Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?

[DiscoBiscuit]

i just dont get why so few people are voting for ron paul

Maybe a comprehensive analysis says, "Let me think.. no?

We'd have to assume that economic Armageddon is imminent.

We'd have to assume that withdrawing from the world wouldn't have the same consequences it had in the late 19th through early-mid 20th centuries.

We'd have to assume that contraction wouldn't sustain until relatively few technologies like railroads, steam engines and the telegraph manage to jump start demand.

We'd have to assume we have alternatives for the proposed slashing of departments and agencies. I'm all for legalized weed but do you really think that hard drugs should be legally available? 50 different educational, environmental and immigration standards would be a challange to even recognize, let alone understand.

We'd have to assume that moving back doesn't reintroduce all the negative consequences we've already experienced, documented, studied and (in many cases) mitigated.

are people retarded or what?

Oh, that's nice.

 

[SpasticGramps]

i just dont get why so few people are voting for ron paul

People assume central planners (bankers and their proxy puppet governments) will always be there to take care of them no matter what.

Hubris and faith found in all command economies, even as they fail.

 

[CannaBunkerMan]

DB, it's not about legalized weed, it's about personal freedoms. The weed thing is just a symptom of the larger problem. You point out all sorts of contradictions in your posts without offering any analysis. So many words, so little said.

What would be so wrong with 50 different educational standards. Your assumption is that these governmental standards are the only thing keeping us from educational anarchy. MAybe you need a government that will tell you what's best for you, and how to live your life It's like you need someone to hold your hand, and tell you that it will be okay. Maybe some states wouldn't do as well as others. Maybe those states have different local realities than others. Really though, how would things be any different than they are today if the states could choose how to govern themselves? You would have some states that have a better educational system, just like now.

DB, if you just point out problems and contradictions without offering any analysis, people will start to think you're just a debbie downer.

 

[THC123]

are people retarded or what?
Oh, that's nice.
_____________

i said that cuz for me as a non us citizen it is strange to see such clowns as gingrich or romney being even able to run for president, let alone people supporting them

they make obama look good

 

[CannaBunkerMan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/u...standing.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig

His parents married two days before the crash of 1929. He was reared on nightmarish stories of currency that proved worthless, told by relatives whose patriarch had fled Germany in the dark of night when his debts were about to ruin him.

Hard times, and fear of worse, were constants in Ron Paul’s boyhood home. His father and mother worked tirelessly running a small dairy, and young Ron showed the same drive — delivering The Pittsburgh Press, mowing lawns, scooping ice cream as a soda jerk. He also embraced their politics, an instinctive conservatism that viewed Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman as villains and blamed Democrats for getting America into wars.

As a young doctor in training, dissecting cadavers or practicing surgery on dogs, he would tell all who would listen about how the country was headed down the wrong path, about the urgency of a strict gold standard and about the dangers of allowing government too much power over people’s lives.

“Once that got ingrained, that became his religion,” said his brother Jerrold, a minister and a psychotherapist. “He says he preaches the ‘gospel of freedom’ — that’s the money quote. Politics became his crusade.”

But for the silver hair, the baggy eyes and the grandchildren, the 76-year-old man running for president today — carrying the torch for a gold-based currency, agitating to “end the Fed,” warning of threats to personal freedom and prophesying imminent economic collapse — is almost indistinguishable from the Ron Paul of half a century ago.

Supporters and detractors often marvel at his consistency since entering politics in 1974, citing it as evidence of either levelheadedness or lunacy. It contrasts sharply with some of the rivals he is trailing in the Republican primaries, including Mitt Romney, who is often accused of ideological flip-flopping.

While the Austrian economists who deeply influenced Mr. Paul have gone in and out of fashion among conservatives, his own fidelity to them has never wavered. Even his investment portfolio, nearly two-thirds of which is in gold and precious-metal stocks, shows the same commitment to principle — not to mention preparation for a financial catastrophe.

Now, with a solid third-place showing in Nevada and ardent grass-roots support expected... [continued at link]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/u...standing.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

DB, it's not about legalized weed, it's about personal freedoms. The weed thing is just a symptom of the larger problem.

In regard to legalized weed, I'll stand by what I already posted. Do you really want legalized hard drugs?

You point out all sorts of contradictions in your posts without offering any analysis. So many words, so little said.

No sense in dragging out something you don't agree with. History is as broad as it is long. It's all there (if you seek it.)

What would be so wrong with 50 different educational standards.

Why go where one has to guess the outcome? Do you really think 50 different standards of reading, math and science would be a net positive?

Your assumption is that these governmental standards are the only thing keeping us from educational anarchy.

Nah. I just think it lowers the ignorance factor.

MAybe you need a government that will tell you what's best for you, and how to live your life It's like you need someone to hold your hand, and tell you that it will be okay.

I find grown adults making that excuse of an argument very interesting.

Maybe some states wouldn't do as well as others. Maybe those states have different local realities than others. Really though, how would things be any different than they are today if the states could choose how to govern themselves?

It's all recorded. You can find it at the public library or online. It's called American History.

My state was one of the original 13 that endured eight years of AOC and lobbied the federal government to intervene in matters of (among others) interstate commerce. I happen to agree with the logic. You'd have to have considerable plans to counter the legal obstacles that states encountered under the AOC. Or maybe you wouldn't. But the question does enter my consideration.

DB, if you just point out problems and contradictions without offering any analysis, people will start to think you're just a debbie downer.

Water is readily available. No sense in attempting to lead you to it.

I'm far closer to someone who recognizes history and says, "how ya gonna do that?" I might expect one would acknowledge all the problems we no longer face and how we'd deal with them once reencountered.

What's really interesting is that folks actually imagine a gold standard and national bank as having no negative economic consequences. Ron Paul doesn't have to acknowledge these negatives because the base isn't asking.

No system is perfect. That's why I'd like to see this apple compared to that orange to know what to expect. Ronald Reagan told us that supply side would expand the macro even though we had no economic history to compare. More than 30 years of supply side is proven failure. Instead of an expanding macro, we get a wildly expanding top with nothing left for the rest.

Compared to Ron Paul's economic plan where we actually have economic history to compare. There aren't too many folks holding up the pros (and cons) of a national bank and a gold standard. We only hear that the current system will break.

Be careful what you wish for. You might actually get it and reflect fondly on your (recent) past.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Compared to Ron Paul's economic plan where we actually have economic history to compare. There aren't too many folks holding up the pros (and cons) of a national bank and a gold standard.

History's facts exist in the eye of the beholder. That's why historiography is so important. You say "its all in the history books," as if that makes it an absolute truth. That's folly IMO.

Here are exerts from Dylan Grice's recent piece "Popular Delusions." He is a professional money manager at Societe Generale (major french bank). Intro done by ZeroHedge.

On The Failure Of Inflation Targeting, The Hubris Of Central Planning, The "Lost Pilot" Effect, And Economist Idiocy

As an ever greater portion of the world succumbs to authoritarian control (whether it is of military disposition, or as we first showed, a small room of economists defining the monetary fate of the future as central banks now hold nearly a third of world GDP within their balance sheets) we can't help but be amazed as the population simply sits idly by on the sidelines as the modern financial system repeats every single mistake of the past century, only this time with stakes so high not even Mars could bail out the world. Unfortunately, with the world having operated under patently false economic models spread by hacks whose only credibility is being endorsed by the same system that created these models over the past century, the only temporary solution to all financial problem is to "try harder."

Sadly, the final outcome is well known - a global systematic reset, in which the foundation of all modern democracies - the myth of the welfare state (which at last check, was about $200 trillion underfunded on an NPV basis globally and is thus the most insolvent of all going concern entities in existence) is vaporized (there's that word again) leading to global conflict, misery and war.

Sadly that is the price we will end up paying for over a century of flawed economic models, of "borrowing from the future", of ever more encroaching central planning, and of an economic paradigm so flawed that as Bill Buckler puts it, "Keynes’ response to those who questioned the “longer-term” consequences of his advocacy of credit-creation as a basis for money was - “In the long run, we are all dead”. It is difficult to overemphasise the venal arrogance of this remark or the destructiveness of its legacy." Alas, the last thing the central planning "fools" (more on that shortly) will admit is their erroneous hubris, which in the years to come will claims millions of lives.

In the meantime, we can merely comfort ourselves with ever more insightful analyses into the heart of the broken system under which we all labor, such as this one by SocGen's Dylan Grice, whose latest letter on Popular Delusions is a call for "honest fools" - "Frequently, when we make mistakes we try to correct them not by changing the flawed thinking which led to the mistake in the first place, but by reapplying the same flawed thinking with even more determination. Behavioural psychologists call it the “lost pilot” effect, after the lost pilot who tried to reassure his passenger: “I have no idea where we’re going, but we’re making good time!” Policy makers on both sides of the Atlantic are treating today’s malaise with the same flaky thinking which created it in the first place. How can that work?" Simple answer: it can't.

Grice explains why "Trying harder" is the only recourse of a status quo gripped in a confirmation bias so tense that even merely glancing outside the window at the Marriner Eccles building could be sufficient grounds for the whole house of cards to come tumbling down:

It's a long read with lots of graphs, but pokes holes in the idea that central planning has "mitigated" anything, but is instead the reason for our reoccurring economic catastrophes.

My favorite section from Grice's piece....

But what if those assumptions are wrong? What if, for example, the 'natural' rate of consumer price inflation was 0% and so by trying to keep it at the unnaturally high rate of 2% they've had to artificially goose up the rest of the economy by setting interest rates at an inappropriately low level? And what if, like force-feeding steroids to a horse because you assume it should be running faster, in doing so you kill it, distorting the credit system so grotesquely as to crash the rest of the economy?

They've assumed that wouldn't be a problem, and they assumed that if there was one they'd be able to fix it (Ben Bernanke supposedly promised Milton Friedman that there would never be another great depression because the "lessons" had been learned from the 1930s). But, assuming you know how the animal behaves isn't the correct way to go about attaining knowledge about how the animal actually behaves. So they don't attain knowledge about how the animal behaves. So the animal keeps mauling them.

But they keep doing it. Now a 2% CPI inflation target is going to make all the difference. And I find it a very strange thing. I just don't understand why they're so sure they know all this stuff despite all the evidence to the contrary. I feel like McCarthy in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest: “That’s right Mr. Martini, there is an Easter Bunny.”​

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

History's facts exist in the eye of the beholder. That's why historiography is so important. You say "its all in the history books," as if that makes it an absolute truth. That's folly IMO.

Ok. Is the history that supports your preference folly or doesn't it exist?

Economics isn't like a fly one can swat and achieve a perfect system. That's why comparisons to the past versus the contemporary are so valuable. Unless of course one happens to discount history.

Thanks for the link. IMO, economics is science. The article is philosophy. It uses statistics but it's not unlike a lone Mark Coleman saying AGW is a myth. When the aggregate doesn't reflect one's assessment, re aggregates aren't necessarily the shining path.

Didn't the zero-hedge guy receive a lifetime ban from commodities trading for inside trader violations? I wonder if the same guy was advertising national default before his trading license was revoked?

 

[SpasticGramps]

Ok. Is the history that supports your preference folly or doesn't it exist?

Economics isn't like a fly one can swat and achieve a perfect system. That's why comparisons to the past versus the contemporary are so valuable. Unless of course one happens to discount history.

Austrian's aren't purposing a "perfect system." They are proposing a system that leads to less distopia than the centrally planned system's of that past.

I also think much of the "history" taught in American schools is biased, to put it nicely, and thus possibly worth discounting. I'd be willing to bet many people raised overseas, but exposed to the American educational system would agree.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Thanks for the link. IMO, economics is science. The article is philosophy. It uses statistics but it's not unlike a lone Mark Coleman saying AGW is a myth. When the aggregate doesn't reflect one's assessment, re aggregates aren't necessarily the shining path.

Didn't the zero-hedge guy receive a lifetime ban from commodities trading for inside trader violations? I wonder if the same guy was advertising national default before his trading license was revoked?

Central planning modern economics is supposedly "science" based on linear models. Markets are complex systems. Often irrational. Based, in yes math, but also philosophy and psychology. Even Soros has admitted that openly.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Didn't the zero-hedge guy receive a lifetime ban from commodities trading for inside trader violations? I wonder if the same guy was advertising national default before his trading license was revoked?

I had reckoned and starting preparing for possible national default way before I found ZeroHedge. He posts lots from of the hedge fund managers and investors that I followed before I knew about ZeroHedge.

Looking at the data I believe that's the logical conclusion and have since we started vigorously monetizing our debt post '08. Time is the only question in my mind. I worry not. I'm invested and hedged either way as I know that this can kicking could carry on for a long time. My bias is obviously negative to the short term though.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Wasn't attempting to infer anybody's expecting perfection.

The word science infers aggregate or turn-key or bottom line. Everything we know about something that's measurable.

I'm not really convinced that Ron Paul specifically wants to return to gold standard. There's too little (zero) discussion of how that's supposed to take place. IMO, gold standard isn't the objective at all.

Ron used to sell gold and silver coins. This market is regulated because the whole (metal coin > paper note) idea isn't reality. Private mints may include the cost of material, labor and a nominal profit. Unless claims can be proven, marketeers can't advertise their coins will net more value than the dollar.

Glen Beck had to stop advertising his coins as worth more than the base metal. He chose to stop selling coins instead. You have to ask the question whether Ron Paul simply want's less regulation for private minters. Base metal value isn't always redeemable for the most recent transaction, let alone an investment vehicle. That's why wealth strategists suggest not vesting in more than a certain percentage of gold.

What would you expect your net worth to amount to with a gold standard? That one question vexes even the folks one might expect to venture a guess.

 

[SacredBreh]

Wow... some great discourse!

Wow... some great discourse!

Excellent points but think you nailed it Spastic.

Policy makers on both sides of the Atlantic are treating today’s malaise with the same flaky thinking which created it in the first place. How can that work?" Simple answer: it can't.

I see our Standards of living, Standards of education, Standards of manufacture.... all slipping down every major list when compared to other countries. Whether pulled to the right or the left, we are continually slipping farther down the scales.

Whether or not it happens in a big "crash" or an insidious creep such as our history, matters not in the scheme really. Maybe that is why so many young folks are on the Ron Paul train..... At the very best--We are ultimately shifting the burden of paying for it to them.

A person born into debt so enormous it is impossible to ever pay it off is by definition and principle---- A Slave!

Peace

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

IMO, they're handling things quite differently. Europe is attempting austerity and the result is their private debt hasn't contracted like private debt in the US.

We have public debt to manage but our private debt has been reduced considerably since the 2008 housing bust.

Everybody acknowledges our need to cut spending. Obama proposed more spending cuts than Simpson Bowles but the opposition balked at the 1:4 revenues to spending-cuts strategy.

As soon as the opposition realizes they can't get substantial cuts w/o revenue increases, we'll get a tax rate that addresses deficits.

 

[SpasticGramps]

I'm not really convinced that Ron Paul specifically wants to return to gold standard. There's too little (zero) discussion of how that's supposed to take place. IMO, gold standard isn't the objective at all.

IMO his argument isn't so much that we should voluntarily go back to a gold standard. I reckon he knows that's not going to happen. What he is saying is that with all the debasement of fiat currency going on in the world the market will reprice gold as the reserve currency. The market is already doing so.

There are many unilateral agreements between countries to abandon the USD as the reserve currency because any country that attempts to print it's way out of structural deficit problems inevitably destroys their currency. They see the writing on the wall.

The amount of spending cuts vs tax revenues that they are talking is mathematically insignificant when considering our unfunded liabilities (off the books) and changing demographics.

The bottom line is despite the trillions in new fiat (debt) creation it isn't generating GDP growth anymore. That's how you know we've reached the end of the debt super-cycle IMO.

 

[Cojito]

In regard to legalized weed, I'll stand by what I already posted. Do you really want legalized hard drugs?

i would. i think prohibition has a corrosive effect on society. and i think its better (and far cheaper) to let folks do what they want in the privacy of their own homes. i'd prefer the $500 a day addicts spend on crack or heroin stay in the country rather than head to Afghanistan, Mexico or Colombia. i'd like to have the trillion we've already spent on this drug war devoted to education, new tech, and to pay down our debt. and i don't think i (or most folks) would be tempted to do heroin or crack were they legally available at the local pharmacy. but i'd love to hear why you think prohibition is still a good idea.

What's really interesting is that folks actually imagine a gold standard and national bank as having no negative economic consequences. Ron Paul doesn't have to acknowledge these negatives because the base isn't asking.

exactly. not only do his supporters refuse to examine the consequences of their own candidates ideas, they are hostile to anyone who tries. this thread is an excellent example of that. folks come in here on the fence, but loving many of the things Ron Paul says (i posted something about immigration just last week) and they are attacked because they dare vet the candidate.

 

[Avenger]

The Political and Economic Agenda for a Real Gold Standard
by Ron Paul

Gold, Peace, and Prosperity
by Ron Paul

Taking Money Back
by Murray N. Rothbard


the case for a genuine gold dollar

the gold standard: myths and lies

 

[dagnabit]

"do you want legalized hard drugs?"

Two answers and a question.
1: damn right I do
2:they already are legal except for the good ones(doses and Molly)

If heroin became legal tomorrow would you run right out and spike it up?

 

[pinecone]

If heroin became legal tomorrow would you run right out and spike it up?

Just one time I would.

Pine

 

[dagnabit]

lmao