Ron Paul, the Hamilcar of Presidential Candidates

[jimmy olsen]

They should have built their houses elsewhere! 

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-no-federal-financial-aid-tornado-victims-102533838.html

Ron Paul: No Federal Financial Aid for Tornado Victims
National JournalBy John Aloysius Farrell | National Journal – 16 hrs ago

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, stood by his libertarian beliefs on Sunday, saying that victims of the violent storms and tornadoes that have battered a band of states in the South and Midwest in recent days should not be given emergency financial aid from the federal government.

"There is no such thing as federal money," Paul said, on CNN's State of the Union. "Federal money is just what they steal from the states and steal from you and me."

"The people who live in tornado alley, just as I live in hurricane alley, they should have insurance," Paul said.

Paul said there was a role for the National Guard to restore order and provide care and shelter in major emergencies, but that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) led to nothing but "frustration and anger."

"To say that any accident that happens in the country, send in FEMA, send in the money, the government has all this money—it is totally out of control and it's not efficient," Paul said.

[11B4V]

That will get him elected. Psycho

[Razgovory]

I didn't know the Federal government taxed the states.

[jimmy olsen]

I didn't know the Federal government taxed the states.

The Federal Government demands tribute, lest it unleash its armada of black helicopters upon its foes!

[11B4V]

I didn't know the Federal government taxed the states.

The Federal Government demands tribute, lest it unleash its armada of black helicopters upon its foes!

Oh, they dont hey guys in black uniforms with guns.....

[Neil]

Well, at least he's philosophically consistent.  I wonder what he thinking about flood insurance, which wouldn't exist if not for the feds?

[fhdz]

He's a caricature of himself.

[Martinus]

I think he is right. Whether it is going to be popular with the voters is another thing, but you gotta admire the guy for saying unpopular stuff even if it costs him votes.

There is a case for helping victims of extremely unusual, impossible to predict catastrophes, but a choice to live in a flood area or a tornado country usually means you are able to get your property cheaper than in a safer place. This cost discount is offset by the cost you would incurr if you took on the property insurance - or by the risk you take if you do not. If you then expect the taxpayers to cover that risk for you in the event you are hit with a flood/tornado/earthquake, it is moral hazard in its classic form.

[Martinus]

For the record, I'm not a libertarian. I think this issue should be solved by mandated property insurance for people living in dangerous areas. But I don't think we should be giving out handouts to people who are taking risks for their own benefit, and then expect help if the risk they took backfires.

This is similar to the situation we are having in CEE with people who chose to gamble on FX by taking mortgages denominated in foreign currencies, especially CHF, and then cry the river and expect the government to bail them out once the exchange rate goes haywire.

So yes I understand Ron Paul and I understand Hamilcar. Like them (I think), I'm a risk averse individual and take my decisions in a way that minimises the risk I may be facing - that's why for example I took a loan denominated in Polish zloty, i.e. the currency I earn my remuneration in, as well. This has its own risks (e.g. increasing base interest rate, as the currency is devaluating) so I'm not willing to pay for someone else's irresponsible behaviour on top of that.

[Admiral Yi]

I agree with Marty.

[Tamas]

I agree with Marty! 


My libertarianism aside, I even think that his mandatory insurance idea could be a solution.

And the CHF loan issue hits home. The government here has been forcing extreme measures on the banks to basically bail out the CHF mortgages at the costs of the banks - which at the end means that irresponsible, reckless risk taking proved to be a fail-safe idea with excellent profits, compared to the poor suckers who were thinking ahead and kept moderation in their loan-taking.

NOT the example you build a society or economy on.

[Martinus]

Fortunately, here the government has largely resisted the populist urge to suck up to CHF borrowers. The only measure they introduced (and which I think is pretty reasonable) is that they allowed borrowers to repay their loan directly in the foreign currency, rather than in PLN, according to the exchange rate used by the bank. So people can e.g. stock up on CHF or EUR when the exchange rate is fine, and then use it to repay the loan to the bank in that (as opposed to using the often above market exchange rate the bank is applying at the time the loan is being repaid).

The Polish financial markets watchdog has also issued an instruction to the banks that they should significantly reduce the number of loans given in foreign currencies.

[Tamas]

What ours did was to arbitarily determine an exchange rate on which the CHF borrowers could repay their loan (in HUF) in a lump sum.

The funny thing about this is that a LOT of people used this opportunity. TONS of money just suddenly appeared in the population out of nowhere as far as the tax and bank records are concerned. The government didn't want to sabotage it's own measure so there was a promise that the tax authority would not follow up on this ridicoulously obvious leads. Official line is that the people used their savings, but the amount of savings in banks did not decrease by any amount of significance.

[Eddie Teach]

There aren't really any areas not susceptible to one type of natural disaster or another.

[Razgovory]

There aren't really any areas not susceptible to one type of natural disaster or another.

Yeah, there are few areas that aren't susceptible to twisters.