I think Ron Paul needs a hug

[Wells]

Because the FDIC is the cause of this ridiculous risk taking. Or atleast one of the causes.

Putting on aditional regulation just causes more similar problems. Always best to solve the problem at the root.

Ninespine was dead on when he said libertarians rely on taking the most prosperous times in human history and trying to convince people they really weren't.

We had the FDIC and glass steagall for decades and everything was hunky dory. I have never heard anyone blame the FDIC for fraudulent lending practices though.

[Deleted]

Ninespine was dead on when he said libertarians rely on taking the most prosperous times in human history and trying to convince people they really weren't.

I've never tried to do that.

We had the FDIC and glass steagall for decades and everything was hunky dory. I have never heard anyone blame the FDIC for fraudulent lending practices though.

You obviously know little about the history of FDIC. A history of using taxpayer money to cover losses of banks that on had been mismanaged on purpose to feed money to their crony friends. Unity Bank, First Pennsylvania Bank, Continental Illinois etc, but ofcourse no full-out bailouts of small banks. People's money going to the pockets of greedy bankers.

It wasn't all "hunky dory". Luckily the growth of the productive capacity of the United States was greater than the rate of theft by the banksters and their friends in the government.

Deposit insurance and the moral hazard it causes is a case example in Economics classes in Universities btw.

[Wells]

Its also helped prevent runs on banks, since no one loses money when a bank fails. The FDIC exists to protect the little guy and it does a good job at it. Could it do better? Sure. But it still does well.

[Deleted]

Its also helped prevent runs on banks, since no one loses money when a bank fails. The FDIC exists to protect the little guy and it does a good job at it. Could it do better? Sure. But it still does well.

The threat of run on banks keeps banks in check.
Hence my original argument => FDIC forces banks to become more risky or go out of business.

"The little guy" is just another excuse to fatten the pockets of banksters.

[Wells]

The threat of run on banks keeps banks in check.

Except all the times it doesn't.

FDIC forces banks to become more risky or go out of business.

Which is why we had Glass Steagal for decades. You got the security provided by the FDIC combined with the seperation of the two banking practices by Glass Steagal. It worked quite nicely before the GOP took Congress and rolled it back.

[Deleted]

Except all the times it doesn't.

Well putting your money in a bank deposit in fractional reserve banking is more of an investment. Investments are risky to some degree. If a bank goes bankrupt once in a while, shit happens. They do it all the time nowadays too.

[GennGreymane]

there must be somthing to ron paul if the media generally ignores him

hes getting more attention now. saw him on cnn yesterday

[Wells]

there must be somthing to ron paul if the media generally ignores him

hes getting more attention now. saw him on cnn yesterday

So by this logic if the media pays attention to him there isn't anything to him?

[GennGreymane]

So by this logic if the media pays attention to him there isn't anything to him?

if the media goes out of there way to ignore some one, there must be somthing there

i mean in the video i linked (before the added one) they really did go out of their way to ignore the guy. after the jon stewart commentary hes received a bit more

[Deleted]

So by this logic if the media pays attention to him there isn't anything to him?

If anyone of you followed the 2007 campaign, they used all sorts of dirty tricks against him. To be honest, it seems they have been much more fair this time around.
They excluded him from debates while inviting candidates that had many times lower national polling etc.

[Sunseeker]

if the media goes out of there way to ignore some one, there must be something there

Only if we subscribe to the belief that everything the media talks about is the wrong thing to talk about. Talking about Ron Paul may not generate enough views since a good deal of Paulites ignore mainstream media already. Feedback from current viewers could indicated they don't give a crap about Paul, so talking about him isn't to their benefit. Or, of course, if they talk about Paul, that means he's just like everyone else, and if that's the case, any non-conformist value Paul held is lost, for all we know, Paul could be declining media coverage in order to maintain his non-conformist appearance.

We really just don't know.

[GennGreymane]

actually seeing as how ron paul is ahead in online polls, came in second to the so called top tier candidate in the iowa straw poll, and more

i doubt he does not get views. especially with how people react to his views on the wars.

also i doubt hes not asking for no media coverage. thats not what u do when running.