at Princeton in September of last year, just a few months after he joined MF Global, Corzine talked about how it was unacceptable that some of Wall Street’s biggest players leveraged their shareholders’ money at a ratio of 30 to one leading up to the crisis. Yet in the very next year, Corzine decided to go bipolar and take his own company’s leverage ratio to an insane 40 to one rate with a $6.3 billion bet on high-risk debt from countries like Italy, Spain and Portugal.
As the debt crisis in Europe widened and defaulting became a possibility, the value of that debt tanked, meaning huge losses for MF Global. When investors started asking for their money, it became apparent there wasn’t going to be enough to go around since the company had so little capital to fall back on. Bloomberg Businessweek reports that MF Global’s bondholders will likely recover as little as 10 cents for every dollar they had invested in the company! The insanity of the whole situation is that Corzine obviously knew exactly how risky it was to leverage his company to such an extreme rate, but he did it anyway because of the potentially huge rewards.
The collapse of MF Global is the latest proof that the free market is not always “self-regulating” in the way that Ron Paul and others would have you believe. The New York Times reports that prior to 2004, investment banks were forced to maintain leverage ratios no higher than 12 to one by a longstanding Securities and Exchange Commission regulation. However, the big investment banks successfully lobbied the commission to lift that requirement, arguing it would free up billions to invest in the growing mortgage-backed securities market (oops!). MF Global would not have collapsed if those regulations were still in place today. Of course, Ron Paul and co. will still try to mold MF Global’s failure to fit their free market fairytale: that the collapse of MF Global will prove a cautionary tale for other investment banks against leveraging themselves so highly, leading the market to regulate itself through better business practices since all companies want to ensure their own preservation … blah blah blah.
This WOULD make complete sense, except for the fact that we all just witnessed the cautionary tale of Lehman Brothers over-leveraging itself three years earlier! And you can’t argue that Corzine didn’t take note, because he himself was one of the cautionary tale’s own storytellers! It’s like if the third little pig went around bragging to all his neighbors about how safe he was inside his brick house only to sell it the next day and build a new house out of sticks, thinking about all the money he’d be saving. In comes the wolf, huff and puff, pork chop dinner, nom nom nom.
The truth of the matter is that in an unregulated free market, the huge short-term gains that an investment bank can make on risky bets can easily trump long-term concerns for the company’s health. When a company and investors are making millions on risky bets that pay off, anybody who says, “Hold on a second, guys,” is going to be thrown under the bus before they can even finish their sentence. This conflict of interest is always going to create a slew of risky companies that people invest in anyway because of the huge short-term gains they can make. When the house of cards starts to fall, these high-risk investment banks will go bankrupt, but there will always be others more than willing to fill those empty shoes in the future. The result is a much less stable financial system with big booms and even bigger busts — busts that will disproportionately hurt the average Joe.
When the SEC was preparing to make its decision to eliminate leverage requirements in 2004, according to the Times there was one lone dissenter, a risk management expert who sent in a two-page report warning the agency of its grave mistake.
“He never heard back from Washington.”
Daily Nexus columnist Riley Schenck thinks it’s about time Paul and co. close the storybook and take a good hard look at reality — the pictures aren’t so pretty.
***ESTABLISHMENT SPONSORED ARTICLE***
Operation Distract America commencing…
***ESTABLISHMENT SPONSORED ARTICLE***
SRSLY? You call THAT ‘Free Market’? That crony capitalism structure? Free market would have never allowed that to exist. Government intervention did.
So….You are saying that large corporations are incompetent to make wise investments so we need regulations to prevent them from shooting themselves in the proverbial foot.
I say it leave it up to the investors and CEO’s of those companies to make their own decisions because their business is their business. Companies that make poor decisions should reap the consequences but companies that make the smart moves should prosper. That seems pretty simple to me.
Actually the free market did speak… the person that made the bad decision (who ironically lobbied against this kind of thing) was punished and he lost his business. His assets will be liquidated and sold to the highest bidder. Perfect!
What free market?
This article doesn’t warrant any other response than this one.
MF global went bankrupt. Free Market solved problem. LOL
What planet do you live on. The financial services sector in the US is the furthest thing from a free market that one can imagine. Consider the littany of “federal” regulators that oversee, watch blow up and then bail out Wall Street enterprises: The Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Reserve, the Comptroller of Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, then there is FINRA and the exchanges who are overseen overseeing. Wall Street is the most federally regulated AND THEREFORE the most corrupot industry in the US. And everytime this… Read more »
Using your opinion to call someone names just goes to show how morally corrupt you are and how you’re full of hatred towards someone who is only trying to question the status-quo. He has been right on everything he has predicted in last 30 years and yet you dare to call him wrong with reference to people who probably have been a part of this mess.
I’m a canadian and I believe every country should have a ron paul.
The author has literately no understanding of free market enterprise. That fact he tries to be cute about it, makes it all the more embarrassing. I feel for him, really.
Wow, talk about doublethink. There aren’t many American’s now living, if any, who’ve known a free market. Free markets cannot be said to exist when interest rates and money supplies are centrally controlled, “money” derives it’s value by coercion through “law”*. I can’t tell if the author is blind to that, or knows it and is serving another agenda. Free markets may have there flaws, but the fact that people who make mistakes go OOB is not one of them. And those flaws are nothing compared to those of the alternatives, which lead, invariably, to monolithic power. Everything this author… Read more »
Oh, you’re soooo clever with your whole “(w)Ron(g)” headline. Do you get paid to come up with that stuff? Or do you hire people to help you?
So just because Lehman went bankrupt we are supposed to think that no other company will ever make the same mistakes? As many people commenting here have pointed out, the free market worked for Lehman. The company no longer exists. It has worked for MF in the same way. Fact is, the FREE MARKET needs to be able to regulate itself MORE THAN ONCE.
I have news for the author. They are currently investigating fraud and other illegal proceedures that took place within MF Global. So all your laws and regulations don’t mean D**K! These companies break the law, and your regulations on a regular basis. It’s only when one of them gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar that we hear anything about it. Imagine if you will that MF Global had been able to stand for 2 more weeks. Chances are with the Greek crisis winding down, they probably would have had enough money to avoid bankruptcy. If they had… Read more »
This article is truly retarded! You act as if Dr. Paul was running the economy when this happened. The fact of the matter is there was regulation, but because all the regulatory organizations are bought and paid for by the the very corporations that they are intended to regulate, these corporations can do whatever they want. Dr. Paul has never been against regulation, regulated free markets are the way to go, but Government should not be the regulators because their corrupt power hungry warmongers, so true regulation has to be put on the backs of the consumer! It is true… Read more »
If the goofs that invested their money did their homework and didn’t listen to an “investment manager” or “financial advisor” who is getting a kick-back for pushing the risky investment as a “sure thing”, then there wouldn’t be billions at stake — buyer beware — that is free market. When the house of cards collapses and lots of money is lost, so what? That is the risk you take when you gamble on Wall Street! Same as Vegas — “you rolls them dice and takes your chances!” Ron Paul 2012
Wow,such negative comments. But with such a ridiculous title, im not all that surprised. I not even a paul supporter but i can see why they are pissed. If you read some of their arguments they present some varied and sensible points.
Actually, MF Global is the proof that markets are self-regulating. People realized that the company was making bad bets and were overleveraged and they pulled the plug. Goodbye bad company run by Dumb Democrat….
I don’t understand the direction that this counter point is going in. MF Global and Corzine were Obama’s largest contributors from Wall Street. Dodd-Frank was made such that it capped certain investment practices and left others untouched; It tries to act like Glass-Steagall but doesn’t do nearly enough and outright benefits others. Or, instead of having government regulation, leveraging and risk should be decided between the investor and the investment bank instead of being submerged in a murky stew of where the government ends and where the bankers begin. We could also rid ourselves of fractional reserve banking, therefore not… Read more »
You need to get a refund on your tuition, bro…., or are the taxpayers on the hook for that also? Commie.
Quit bailing them out & they’ll stop taking such high risk investments. Thats the self-regulating freemarket Ron Paul is talking about. When they realize we aren’t going to bail them out anymore they’ll stop making poor investment decisions.
Would someone mind explaining to the author that the US banking sector is the least free-market industry in the US economy? His venomous rhetoric is actually blasting modern Keynesianism bordering on Socialism.
Self regulating means that if you screw up, you go out of business. They is no way to stop stupid things from being done. It’s just that taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for the damages. Also, just look up financial regulations in the US. There are dozens upon dozens. We are horribly regulated. Is it that “journalists” don’t read or just refuse to believe what they read?
Author of this article: you are so, SO wrong.
Way to contribute to the slanted education of millions.
You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. There are tens of thousands of pages of regulations in existence but no interest in enforcing them. The regulations protect the major players from competition and provide endless loop-holes for banks and their lawyers to justify criminal behavior.
so, the FDIC comes along and says to banks, “don’t worry about being responsible with your customer’s money. if you fuck up, we (by we, we mean the money stolen from taxpayers) will have your back.” and somehow, with this ONE federal program regulating the banks (among thousands of others), you equate our economy with the free market? have you not been paying ANY attention to obama’s presidency and the new REGULATIONS (warning: making it obvious that there’s no such thing as a free market) passed during his administration? jesus christ dude, i hope you don’t get paid to write… Read more »
So how, exactly, do the literal THOUSANDS of regulations pertaining to banking and high finance effect a “free market fairytale”?
This article is rather telling of the author’s ignorance. On one hand, he understands that there are banks that are so big they have the ability to cripple to entire u.s. economy, yet thinks they’re that big because of the free market. Without regulation, every single bank that leverages like this would quickly be out of business. Furthermore, the free market tried its damnest to punish those who have practiced poor business in 2008…and what did we do? The government stepped in, subverting the free market, and further punished the American people. Instead of there being a sharp collapse of… Read more »
Dude, what? So in your vision of America, no company would be allowed to fail? Sure, company failures can hurt the “Average Joe” as you put it, but companies that make bad decisions like this MUST be allowed to fail. Otherwise, someone has to pay to bail them out (hint: that’s us). Are you saying you would have bailed out MFGlobal?
I can’t believe that there is anyone left that thinks that there is a free market in this country. Government regulations have proven time and again to be disastrous. In the case the author mentions, the consequence of government intervention is a false sense of security that the SEC gives the investor. An unelected, un-Constitutional department has no business writing law as it is impossible for us to hold them accountable. People must be responsible for researching their own investments. All that you can do is prosecute fraud and misrepresentation with long jail terms, and remove limited liability protections.
How does someone this stupid actually figure out how to post a blog? Our technology has come so far, even a caveman can do it.
Let me see if I have this straight… A company does something stupid and gets destroyed. Then another company that is supposed to have learned from the first acted even more idiotic and got destroyed. And the fault for their destruction is that they were allowed to act like morons in the first place? Is it not possible that they take such crazy risks because they have faith that someone is going to catch them before they fall? “Too big to fail” and all that? The free market is a complete lack of regulation; the fact that people/companies/whatever CAN fall,… Read more »
Your emotions are understandable but your complaints are incomplete… First of all, just a protip from a BBC contributor, using pejoratives in a piece, opinion or otherwise, automatically dissipates any credibility you could have had. Secondly, Paul’s whole support about a laissez faire system means that yes, in the short term banks would go hog wild in the absence of regulations, but once that hangover comes and they fail, and the government doesn’t bail them out, well then they’ll realize “oh snap, we better actually play smart or we’ll go out of business.” It’s the tough-love concept of growing-through-experience that… Read more »
haha wow I’m honestly really stoked at all these comments, I didn’t even know 30 people read my column! All joking aside, I just want to respond to some of your guys’ complaints/arguments. First of all, let me just say that I don’t “hate” Ron Paul like so many of you assume. I actually respect Ron Paul as a man of principle who is honest and doesn’t stand for the typical bullshit political vote pandering that so many Democrats and Republicans succumb to; he really believes in his libertarian society and that it would work for the benefit of all.… Read more »
Allow me to try to address some of your points: The market DID regulate itself in the case you are describing. A business manager who was making poor decisions caused his company to go bankrupt. The only people who lost money were the owners(shareholders) who voluntarily invested in a risky enterprise. The same people would have earned money had the managers made wiser decisions. The fact that this company went bankrupt is a good thing. Should it be allowed to continue its shenanigans? Further, no captial is destroyed in bakruptcy, it merely changes hands … whatever factories, equipment, workers, etc.,… Read more »
Thanks for the audiobook, I’ll look into it when I have time. I will admit I’m not in any way an expert on monetary policy or the fed, but I talked to one of my professors a while back about the Gold Standard (Benjamin Cohen, a straight baller in International Political Economy, taught at Columbia and Princeton), and he was talking about how the relative stability of the Gold Standard under Pax Britannica was more due to Britian’s hegemony which enabled them to fix arbitrary prices of gold to their currencies, not because of any type of gold magic which… Read more »
Oh and… The Gold standard with no Fed was unstable because of fractional reserve banking (bank runs). Really, if we instituted some form of debt free currency that wasn’t influenced by our policy arm of the government or a private institutions, It would be a flexible and stable compromise. Greenspan touched interest rates during the tech stock crash while the White House in the late 90’s order Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to make housing affordable (issue loans to people they shouldn’t). These this were controlled by the Fed and the Federal government. Without them, there wouldn’t have been a… Read more »
Riley: I think Matt addressed most of your points thoroughly enough such that I don’t need to rehash anything. However, he didn’t cover your very profound point about the reality of what laws and reforms we would have with Ron Paul. We obviously wouldn’t have his laissez faire dream economy but a hybrid because of the forces at work politically. So, what good would Ron Paul do in 4 years? Audit the Fed. He likely couldn’t end it but we would audit it and shine a light on bad decisions and their makers. We could stop quantitative easing and unstable… Read more »
” in my experience, corporations seem much more beholden to the interests of shareholders (the rich), than to those of the average consumer.”
Sigh…this is what I mean by your ignorance – go Google “corporation”. It could not exist without the state. For God’s sake, who gave a corporation “personhood”?? THE STATE!
With that being understood, the rest of your argument is completely frugal.
I understand that corporations wouldn’t exist without the State, and I understand that corporations are granted certain priviledges and rights by the government. I obviously am aware of the “personhood” status which you refer to which was created to limit the liability of shareholders and the founders of corporations. I don’t understand how that weakens my argument about a specific piece of deregulation that caused unnecessary damage to our economy (I assume that’s what you meant when you said “frugal,” even though that doesn’t make any sense lol, you think my argument is “thrifty?) I think that libertarian ideas can… Read more »
“How would you eliminate, in the real world, the existence of corporations without throwing the economy into insane turmoil?” Simply allow more competition by REMOVING burdensome regulations from start-ups and small businesses. That will take care of the problem in a more or less orderly way, as new alternatives will precede (i.e., CAUSE) the downfall of established big-business interests and there won’t be a lapse between the end of the old order and the beginning of the new. “We need common sense reforms (like redifineing their “personhood” and overturning citizens united), not throw the baby out with the bath water.”… Read more »
1. What’s so magic about 12:1? The ratio is irrelevant. The entire financial collapse can be trace back to the Federal Reserve. Basically, no one can save any more. At least not in the traditional sense, because of the Fed’s double edged policy of high inflation and low interest rates. The Fed admits to 3-4% inflation, but it’s really more like 7-8%. So, I can’t just save money, because it will lose 7-8% a year. And I can’t put it in a savings account, or loan it out, because the Fed has kept interest rates so low, lower than inflation,… Read more »
3. Every environmental problem can be attributed to “the tragedy of the commons.” Basically, people take care of what they own. When the ownership of something is uncertain, like ocean fishing rights, the air over property, public land, etc. then no one takes care of it, and people will try to exploit it’s resources as quickly as possible, because they have no way to stop someone else from exploiting it. Are private property rights and adequate courts going to solve all environmental problems? Of course not, but they will solve much more than any other solution. It seems like you… Read more »
Market externalities are, “a cost or benefit, not transmitted through prices, incurred by a party who did not agree to the action causing the cost or benefit.” Somebody choosing to smoke all his life absolutely creates a negative externality in terms of the public cost he may incur when he gets lung cancer, because like you say yourself, he is unfairly making other people who didn’t agree on his actions incur the cost of those actions. You on the one hand say we shouldn’t just let them die, yet at the same time you question the moral responsibility of the… Read more »
Your last paragraph confuses me a bit: are you implying we need to spend our way out of this recession? The system needs to be corrected so that people can save and spend as they FREELY choose. I’m still waiting for that stimulus bill to save all of us or prevent things from getting worse. I’ve stated before: we need an EPA, but we need an EPA with less bureaucracy, more practicality and simplicity. As for the medical discussion: I think hospitals should have charity trusts so that people can choose to pay for other people’s problems regarding preventative care… Read more »
The first stimulus kept us from falling into a much deeper recession, but it didn’t do enough at the consumer end since it was targeted at the finance sector. We currently have plenty of international liquidity available so it doesn’t make any sense to solely pursue austerity when financing is available. A second stimulus bill (like Obama’s Jobs bill) would do a lot for getting our economy back on solid footing; more money in the hands of the consumer means more consumer confidence which leads to a reduction in unemployment, which in turn leads to more growth. With economic growth,… Read more »
Riley: You are saying that we can in fact spend our way out of a recession/depression? Wow. Keynes, huh? Oh boy. History is littered with economies of empires who thought the same thing. Where is your irrefutable proof that your economic theories work? Your theories were at work during FDR’s administration preceding WW2 and they did nothing. WW2? Every other industrial country in the world was in rubble while we had built new factories since the onset of the war, there was no one left to buy goods from but the US. Are you implying we should level other industrial… Read more »
Another article thirsty for comments xD. You won’t get this attention with other candidates.
RON PAUL 2012
I am totally with you, lol. I really hope Ron Paul makes it for 2012, he’s got my vote!
For people to be free, they need to be able to invest their money in a free market. Not a government run market that “guarantees” investors returns on their investments. This is a perfect case of the market regulating itself. The people who invested in MF Global did so voluntarily and should be responsible for their own losses. Ron Paul understands then and this is why I support him for president.
Ron Paul is looney!
The idea people would ever think of his as a viable presidential candidate is unbelievable. Many people are uneducation and apparently plain stupid. Please people read the fine print or listen to a debate. He only yields to emotional responses on certain topics with no depth as does a rerun of a Looney Tunes episode. President really, Ron Paul?!#@# OBGYN, oh my god, tell me it aint so!
ur comment is inteligence and good thout-out. It add alots to the discussion
Why do you want to be ruled by any president in the first place?
Is there any other candidate for the presidency who is going to be on the ballot who has vowed to pardon all currently incarcerated non-violent drug offenders immediately upon taking office? Do these people deserve to be in captivity?
“If you are eating artery clogging cheeseburgers every day, you are stepping on my rights through the public costs you create which I am going to have to help pay in order to insure that you don’t die in the streets.” – In a free society my CHOICE to eat cheeseburgers has no effect whatsoever on your ‘costs’. Only in the deranged, totalitarian, control-grid your philosophy necessitates are you forced to pay for my cheeseburger problems. – By your logic, the people manning the government (mostly scumbags, thieves, and liars)are somehow better at making these choices than everyone else. How… Read more »
I second that.
This article is part of a publication of a state owned university, so it should not surprise anyone that the author promotes the violence.
I would never vote for a politician, but Ron Paul deserves far less criticism than any other U.S. federal politician in office today.
Wow, really eloquently put. I can see now that clearly, I am no match for your superior intellect. Good job not responding to my central argument (the responsibilities of individuals to society and of society to it’s individuals) by repeating a bunch of canned Ron Paul campaign lines I’ve already heard a hundred times. What are you trying to be, a politician? ;) Lol. I’m not going to run around in any more pointless ideological circles with you guys, ya’ll are free to have the last word. Just remember to curse those “lying,” “petty-tyrant thieves” next time you’re driving on… Read more »
The responsibility of the US government is to protect the freedoms of its people from foreign and domestic threats and hold authority over things not explicitly granted to the states. It is the constitution and the rule of law that ensure the government doesn’t become that threat. The responsibilities of individuals, viewed by the founding fathers, was to hold the government to its limited role in their lives by voting and running for public office. Your question of responsibility and what you think is the right answer didn’t come about until FDR, who comforted this country with failed economic policies… Read more »
Your sarcasm is clever, but what was the point of it, to insult me? I respect you as a human being and respect your right to disagree with my opinion, and I would hope you would offer me the same courtesy.
I will respond by stating:
Government highways are low quality because they are designed by bureaucrats.
Eloquent or not, my point is accurate that the Daily Nexus is owned by the State of California.
The Daily Nexus is an independent, student-run newspaper that generates over 90 percent of its revenue from ad sales and the remainder from a quarterly lock-in fee of $3.85, which is approved and paid for by the student body. The university has no authority over the content of the Daily Nexus.
Students are paid for their work at the Nexus by the school and therefore are employees of the University of California. Also, does the Nexus pay taxes? I am genuinely curious. “generates over 90 percent of its revenue from ad sales” An analogy: many highways in California are entirely funded by user fees, but that does not change the fact that almost all of these highways are owned by the state. The people who administer the university are not likely to choose to adopt, say, for example, a pornographic magazine, or an anarchistic magazine. The people who administer the university… Read more »
I think you might have the Nexus mixed up with the Bottom Line, which basically is owned by the university since it is completely funded by student fees.
But let me know how your anarchist porn magazine comes along, I’d definitely give it a read.
I have no plans to produce a magazine and I never stated that I did. Please focus on reality.
I do not have the Nexus mixed up with the Bottom Line. Students who write for the Nexus are indeed payed employees of the university, according to the encyclopedia. If you have evidence to refute that, then please provide it.
It’s very hard to criticize the agency that’s paying you, particularly if you have authors paid by the State.
First of all, my original response was to “Matt” and his profanity-laced post claiming I have “a long way to go” on my “intellectual development.” My sarcasm was directed at him, not you. As far as your criticism goes, yes, I do get a small stipend for my column, but I can assure that my views are not formed through my editors or some grand University/State conspiracy, but through my Political Science courses, a lot of reading (I especially like the Economist), and my own personal experiences. If you believe there is a grand conspiracy through all the mediums that… Read more »
ALSO, as the editor also already noted (did you just not read that?), my stipend comes from advertising revenues and an Associated Students lock in fee of $3.85 that the student body approved in student elections.
The Nexus is not funded whatsoever by the University or the State.
Riley, I used to read the Economist often during patrols while I was sitting in the belly of a Stryker riding through the streets of Mosul with the rest of my squad and waiting to dismount and terrorize and raid the household of another innocent family. That was back when I was still brainwashed enough to believe that ‘political democracy’ is a philosophically sound ideology. The Economist is far to Keynesian for me at this point in time. I did state in my initial post that “i second that” (referring to Matts entire post), and that was an error on… Read more »
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but you seem to be arguing that the stimulus bill was good and that some things are “too big to fail,” am I correct? The stimulus bill did an odd thing with the economy where, like the original trickle during the Hoover administration it worked in a short term, and like that same plan it created a false peak, this false peak lead to one year where there was a ton of job growth and then…..well then we hit an even worse crash then the first part, do you follow me. Sure the money… Read more »
fuck, i just couldn’t fight the temptation to check back lol…. Grim, I really appreciate you not lowering yourself to the name-calling, intellect-questioning level of some of the other commenters on this article, and like I’ve said before, the “(w)Ron(g)” jab was unnessary and not very classy on my part; we are all entitled to our own opinions, and I believe that honest debate about where the direction of this country is going is the most important thing in the world right now. I agree with you that both of our opinions are entirely valid, and the idea of a… Read more »
Riley: We’re saying that your introductory macroeconomics class was wrong. Just because it was taught in your college doesn’t make it the only legitimate theory in the world on economics, nor does it make it right. I’ve already attacked your proven examples (all Keynes straw man below if you feel like reading them. I know this has been a conversation is generalizations and theory, but the Restore America plan isn’t pure austerity. It cuts waste, deregulates, repatriates money that left for American companies and creates an economy that businesses want to move into. This conversation goes round and round in… Read more »
If this doesn’t get you to look at RP again, nothing will: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QLdcB0ln9t8
Hi there, I discovered your website by the use of Google at the same time as searching for a similar matter, your site came up, it appears to be like good. I’ve added to my favourites|added to bookmarks.
Hello there, I discovered your blog via Google even as looking for a comparable topic, your site came up, it seems to be great. I’ve bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.