Ron Paul has no answers. If he actually got his way, it would immediately send America into a true austerity spiral, one that would make the 30s seem like childs play.
Ron Paul has no answers. If he actually got his way, it would immediately send America into a true austerity spiral, one that would make the 30s seem like childs play.
If we could count on common decency and concern for fellow citizens from the CEOs and shareholders of major corporations, it would be possible, but data on recent payroll, pension, employment, and re-investment in communities shows that we can not trust people to do the right thing.Originally Posted by El Capitano
In an ideal society, yes, it could work, but reality is not ideal.
Occasionally you post things that one might consider as "sensible". This is not one of those postings.
Listen, can we just skip the whole gold-standard discussion entirely? The only ones pushing that are the Paultards, and clearly they don't know what they're talking about. The gold standard changed a great crash into a great depression, and then prolonged its effects. Even a basket of commodities would have done that.
If there's a problem in that area, it is that the dollar is still the reserve currency. That made sense during and after WW2, but I don't think it still does. At the time the US was the biggest manufacturer and financial power. The UK was indebted up to the hilt to it, Europe, Japan, and Russia lay in ruins, China was in the midst of a civil war, and India struggling for independence and then straight into a civil war (or turmoil, whatever). In addition, the monetary and political system/situation in the US was stable (in comparison).
Now all that's different. The dollar as a reserve currency has its advantages for the US, but it also has some drawbacks for it. Moreover, they simply can't be trusted with the responsibility anymore. More and more I'm leaning towards Keynes' idea of a Bancor. It takes the reserve currency away from one political/financial system and country (who apparently can't help themselves speculating with it), and depending on how you set it up might actually be interesting also for, say, China, and India, and the other countries. This post WW2 World Bank idea, just as the UN, has had its time, and it is clearly not working to the equal benefit of every one.
But please, no more of this gold-standard bullshit. That's just retarded ...
Nobody sane looks to Ron Paul for economics, it's pretty clear he'd drive the economy so far into the ground our only major export would be tunneling equipment.
That said, sane people _do_ perk up when Ron Paul is the only politician to acknowledge that the ridiculous sums we spend on "defense" are in fact ridiculous and also not for defence.
He also has a unique and admirable stance on the need for court orders during wiretaps and he's the only politician to seriously and publicly point out that torturing people isn't a good idea.
Maybe I'm the only person surprised that spending a lot less on the military and not torturing people would be a rare and unpopular political stance.
from what i have seen the man is sane and admirable enough, right up until he goes "gold standard retard"Nobody sane looks to Ron Paul for economics, it's pretty clear he'd drive the economy so far into the ground our only major export would be tunneling equipment.
That said, sane people _do_ perk up when Ron Paul is the only politician to acknowledge that the ridiculous sums we spend on "defense" are in fact ridiculous and also not for defence.
He also has a unique and admirable stance on the need for court orders during wiretaps and he's the only politician to seriously and publicly point out that torturing people isn't a good idea.
Maybe I'm the only person surprised that spending a lot less on the military and not torturing people would be a rare and unpopular political stance.
the inherent message of "this stuff is way too complex and Hoovers up too much real economic potential in gigantic pyramid schemes that provide little if no value to the man on the street" is pretty much spot on though, the whole "gold standard" nonsense is just not the way to do it.
Yes, you're right, it's even more sad that he practically gets booed off the stage when he talks about those things.
I can live with the admirable, but not so much with the sane bit.from what i have seen the man is sane and admirable enough, right up until he goes "gold standard retard"Nobody sane looks to Ron Paul for economics, it's pretty clear he'd drive the economy so far into the ground our only major export would be tunneling equipment.
That said, sane people _do_ perk up when Ron Paul is the only politician to acknowledge that the ridiculous sums we spend on "defense" are in fact ridiculous and also not for defence.
He also has a unique and admirable stance on the need for court orders during wiretaps and he's the only politician to seriously and publicly point out that torturing people isn't a good idea.
Maybe I'm the only person surprised that spending a lot less on the military and not torturing people would be a rare and unpopular political stance.
the inherent message of "this stuff is way too complex and Hoovers up too much real economic potential in gigantic pyramid schemes that provide little if no value to the man on the street" is pretty much spot on though, the whole "gold standard" nonsense is just not the way to do it.
Sure, him daring to address the military industrial complex in the US is admirable, as his defence of privacy, and his stance of torture and government oppression. But with all that does come with the gold-standard nonsense, the abolitionism of the government as a whole or at least for the most, and all the libertarianism pipe-dreaming. That too is part-and-parcel of the man.
It is admirable that he does stick to his standpoint, unfortunately the majority of his standpoints are quite insane. You can't really pick and choose at your convenience, and then ignore reality. Even if I hope that some of the good stuff will rub off on other, sane, candidates out there.
insane ? by calling somebody who disagree with you "insane" despite the fact they patently are not all you really manage is to devalue the very purpose of any sort of democracy, after all to make it work you have to have a certain degree of mutual respect.
putting labels such as "insane, looney" and so forth on somebody just devalue and undermine your own position.
you might not agree, and certainly outlining why you dont agree and debating that is certainly admirable, but calling Ron Paul "insane" on the grounds that you disagree with his view is in some ways rather disgusting, at the core of any working democratic system lies the will to compromise and to compromise you need to respect your fellow man, implying things like "insanity" because his views differ significantly from yours is just...
i dont agree with the man on many points i have seen him made either, but then most of the politics that make it across to this side of the pond look more like some reality-show style popularity contest than a serious debate on how to run a nation.
but then, our own elected politicians are more like a bloody kindergarten so look who's talking here...
Stock market crash of 1920,
At worst you can laugh at me if it doesn't work.
The rest of you: do actual research on natural market laws and free market principles.
Last edited by Takon Orlani; June 19 2012 at 11:55:33 PM.
A bit like communism then?If we could count on common decency and concern for fellow citizens from the CEOs and shareholders of major corporations, it would be possible, but data on recent payroll, pension, employment, and re-investment in communities shows that we can not trust people to do the right thing.
In an ideal society, yes, it could work, but reality is not ideal.
Very much like communism.
one is "if only everyone would help each other, the world would be a better place"
the other is "if only there were no way to escape the consequences of your actions, the world would be a better place"
Contract stuff to Seraphina Amaranth.
"You give me the awful impression - I hate to have to say - of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position. Ever."
I like how Takon can just come in here and post a sentence with Ron Paul in it and the whole discussion changes tact entirely. Ultimate troll bait.
711 bill of militry spending in usa, almost 5% of GDP.
Yeah I wish that would come down but too many people making too much money so prob wont.
Thing is, if democracy doesn't offer us more than minor variations, all electable parties being 100% committed to the current economic orthodoxy, and a bunch of fucking bond traders have a veto over policy anyhow, all that remains of democracy could reasonably be described as a 'reality-show style popularity contest' ...
Talking of current economic orthodoxy and in the light of current suggestions by the media that ND, Pasok and Democratic Left are about to form a government, here are the terms of the EU 'bailout'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18515185Cut 15,000 state sector jobs this year - aiming for 150,000 to be cut by 2015
Cut minimum wage by 22%, to about 600 euros a month
Pension cut worth 300m euros this year
Spending cuts of more than 3bn euros this year
Liberalise labour laws to make hiring and firing easier
Boost tax collection
Carry out privatisations worth 15bn euros by 2015
Open up more professions to competition, eg in health, tourism and real estate
Greece aims to cut its debt burden to 116% of GDP by 2020
The stock market crash of 1929? The very market crash that lead to the Great Depression, that only ended because the government finally let go of the gold standard? The depression where the correlation between the recovery point of a country and the date they abandoned the gold standard is remarkably high? That stock market crash?Stock market crash of 1920,
At worst you can laugh at me if it doesn't work.
Yes, only you of all of us in this thread has any economics backgroundStock market crash of 1920,
At worst you can laugh at me if it doesn't work.
The rest of you: do actual research on natural market laws and free market principles.
Wow, it's like a Thatcherite charter.
Yes cutting debt to 116% GDP by 2020 sounds a lot like Thatcherism because...Wow, it's like a Thatcherite charter.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks