Jon Stewart sticks up for Ron Paul.

[MotF Bane]

Then I am sure you enjoy the endless wars and reagans military build up right? Didnt think so. A common theory on why we finally recovered after a world war instead of the decade of keynesian economic theory. War rationing forced saving that built up over 4 years of war. And it was unleashed on the economy after the rationing was lifted and industry went back to building consumer instead of war related goods. It also helped we were the worlds factory.

Instead of being the consumers, we were the makers. Instead of buying on credit, everyone else was buying from us. Makes a huge difference indeed.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Of course it's not infallible. Their point is not certainly true but it is the best supported one available and therefore the most likely to be correct. That was of course the whole point.

You are attempting to perpetuate an idea that I see a lot on here, that somehow experts don't know any more than some idiot on the internet. Mainstream economics has come by its conclusions after thousands of man-years of intensive research, analysis, etc. If you wish to provide scientific evidence to counter the established orthodoxy, by all means do so, otherwise my argument to accept the conclusions of this well established viewpoint is not only quite valid, it is the most rational one to take.

In short, I don't think the argument from authority fallacy means what you think it does.

I hold two MS degrees and am an ABD PhD candidate. In the sciences. I assure you I know what that fallacy means.

My point is that to me, you're an idiot on the internet who can recite a few talking points that align with your views. You can refer to 'mainstream' economic thinking all you want, but you are not an economist, you are not involved in economics research, you do not have more than a superficial, passing familiarity with derivative literature, and that simply accepting 'established' viewpoints is absolutely not the 'most rational' choice. There is far, far more debate in any scientific field (again, especially in the social sciences) than the media ever reports, and there are many experts who wholeheartedly disagree with you and know more than you do about the topic.

 

[bfdd]

I've lived in both California and NYC, they are both great. (well, it depends on the part of California) You're missing out.

I'm sure that you believe that a Nobel Prize winning economist is an idiot. I'm also quite sure that nobody cares what you think because you are unqualified to make such a judgment.

I think you're giving the Nobel Committee to much credit....

 

[ElFenix]

eh, krugman's prize was in international trade and economies of scale's influence on comparative advantage. that doesn't make him an expert on plain old macro economics.

 

[RedString]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oULpsuoEY7c

CNN sticking up for Ron now. I forgot what the reporters name is (Cafferty?)

 

[HomerJS]

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.

How does that explain Fox News wanting to talk about Santorum who got less votes then the guy who dropped out?

 

[xj0hnx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oULpsuoEY7c

CNN sticking up for Ron now. I forgot what the reporters name is (Cafferty?)

Cafferty also points out that some of the "electable" candidates say a lot of the same things he does, they did it last election cycle too. Ron Paul says something, goes largely ignored, and then as soon as it comes out of Perry, or Romney's mouth it's some fucking revelation. I did like Cafferty just straight up saying that Bachmann has no chance of being the next president of the US.

How does that explain Fox News wanting to talk about Santorum who got less votes then the guy who dropped out?

It doesn't, it only proves even further that Fox News is neither fair, balanced, or news for that matter.

 

[child of wonder]

As usual, this thread has been derailed by the same type of people who would prefer Ron Paul just disappeared. So, to get it back on track...

Republicans and the media hate Ron Paul because he's not in their pocket. Small government conservatives and teabaggers should be voting for Paul in droves, but they flock to morons like Bachmann and Palin. Why? Because they're idiots who believe the hype that's spoonfed to them. Is Ron Paul perfect? No. But when debate moderators and the other candidates roll their eyes at the only Republican who isn't champing at the bit to keep invading one middle eastern country after another, it tells you everything you need to know about how stupid this country truly is. The US is getting exactly what it deserves.

Agreed.

You and I, sir, should hang out and have a beer sometime.

 

[momeNt]

Cafferty also points out that some of the "electable" candidates say a lot of the same things he does, they did it last election cycle too. Ron Paul says something, goes largely ignored, and then as soon as it comes out of Perry, or Romney's mouth it's some fucking revelation. I did like Cafferty just straight up saying that Bachmann has no chance of being the next president of the US.



It doesn't, it only proves even further that Fox News is neither fair, balanced, or news for that matter.

It's like this fedex commercial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNCrMEOqHpc

It's all about looks and delivery, it sells TV shows and it sells presidents.

 

[Siddhartha]

nevermind

 

[Darwin333]

The media's attention is attracted mainly to two things-conflict and the rise of a candidate's popularity. Paulbots never seem to realize that just about anyone who might be interested in Ron Paul have already heard about him, heard his message and decided upon him.

Paul does have a very loyal core of very active supporters, and frequency smokes internet or other small popularity polls.

Put another way, you have two GOP candidates each polling say 6%, Paul and AA. AA is newly entered into the race-people want to learn about AA. Six months from now Paul will still be 6%, AA will either be a contender or yesterday's news.

I don't blame the media for ignoring Paul-he's never going to be a viable candidate. If he runs as a third party then he will get a lot more media attention than he gets now-but basically because he will be playing the spoiler role.

So you think it is for the media to decide which candidates mainstream Americans will be exposed to regardless of things like votes in the straw poll they were reporting on?

 

[Darwin333]

Economic emergencies are by and large caused by the very same economic establishment that would be the one responding to it! Central banks inflating the supply of money and credit during times where the market is not calling for it encourages bad investments which leads to violent corrections.

Your first point on inflation is probably read off the federal reserves website. It wasn't until we introduced the ability to inflate the supply of money and credit (inflation) that we got the great depression. http://www.kitco.com/scripts/hist_charts/yearly_graphs.plx

almost 100 years of no inflation with commodity backed currency. It sucks to find a 20$ bill that you lost in the closet and 10 years later it only buys half of what it used to....

Lol, you don't know much about history do you?


Panics, Depressions and Economic Crisis Prior to 1930

The Panic of 1819

Panic and Depression 1832

Panic and Depression 1836

The Panic of 1837

Six Year Depression 1837-1843

The Panic of 1857

Panic and Depression 1869-1871

The Panic of 1873

The Panic of 1893-Financial World

The Panic of 1893-Presidential Papers

The Panic of 1901-Market Fails, Panic Reigns-Part I


Of course you are also aware that the value (or purchasing power or inflation/deflation) of gold and silver varied wildly (far greater than our current fiat currency) during the time that we were on the "gold standard". You also realize that during that period the currency (gold and silver) was intentionally manipulated by private and sometimes external public entities, right? You also realize that currently most of the gold in the world is not mined in the US and most of the supply is in fact outside of the reach of US laws and regulations. That means it is very possible for an entity or group of entities that the United States Government has absolutely no authority over to manipulate the value of our money (cause inflation/deflation).

You want to trade the Fed for someone else who could very easily be completely outside of the United States jurisdiction and in fact could be extremely hostile to the United States in general.

And for some reason you seem to think that this is a good idea?

 

[momeNt]

Lol, you don't know much about history do you?


Panics, Depressions and Economic Crisis Prior to 1930

The Panic of 1819

Panic and Depression 1832

Panic and Depression 1836

The Panic of 1837

Six Year Depression 1837-1843

The Panic of 1857

Panic and Depression 1869-1871

The Panic of 1873

The Panic of 1893-Financial World

The Panic of 1893-Presidential Papers

The Panic of 1901-Market Fails, Panic Reigns-Part I


Of course you are also aware that the value (or purchasing power or inflation/deflation) of gold and silver varied wildly (far greater than our current fiat currency) during the time that we were on the "gold standard". You also realize that during that period the currency (gold and silver) was intentionally manipulated by private and sometimes external public entities, right? You also realize that currently most of the gold in the world is not mined in the US and most of the supply is in fact outside of the reach of US laws and regulations. That means it is very possible for an entity or group of entities that the United States Government has absolutely no authority over to manipulate the value of our money (cause inflation/deflation).

You want to trade the Fed for someone else who could very easily be completely outside of the United States jurisdiction and in fact could be extremely hostile to the United States in general.

And for some reason you seem to think that this is a good idea?

All of those panics are essentially caused by the same problem that still plagues us today. Government during these times allowed banks to suspend redeeming notes in specie (gold/silver). The only reason that they weren't able to make these payments is due to fractional reserve banking, which expands the amount of money and credit (gold standard would just be credit).

Murray Rothbard's The case for the 100 percent gold dollar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6egrCNXbkY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6GPdsJf8Zw&feature=relmfu

if you prefer to read and not listen to it... http://mises.org/daily/1829

Obviously if you don't really put any stock into the austrian way of thinking in economics you'll find a way to dismiss it. But I strongly feel that until we decide to go to either a extraordinarily strict fiat system of money with 100% reserve requirements, or a 100% reserve gold standard, we will always suffer panics, recessions, and depressions because banks on fractional reserve lending will always push to expand the credit sphere, and governments able to control the amount of money will always look to expand the monetary sphere.

 

[sm625]

Depressions are always caused by bankers loaning out cheap money and then conspiring to tighten that credit when it becomes logical to do so... ie when they can obtain distressed assets for little money. As said in the movie the Secret of Oz, it is not about what backs your currency, it is about who controls its quantity. The Federal Reserve system is the same system that brought us the panic of 1873. It is just private bankers manipulating the money supply. Only with the Fed, it is institutionalized theft, and it is granted legitimacy for no rational reason. It is treated as a sacred cow when in fact it is a criminal institution. They do not follow the letter of law in their own Federal Reserve Act, which the bankers themselves wrote. For example it is not legal for the Fed to buy GSE debt (mortgage backed securities). Yet they illegally bought nearly 2 trillion of them. The Federal Reserve act should at the very least be amended to provide criminal felony charges against those who violate its own statutes. That would have prevented some of the damage but they still have nothing to stop them from ballooning their balance sheet and monetizing debt, and causing boom bust cycles and mass malinvestment. You know, the sort of malinvestment that Ron Paul warned about in housing in 2003? Read http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul128.html

 

[fskimospy]

But you don't follow and praise Friedman even though he won the same prize about 20 years prior. Then again Obama preemptively won the Nobel Peace prize, right before he launched attacks against Libya, and continued the same policies of Boooooosh, so what's the point of bringing up the Nobel again?

First, the Nobel Peace Prize is very different than all the other Nobel Prizes.

Secondly, the Nobel Prize is the recognition of a major contribution to the field in which its given in, and reflects if nothing else a significant capability in that field. There are quite a few things Milton Friedman says that I absolutely accept, but regardless of to what level we agree, I would never call someone so obviously intelligent and capable an 'idiot'.

I don't follow Paul Krugman because he won the Nobel Prize, I follow him because he's been so often correct about this crisis.

 

[fskimospy]

I hold two MS degrees and am an ABD PhD candidate. In the sciences. I assure you I know what that fallacy means.

My point is that to me, you're an idiot on the internet who can recite a few talking points that align with your views. You can refer to 'mainstream' economic thinking all you want, but you are not an economist, you are not involved in economics research, you do not have more than a superficial, passing familiarity with derivative literature, and that simply accepting 'established' viewpoints is absolutely not the 'most rational' choice. There is far, far more debate in any scientific field (again, especially in the social sciences) than the media ever reports, and there are many experts who wholeheartedly disagree with you and know more than you do about the topic.

Thanks for informing the board that there is debate in the social sciences. I would be very interested to hear what you consider to be a more rational action to take. (I already have a pretty good idea as to what you will say, and it will be terrible)