247 replies to this topic

[LongLiveYorke]

hblask, on Monday, November 21st, 2011, 2:32 PM, said:

Why? Because he has things he believes in? Because he would actually do something about our insane wars? Because he'd protect our rights?

LongLiveYorke, on Monday, November 21st, 2011, 9:52 AM, said:

My guess is that it's because he says a lot of crazy things and has very little chance of winning the Presidency.

[hblask]

See, but you haven't pointed out any crazy things or why they are crazy. Bob said End the Fed is crazy, but not why.See, that's what I keep hearing about Ron Paul. He's unelectable. Why? Because he is.He's too crazy. Why? Because he is.There are a few things he's said I disagree with, but they tend to be non-political (like his doubt of evolution) and inconseqential to anything related to his office.

[FCP Bob]

hblask, on Monday, November 21st, 2011, 3:04 PM, said:

See, but you haven't pointed out any crazy things or why they are crazy. Bob said End the Fed is crazy, but not why.

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.

[mrdannyg]

hblask, on Monday, November 21st, 2011, 5:04 PM, said:

See, but you haven't pointed out any crazy things or why they are crazy. Bob said End the Fed is crazy, but not why.

hblask, on Monday, November 21st, 2011, 2:28 PM, said:

He has no illusion that he can actually shut down the Federal Reserve, and I'm not sure he would if he had that power.

[hblask]

FCP Bob, on Monday, November 21st, 2011, 2:19 PM, said:

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.

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.

[BaseJester]

LongLiveYorke, on Monday, November 21st, 2011, 1:48 PM, said:

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.

[strategy]

hblask, on Monday, November 21st, 2011, 1:30 PM, said:

???

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.

[hblask]

strategy, on Monday, November 21st, 2011, 6:45 PM, said:

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".

[mrdannyg]

hblask, on Monday, November 21st, 2011, 10:21 PM, said:

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.

[FCP Bob]

FCP Bob, on Monday, November 21st, 2011, 3:19 PM, said:

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’

[hblask]

FCP Bob, on Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011, 2:07 PM, said:

Roubini: Supporters of a Gold Standard Are ‘Lunatics and Hacks’

You can always tell a real economist, because they use name-calling to support their arguments.

[Spademan]

hblask, on Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011, 3:08 PM, said:

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".

[Spademan]

BaseJester, on Sunday, November 20th, 2011, 2:40 PM, said:

interview

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.

[brvheart]

Spade, you don't seem like a very happy person.

[hblask]

Spademan, on Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011, 9:19 PM, said:

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.

[FCP Bob]

hblask, on Friday, November 25th, 2011, 10:03 PM, said:

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.

[hblask]

FCP Bob, on Friday, November 25th, 2011, 9:31 PM, said:

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.

[FCP Bob]

hblask, on Friday, November 25th, 2011, 11:36 PM, said:

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.

[hblask]

FCP Bob, on Friday, November 25th, 2011, 11:00 PM, said:

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.

[FCP Bob]

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.