Jump to content

Ron Paul On Face The Nation


Recommended Posts

I'm not saying that all of Paul's ideas are 100% bad or that he's not good at bringing up issues that he favors. I'm saying that it's understandable that he's "forgotten" or ignored when describing the list of Republican presidential candidates.
It's only possible to disagree with Ron Paul because he takes actual positions. You can't really disagree with Michelle Bachman's plan to balance the budget or Rick Perry's monetary policy, because all they have is arm-waving.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 247
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

???
I don't know if you noticed this, but the republican base does not give a single fuck about the constitution when it comes to lifestyle choices they disagree with, or anti-terrorism measures, or what have you. which strikes you as more likely: the people who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to personal liberties (the republican base) have wised up in the last four years, or the republicans have found such an incompetent, useless group of candidates that this guy who only half represents what they want is the most appealing option?don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to put ron paul down or anything.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if you noticed this, but the republican base does not give a single fuck about the constitution when it comes to lifestyle choices they disagree with, or anti-terrorism measures, or what have you. which strikes you as more likely: the people who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to personal liberties (the republican base) have wised up in the last four years, or the republicans have found such an incompetent, useless group of candidates that this guy who only half represents what they want is the most appealing option?don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to put ron paul down or anything.
I don't think the base has wised up, I think a lot of people who have always stayed home suddenly have a reason to get out and vote. I also think your second reason is playing a large part. It's a perfect storm: unmotivated base with a motivated subset, incompetent candidates who inspire nothing but derision, 11 years of watching wishy-washy empty suits running the country into unthinkable levels of debt, and a candidate who has been consistently giving the answers since before any of the other candidates knew there was a problem.I think there may be something else going on, and here I'm admittedly going out on a limb. I saw a TED talk a while ago about innovators, early adopters, and the big fat part of the bell curve. Basically, they said there is 1-3% in society that is the innovators. These people have new ideas and pursue them in the face of adversity. After that, there is 13-15% who are the early adopters. They will try anything. If they like it, they start telling their friends, and that's the big mass in the middle who are swayed by the early adopters. This works for all sorts of things, from products to ideas to people to shows to arts.So think about that. Ron Paul has been in the 6-10% range for the last 4 years. This year, he has periodically reached 15%, and a few times has been around 20%, including this latest Iowa poll. Add to that an electorate that voted in Obama that is extremely dissatisfied with him (Obama) but hates traditional Republican candidates, and is sick of flip-flopping wishy-washy nobodies. These are the independents. Most of them are not early adopters. They don't want to be the first to say "hey, I like that guy" and feel the scorn of their peers. But once you start getting up around 20%, now it's not going out on the limb so much.Is this a case of that? Nobody knows, it's always unpredictable, otherwise it wouldn't follow this pattern. But there are a LOT of things lined up -- things like the internet so that small govt types can get a voice on equal ground with everyone else; things like lots of young people getting their news from John Stewart, who doesn't agree with Paul but always shows him lots of respect and admiration; things like OWS which in large part are complaining about what RP has been complaining about and almost single-handedly voting against for 30 years, to the point he is called Dr. No.I'm not saying these are surefire indicators, just that anyone who says this can't happen doesn't understand how these things work and isn't paying attention to the grumbling voices on both sides.Here's the TED talks. Think about this in terms of the RP phenomenon. Is it an idea whose time has come? Who knows, but it fits the pattern of those ideas that "nobody could've predicted".
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think the base has wised up, I think a lot of people who have always stayed home suddenly have a reason to get out and vote. I also think your second reason is playing a large part. It's a perfect storm: unmotivated base with a motivated subset, incompetent candidates who inspire nothing but derision, 11 years of watching wishy-washy empty suits running the country into unthinkable levels of debt, and a candidate who has been consistently giving the answers since before any of the other candidates knew there was a problem.I think there may be something else going on, and here I'm admittedly going out on a limb. I saw a TED talk a while ago about innovators, early adopters, and the big fat part of the bell curve. Basically, they said there is 1-3% in society that is the innovators. These people have new ideas and pursue them in the face of adversity. After that, there is 13-15% who are the early adopters. They will try anything. If they like it, they start telling their friends, and that's the big mass in the middle who are swayed by the early adopters. This works for all sorts of things, from products to ideas to people to shows to arts.So think about that. Ron Paul has been in the 6-10% range for the last 4 years. This year, he has periodically reached 15%, and a few times has been around 20%, including this latest Iowa poll. Add to that an electorate that voted in Obama that is extremely dissatisfied with him (Obama) but hates traditional Republican candidates, and is sick of flip-flopping wishy-washy nobodies. These are the independents. Most of them are not early adopters. They don't want to be the first to say "hey, I like that guy" and feel the scorn of their peers. But once you start getting up around 20%, now it's not going out on the limb so much.Is this a case of that? Nobody knows, it's always unpredictable, otherwise it wouldn't follow this pattern. But there are a LOT of things lined up -- things like the internet so that small govt types can get a voice on equal ground with everyone else; things like lots of young people getting their news from John Stewart, who doesn't agree with Paul but always shows him lots of respect and admiration; things like OWS which in large part are complaining about what RP has been complaining about and almost single-handedly voting against for 30 years, to the point he is called Dr. No.I'm not saying these are surefire indicators, just that anyone who says this can't happen doesn't understand how these things work and isn't paying attention to the grumbling voices on both sides.Here's the TED talks. Think about this in terms of the RP phenomenon. Is it an idea whose time has come? Who knows, but it fits the pattern of those ideas that "nobody could've predicted".
I think you said a lot of smart things in this post.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's crazy because it's bad economic analysis. Just like Gold Bugism. I guess I shouldn't use crazy and just say that he's totally wrong in his views of the Federal Reserve, fiat money and his analysis of the monetary system.Nouriel Roubini has been having a fun Twitter War the last couple days with James Rickards who is an author who thinks the Gold Standard will solve everything. NourielNouriel RoubiniGoldbugism is a cult similar to worship of the Biblical Golden Calf. If we kept believin such voodoo we wold still be stranded in the desertThe above is how I view a lot of Paul's Economic thinking.When Paul talks about wasteful spending and getting people to think about what is necessary for the government to do he's valuable. When he pushs his ideas of economics and the monetary system he's dangerous because he is just wrong about so much.
Roubini: Supporters of a Gold Standard Are ‘Lunatics and Hacks’
Link to post
Share on other sites
You can always tell a real economist, because they use name-calling to support their arguments.
I literally laughed out loud that you rhetorically abuse that someone will "use name-calling", which is not a fallacy, for you to create an ad hominem, which is a fallacy, to dismiss the person's argument."He calls names, therefore he is not a 'real economist', and his argument is invalid". lolIn other circles we call that tone trolling - addressing the tone of an argument rather than the argument itself. A common tactic amongst poor thinkers. It was especially funny because so many people wrongly think that "insults" are ad hominem, so it is enriched by irony. What it really boils down to, and you needn't respond because you've repeatedly shown you can't be objective, is that any "economist" who doesn't agree with whatever stupid-ass libertaridan "fuck you I've got mine" ideology concerning money you might hold isn't a "real economist".
Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, btw, the libertadrian slight is leveled at you as well.You're a fairly reasonable guy, the fact that you're a libertarian is an embarrassing artifact of, hopefully, you living your life on the internet. It cannot be defended unless you are bordering sociopath tendency. Good luck, you'll need it. Before you respond, look up libertarian on Pharyngula and parse the comment sections. There are giant comment sections I've made, and others who are brilliant have made, that sum up how fucking stupid you are on the subject. I assume this won't be an issue. If you bring up a point that has been addressed there you aren't the guy (because I think you're able to research the subject) I have come to conclude you are.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I literally laughed out loud that you rhetorically abuse that someone will "use name-calling", which is not a fallacy, for you to create an ad hominem, which is a fallacy, to dismiss the person's argument."He calls names, therefore he is not a 'real economist', and his argument is invalid". lolIn other circles we call that tone trolling - addressing the tone of an argument rather than the argument itself. A common tactic amongst poor thinkers. It was especially funny because so many people wrongly think that "insults" are ad hominem, so it is enriched by irony. What it really boils down to, and you needn't respond because you've repeatedly shown you can't be objective, is that any "economist" who doesn't agree with whatever stupid-ass libertaridan "fuck you I've got mine" ideology concerning money you might hold isn't a "real economist".
I'm sorry that you are unable to distinguish between my cast-off comments and my actual discussion. I didn't even read the article, because any article whose title is based on name-calling isn't real economics and not worth discussing. I called them on it ON A POKER DISCUSSION BOARD!! If I were writing an article that mattered, I would be more careful, and in fact I have written more carefully constructed material even on this poker board than probably anyone.But hey, enjoy your moment of smug superiority.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't even read the article, because any article whose title is based on name-calling isn't real economics and not worth discussing.
Not reading an interview with one of the most high profile economists in the World because a headline writer decided to use a quote from him that hurt your feelings is pretty silly.I have everything from Think Progress to the Cato Institute on my Twitter feed and I read things from a wide spectrum of views and ideologies. I may not agree with everything I read but it helps me to understand issues to hear the different viewpoints.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Not reading an interview with one of the most high profile economists in the World because a headline writer decided to use a quote from him that hurt your feelings is pretty silly.I have everything from Think Progress to the Cato Institute on my Twitter feed and I read things from a wide spectrum of views and ideologies. I may not agree with everything I read but it helps me to understand issues to hear the different viewpoints.
I read things from all sides of the spectrum, too. That's not the question. If it is treated as a joke before they even start, then in general I'm not going to bother. I read most of the stuff you post, even when I know it is something I will disagree with, because if I can't form cohesive arguments around it (if only in my own head), then I am just kidding myself. (Most of what you post is more factual than opinionated anyway). But if the first thing I see shows no interest in intellectual honesty, there is a good chance I'll skip it.I believe it is possible it is a good article and it was just a rogue headline guy.... but really? Why, if you (not you personally, but *them*) want to be taken seriously, why do that?EDIT: I read the article, it wasn't a rogue headline writer, the "respected" economist actually said that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
EDIT: I read the article, it wasn't a rogue headline writer, the "respected" economist actually said that.
Read what I wrote, I never said he didn't say it I just said that is the quote that the headline writer decided to use as the title.Sometimes strong language is useful and in this case I totally agree with him.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Read what I wrote, I never said he didn't say it I just said that is the quote that the headline writer decided to use as the title.Sometimes strong language is useful and in this case I totally agree with him.
OK, well i say he's a shithead and a dinkface. There, my words were stronger, I win.His entire argument seems to be "the gold standard is not perfect, therefore it is terrible". In the meantime, he ignores all the obvious problems with fiat currency.There's a famous statement by someone, possibly Hayek, where they says the difference between a good economist and a bad economist is that a bad economist can talk about what is easily seen, a good economist can talk about the unseen.The people who believe in fiat currency have a naive faith in central planning that has NEVER been justified by facts. One thing that central planning excels at is hiding the symptoms for a long time. This guy's whole talk was basically about that, all this talk about stimulating the economy and crap. Finagling the money supply can only do that in the short term, but at the expense of a bigger crisis in the long term. We are seeing it now in Europe, and the US is not far behind. Central planners and bureaucrats love fiat currency, because they can just use political power to cover over their own irresponsible and unjustified policies.Want to spend more but the public is against it? Just "borrow" it and inflate it away. That's where we are now: debt levels that are approaching unsustainable levels, and nobody in Washington serious about addressing it. Why? Because they know the Fed can always just print some more money and pass the costs onto future generations without congress ever having to cast a vote on a responsible spending bill.This sort of long-term damage is far more harmful than any short-term adjustments we'd have to make if we were on a gold standard. Central planning doesn't "fix" the problems, it papers them over again and again until it is too late and we end up with a major crisis. Exchanging long-term crisis for short-term comfort is a horrible policy. Ask those people holding Euros how that's working out for them. Ask the people holding bad mortgage debt how that's working out for them.Besides, that guy was a looney-toons brick-head jerface smelly-butt.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we've been discussing Nouriel Roubini here I'm going to post this link in this thread.The FP Top 100 Global Thinkers - Foreign Policy presents a unique portrait of 2011's global marketplace of ideas and the thinkers who make them.Really interesting and very long article from Foreign Policy Magazine on the top 100 Global Thinkers. Roubini is 30th on their list.Edit: and since this is the Ron Paul thread I should mention that he's 50th on the list.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What he is opposed to, and is primarily referring to when he talks about ending the Fed, is ending the idea that an unaccountable, secret, semi-private group of corporate insiders should be able to make decisions that can so dramatically harm us.
I'm guessing you still have me on ignore because I enjoy poking holes in your absurdity, BUT:What scenario would you suspect holds a higher probability of producing outcomes which "can so dramatically harm us"?A. A group of incredibly well-educated and experienced economic scholars and practitioners with no political aspirations or motivations drive the nation's monetary policyB. A group of scumbag, child-molesting politicians with the collective IQ of a large sock full of horse manure whose opinions sway in the breeze with each new poll and would drown their own mothers if it meant getting re-elected drive the nation's monetary policyRon Paul seems to have a problem with the Fed because they aren't elected and therefore don't represent the people. It takes the mind of a toddler to poke holes in this line of thinking.1. The Fed Chairman and Board of Governors are nominated by the President (elected by the people) and approved by the Senate (also elected by the people).2. Every SC justice, appeals and district court judge is nominated and approved in the exact same manner. Does Ron Paul have a problem with this as well? I'm guessing not because it's written into the Constitution and he interprets the document like the people who interpret every word in the Bible as literal and relevant today. Congress founded the central bank in 1913 and easily could've made a Constitutional amendment. That they didn't is irrelevant to everyone except the crackpot right. But yes, apparently everyone was in on the grand conspiracy, the greatest conspiracy the world has ever known, the one in which the U.S. Congress creates a central bank, allowing a 'private' entity to destroy the lives of all Americans for all eternity. To what end is anyone's guess.3. See 'B' above, i.e. the entire point of the Fed is to insulate monetary policy from the whims of politicians who often have no formal training in economics and possess the moral fortitude of psychopaths.
Link to post
Share on other sites

it's pretty funny, old people get so angry when they see today's CD rates. the wife will ask the husband why they're so bad, the husband will mutter something about the fed. I of course stay the fuck out of it, because who cares what some teller thinks, but I laugh when I hear our loan officers agreeing with them/cursing bernanke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
it's pretty funny, old people get so angry when they see today's CD rates. the wife will ask the husband why they're so bad, the husband will mutter something about the fed. I of course stay the fuck out of it, because who cares what some teller thinks, but I laugh when I hear our loan officers agreeing with them/cursing bernanke.
It is a sad truth that most people, possibly everyone, who works for a bank is quite dumb. Disclosure: I work for a bank.The fact that the major banks make so much money is insane. The fact that dopes with useless MBAs wear $5,000 suits, attend pointless meetings and draw millions on salary and bonuses for 'managing' the process of earning more interest than paying should probably be illegal. Too bad the OWS'ers were just a bunch of ranting homeless and not actual protestors, or something might've come slightly closer to still not changing anything.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a sad truth that most people, possibly everyone, who works for a bank is quite dumb. Disclosure: I work for a bank.The fact that the major banks make so much money is insane. The fact that dopes with useless MBAs wear $5,000 suits, attend pointless meetings and draw millions on salary and bonuses for 'managing' the process of earning more interest than paying should probably be illegal. Too bad the OWS'ers were just a bunch of ranting homeless and not actual protestors, or something might've come slightly closer to still not changing anything.
I deal with banks every week and they suck...the fees drive me crazy. I mean what other industry do you get line items for lawyer fees...that one is insane. Don't get me wrong i umderstand that services cost money but why do i have to pay an interest spread and get line items for other fees. They charge all kind of daily transacton fees while sitting a mountain of my money at zero percent and then go whacking you over the head the momment you need to get into the line...grrr.I now understand why so many of the powerful business men are so ruthless in dealing with banks, they make you sign in blood and pay every little thing and when you become large enough or powerful enough you just do everything you can to grind them into the ground.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I deal with banks every week and they suck...the fees drive me crazy. I mean what other industry do you get line items for lawyer fees...that one is insane. Don't get me wrong i umderstand that services cost money but why do i have to pay an interest spread and get line items for other fees. They charge all kind of daily transacton fees while sitting a mountain of my money at zero percent and then go whacking you over the head the momment you need to get into the line...grrr.I now understand why so many of the powerful business men are so ruthless in dealing with banks, they make you sign in blood and pay every little thing and when you become large enough or powerful enough you just do everything you can to grind them into the ground.
my town's big player basically bought a huge stake in a local bank just to be able to deal with them exclusively. seems pretty genius. local banks are disgustingly profitable, and this one now does a bunch of stuff for his accounts for free.
Link to post
Share on other sites
my town's big player basically bought a huge stake in a local bank just to be able to deal with them exclusively. seems pretty genius. local banks are disgustingly profitable, and this one now does a bunch of stuff for his accounts for free.
it is great idea but it takes a ton of cash to leveage that...i will retire long before becoming that deep. i have learned this year eventually you get some leverage but it sucks getting there.
Link to post
Share on other sites
We've discussed this before, I think the gold standard is not ideal, but better than pure fiat currency. Very few doubt that anymore. The question is why not get something better yet?His End the Fed thing is not pie-in-the-sky raving from a street corner lunatic. This is a guy who has been in Washington for decades. He knows how this stuff works, what is possible, and what is necessary. What he is opposed to, and is primarily referring to when he talks about ending the Fed, is ending the idea that an unaccountable, secret, semi-private group of corporate insiders should be able to make decisions that can so dramatically harm us. I would think that believing in that status quo is among far kookier than wanting to fix it.
hey hblask, your man Ron Paul is finally getting 'his mind right' as Boss used to say back in the day. He has moved from the ridiculous gold standard which you used to spout, and what he used to recommend. He now agrees with what I've been telling you in the gold standard thread(see here, here, and here) - NOT A FIXED EXCHANGE STANDARD, BUT A FREE MARKET FLOAT!!Only thing is he needs to drop the term gold 'standard' since it is not like any standard in the past, and the term rightly induces derision...
Between 1:37 and 3:43
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Before you respond, look up libertarian on Pharyngula and parse the comment sections. There are giant comment sections I've made, and others who are brilliant have made
i did this and wish i knew your handle on the site
Link to post
Share on other sites
i did this and wish i knew your handle on the site
ug. That site is terrible to read. He needs to get a forum.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...