Thanks,
I linked it up here:
More commentary:
SILVER ETF MANIPULATION. ‘Why Gold & Silver?’
If you want to hear a short debate about the NHS click on the link to the audio at the bottom of that page. The man arguing in favor of the NHS basically makes up a bunch of “facts”.
Thanks as well for the nice video Nielsio.
New Symphony of Science video!
“Repelling States: Evidence from Upland Southeast Asia”
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1715223
If someone claims that property cannot exist without a state or that traditional societies did not have individual property rights, which is obviously ludicrous anyways, refer them to this paper. Also, the one mentioned in the paper by Dove is also very good. It can be found in the Journal of Agroforestry Systems in the 1983 issue on page 85-99.
Commentary on the Murphy-Smith Debate
The Murphy-Smith debate was advertised with a Mises Daily titled Tonight: Econ Cage Match of DEATH. After it aired, Jeffrey Tucker offered his thoughts. The video is available on YouTube.
I believe the debate would have been better if it was on paper rather than oral. Instead of time limits, let each debater write as much as they want. There could be opposing Mises Dailies on the front page. One day are the opening statements, followed by the rebuttals, followed by more rebuttals or their closing arguments, and that is all followed by reader questions. Also, a more thorough background of the Austrian and Keynesian paradigms would be helpful to those who are not as knowledgeable of each. This debate is a fog to newcomers, so if each side could give a summary of its view, followed by the details, that would be helpful.
4 yrs old, but new to me. Never heard of the guy before. Not sure if it has been posted before.
[EDIT: How do I embed the video link/pic?]
Pretty sure its [ view: video link] no spaces. Like this
And if you can tell me who Nicholas Rockefeller is (and more importantly, how he fits into the John D. Rockefeller dynasty), you’ll win a prize.
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=117952.0
It seems the guy is hard to pin down…?
I’ll see if I can find any books he’s written or public debates he has partaken where he explains his thoughts or agenda in more detail, and I’ll get right back to you.
Just realized that my class colors are black and gold 
Quick note to whoever reads this in time (by the end of Sept 6):
Vote Ron Paul (a little bit down the page):
Is Paul’s logic sound here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyPLFKUdhqY&feature=related
? I find it a bit “eh” as anyone could make his argument.
@JJ: Good point - and then there’s this guy:
Clayton -
It’s not about logic. It’s about definitions. All these morons who talk about outlawing earmarks have no idea what an earmark is. While a straightline definition is difficult to pin down, the main point is clear:
The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.
That’s basically it right there. Earmarks allow Congressional representatives to specify how federal funds should be spent…as opposed to the Executive branch dictating in a more centralized fashion. Don’t mistunderstand me, the whole system is wrong, so it’s pretty tough to defend a specific way of operatating within a system that you disagree with. And that’s why Paul’s case doesn’t sound as good as it should. (Plus the host is doing his best to make him look bad.)
But the point Paul tries to make is a simple one: the Congress should dictate where money is spent…not the President. If you search around for other videos you’ll find one where Paul says “we should earmark everything”…meaning all monies should be appropriated specifically by Congress.
And what’s more, Texas is a donor state…
Texas taxpayers receive less federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid compared to the average state. Per dollar of Federal tax collected in 2005, Texas citizens received approximately $0.94 in the way of federal spending. This ranks the state 35th nationally and represents a slight decrease from 1995, when Texas received $0.95 per dollar of federal taxes paid (ranking them 37th nationally). Neighboring states and the amount of federal spending they received per dollar of federal taxation paid were as follows: New Mexico ($2.03), Oklahoma ($1.36), Arkansas ($1.41), and Louisiana ($1.78).
So this whole notion of Ron Paul “pork barreling” federal money into his state is just plain false. The state is on net losing money thanks to the federal government’s redistribution deal, while every one of the states surrounding it are on the federal dole. As Paul said, he’s just putting in the requests his constituents ask for, as they try to get at least some of their own money back.
Huh. That is really really interesting. I myself would have readily taken up the cry against earmarks, but now I view things differently.
According to [http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/883]:
Ron Paul routinely votes against appropriations bills that include funds he requests earmarks for; he opposes those spending bills while believing that Congress has a responsibility to designate exactly how appropriated money must be spent.
Could it be true that his votes do not add to the total but allow him to redistribute it, and then he votes against the whole thing?
This sounds too good to be true
But wow, my view on earmarks has changed. Thanks. This seems like something less than 1% of the population would know… I feel special now