I don't think Ron Paul's ideas would work at all. But unlike the republican candidates his ideas are consistent, doesn't flop around depending on who he is talking to or if confronted about what he believes. With the basic premise his logic does follow, problem is the premise is flawed.
Well said, it really shows how screwed up the GOP is when they give these false small-government people so much attention.
Bachmann - a somehow even crazier version than Palin
Rick Perry - GWB on steroids
Romney - status quo, plastic man with pretty much no convictions
If you don't think Ron Paul is right on everything then fine, I don't agree with him on everything either. But how some people want these 3 instead simply baffles me.
Derpa der, hard currency comes in other forms than strictly the gold standard. It's ok though, keep just yelling and screaming about it. There is no proven history of fiat currency > hard currency. You are bullshitting yourself if you think so, every fiat currency to ever exist has eventually failed and this is a fact.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
uh, no i'm not. the world was on metals for millenia before the 1930s and went through lots of booms and busts.
the fact that you're ignorant of that seems par for the course with gold standard fans.
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2007
- 9,262
- 3
- 76
You want to know how? They are remaking Footloose, and Conan the Barbarian, some of the most popular shows on TV are shows about how fucked up other peoples lives are ...in a nutshell ...people are fucking stupid. For Christi sake, we actually need laws to tell people they shouldn't text on their phones while driving a car? We're doomed.
Last edited:
It depends on the regulations imposed by the government. Canada did not have a central bank until the 1930s if I recall correctly. They had a gold standard and much less banking booms and busts than the US did in our free banking era. The states imposed a lot of damaging regulations on banks that Canada didn't have. One such example is unit banking laws that allowed banks to only have one branch.
Gold and paper are both susceptible to bank panics and boom and busts, it depends on how you use them.
Even when the Roman empire was experiencing inflation it was when they were trimming the coins to pay for public spending. You can go look at charts of the silver content in the denarius.
When you debase your currency, be it gold via pumping coins with bronze or trimming the edges, or fiat by printing extra cash, you have problems.
My other posts specifically talked about commodity based currencies, not just the gold standard. Did you bother to read them?
Hard currencies failed because they couldn't adapt to changing circumstances. Their greatest strength in their stability and interchangeability is also their greatest weakness, and that's the biggest reason why hard currencies fail.
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2007
- 9,262
- 3
- 76
Hard currencies fail because they can not be manipulated as easily, they aren't as good for the free money/easy credit lifestyles people demand.
I'd say you don't understand the power of modern marketing and media.
Studies show that policies are a single-digit percent of determining votes, IIRC.
I don't mean just the candidate ads; I mean the larger 'media narratives' that take off for various reasons and reinforce who is 'electable'.
Look what happened to Howard Dean, the front runner, over the media coverage of one enthusiastic few seconds in a speech to young people - a non-issue.
That's not a typical example because it's so specific, but the larger messages over years matter. Obama was built up in the media.
This is why you should be concerned about the corporatism in elections - because it lets the interested groups select who is a viable candidate.
You will get someone who most people find acceptable - that's part of how they're selected and something money helps buy - but they will represent their donors.
It's really the end of real 'democracy', as much as we ever had it.
The people might think they're demanding a different type of candidate; but the only thing they'll get is one who appears to be what they're after, but has 'backing'.
In the long term.
In the short term, when you let a downturn destroy the economy you have them also.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
sm625
Diamond Member
- May 6, 2011
- 8,172
- 137
- 106
Stewart has always been pro Ron Paul. His viewers probably agree with everything he stands for. But then they go and vote for the establishment because that is what they are conditioned to do. At any rate I am surprised Ron Paul came within 1% of winning. His campaign learned a lot from their experience 4 years ago, which was pretty bad. He gave a great speech then, and it is obvious that he was right on target back then. If we dont get sound money we get a credit boom and bust. The bust hasnt even fully hit yet.
As someone who watches the Daily Show regularly and has actually been to it several times (it's fun!), I find it highly unlikely that the viewers of that show agree with Ron Paul on quite a large number of issues.
As someone who watches the Daily Show regularly and has never been(NY fucking sucks), I find it highly unlikely anyone could speak for anyone else who watches the Daily Show.
You get style points for presenting a wrong opinion with that.
You don't understand the difference between 'throwing money at a problem', which is intended to be about WASTING the money, and investing the money well.
If a business or government agency has a plan to spend big bucks to do something, it can be 'throwing money at the problem' wasting it - or a great program.
You treat them the same - with that attitude, no business or agency would invest in any program.
The fact is, you clearly are uninformed (or misinformed) about economics and the stimulus benefits, so you throw out a misguided attack.
YOUR policy would be highly destructive to the economy.
Tell me examples of when YOUR approach has solved an economic downturn?
As I've asked before - and had no answer - name one nation that has 'cut its way out of a recession'?
Ever heard of the recession of 1920-21? Spending was cut from the highs in 1919-20. The recession was bad, the money collapsed about as bad as in 1929-30, the government and the fed did nothing to fix it. Prices and wages adjusted, the economy corrected itself, then we had the roaring 20s.
You don't necessarily need to "cut" though, just let the market adjust and correct itself to fix the problem.
Last edited:
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
Until Mr Paul shows he has more support inside the GOP than his 6% fan base. He is going to be ignored. The posters on this forum who insist that anyone who does not support Mr Paul and his policies are do-do heads are part of that 6% fan base.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter