So I've been reading Ron Paul's book...

[Carmen813]

It's pretty interesting. I feel as if he leaves some things sort of vague, such as how he would propose transitioning from our current form of government to what he proposes. He does have some ideas for it, particularly with health care, but I think it falls a little flat in some ways. I get that he is advocating what he sees as a return to roots for the American government, but I question whether or not the American people would be able to handle the sticker shock of his proposals.

I find myself agreeing with him on foreign policy and military spending, open to his view on the income tax, but drifting away when he discusses the gold standard. He mentions a how big government policies have led to a lot of unforeseen consequences, and I find myself asking if he has considered the unforeseen consequences of his own proposals.

Anyway, I'm enjoying reading it. I feel that though I may be naively hopeful about government programs being able to work if done properly, he may be naively hopeful about trusting corporations to make all of the correct decisions, especially given the more global and interconnected way multinational corporations function. He sort of dismissed as irrelevant the history of monopolies and poor working conditions that existed during the late 1800s as some sort of conspiracy in public education, while not really provided sources for his claim.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
... but I question whether or not the American people would be able to handle the sticker shock of his proposals.

Like I have always said, it's about the Ron Paul direction, not the Ron Paul destination.

As for your statements about the economy, this book was written before the economy tanked. If you want to understand that more, from an Austrian's perspective, read Thomas Wood's Meltdown. Or watch this series for an intro to his book.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I feel that though I may be naively hopeful about government programs being able to work if done properly, he may be naively hopeful about trusting corporations to make all of the correct decisions, especially given the more global and interconnected way multinational corporations function. He sort of dismissed as irrelevant the history of monopolies and poor working conditions that existed during the late 1800s as some sort of conspiracy in public education, while not really provided sources for his claim.

Bingo.

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I feel that though I may be naively hopeful about government programs being able to work if done properly, he may be naively hopeful about trusting corporations to make all of the correct decisions, especially given the more global and interconnected way multinational corporations function. He sort of dismissed as irrelevant the history of monopolies and poor working conditions that existed during the late 1800s as some sort of conspiracy in public education, while not really provided sources for his claim.

Bingo.

Pretty much sums up many of our feelings. As Bamacre said, its about the direction, not the destination

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I feel that though I may be naively hopeful about government programs being able to work if done properly, he may be naively hopeful about trusting corporations to make all of the correct decisions, especially given the more global and interconnected way multinational corporations function. He sort of dismissed as irrelevant the history of monopolies and poor working conditions that existed during the late 1800s as some sort of conspiracy in public education, while not really provided sources for his claim.

Bingo.

Well, what you and the OP aren't looking at is that free market capitalism always takes the blame when government intervention screws up the economy. It was true back then as much as it is true today. So if you two have some specific examples that concern you, then bring them up, or research them beforehand. We always hear of the "robber barons," yet not in the correct light.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: GenHoth

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I feel that though I may be naively hopeful about government programs being able to work if done properly, he may be naively hopeful about trusting corporations to make all of the correct decisions, especially given the more global and interconnected way multinational corporations function. He sort of dismissed as irrelevant the history of monopolies and poor working conditions that existed during the late 1800s as some sort of conspiracy in public education, while not really provided sources for his claim.

Bingo.

Pretty much sums up many of our feelings. As Bamacre said, its about the direction, not the destination

Ditto.

At this point I would settle for effective governance of anything - then we may focus on efficient and productive governmental bureaucracy on every level.

There will always be a need for quality public 'servants' - find 'em, hire 'em and train 'em and unload the trash.

 

[frostedflakes]

Yeah, I like some of Ron Paul's ideas (although I think a lot of it is stuff that sounds good in theory, but wouldn't necessarily work in the complex world we live in), but the gold standard is just ridiculous IMO. There's nothing inherently wrong with fiat currency, the government just needs to keep the spending reasonable. But maybe his argument is that as long as we have fiat the government spending will never be reasonable because the temptation to spend beyond our means is there. I don't know, I haven't read Ron Paul's book.

I can definitely stand behind him on social and foreign policy.

I also kind of like the idea of more being handled at the regional and state level than federal. It just seems like when you have entities that become very large (it seems like this happens in the private sector as well, it's not just exclusive to government bureaucracy) it leads to a lot of inefficiency and waste. To me smaller, local operations make a lot of sense because I'd think they would be much more manageable. I also think this is nice because something that works for California may not work for another state, so it's kind of unfair to push a policy on all the states. It's crazy to me how much difference there is between some of the states in our union, they might as well be their own countries.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
There's nothing inherently wrong with fiat currency

Our current economic problems stem from our government's irresponsibility with our fiat currency. It is a power government should not have, period. Just as we wouldn't want government to decide how much a microprocessor should cost, or how much a car should cost, we don't want government deciding how much money should cost. But they do, and that is why we have the huge booms and busts.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
There's nothing inherently wrong with fiat currency

Our current economic problems stem from our government's irresponsibility with our fiat currency. It is a power government should not have, period. Just as we wouldn't want government to decide how much a microprocessor should cost, or how much a car should cost, we don't want government deciding how much money should cost. But they do, and that is why we have the huge booms and busts.

The government didn't make CDOs. They didn't make LBOs in the 80s. They didn't make Trusts in the 1920s. They didn't make railroad trusts in the 1800s. They didn't make tulip contracts either.

Government debt is but a fraction of the total debt out there. It is nothing compared to the nightmare of CDS.

I laugh my ass off at people like you who choose one boogeyman. It's like watching a blind, deaf, dumb, legless, and armless person root-bite at a Redwood tree thinking it'll bring down the whole fucking forest. Maybe in 10,000 years you'll understand how stupid you were, but I doubt it.

 

[frostedflakes]

The thing I never understood, though, is what happens when we run out of gold to back currency? Gold is a finite resource, so wouldn't this effectively create a cap for global wealth? Is there even enough gold in existence to back the world's current wealth? Gold standard just seems like an unsustainable model to me, which is probably why every nation on this planet has abandoned it.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: GenHoth

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I feel that though I may be naively hopeful about government programs being able to work if done properly, he may be naively hopeful about trusting corporations to make all of the correct decisions, especially given the more global and interconnected way multinational corporations function. He sort of dismissed as irrelevant the history of monopolies and poor working conditions that existed during the late 1800s as some sort of conspiracy in public education, while not really provided sources for his claim.

Bingo.

Pretty much sums up many of our feelings. As Bamacre said, its about the direction, not the destination

The direction is just as bad.

If corporations were so egalitarian, then why do we have so many toxic waste sites in the world? Why were so many rivers almost destroyed? Why were so many children killed during the industrial revolution?

The direction of Ron Paul is just as much of a joke as the destination. There is no moderation or logic to either.

 

[Lemon law]

The Ron Paul idea of Libertarianism is an ideology, and unlike the ideology of GWB, its never really been put to the test in the history of the world.

When one is advocating a theory its very easy to paint an idealized picture of how thing could work, but its seldom how things work in the real world.
Like all Utopian schemes, the spirit may be willing but the flesh is weak. And there are always enough total rascals to exploit the situation, to screw the thing up.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
There's nothing inherently wrong with fiat currency

Our current economic problems stem from our government's irresponsibility with our fiat currency. It is a power government should not have, period. Just as we wouldn't want government to decide how much a microprocessor should cost, or how much a car should cost, we don't want government deciding how much money should cost. But they do, and that is why we have the huge booms and busts.

The government didn't make CDOs. They didn't make LBOs in the 80s. They didn't make Trusts in the 1920s. They didn't make railroad trusts in the 1800s. They didn't make tulip contracts either.

Government debt is but a fraction of the total debt out there. It is nothing compared to the nightmare of CDS.

I laugh my ass off at people like you who choose one boogeyman. It's like watching a blind, deaf, dumb, legless, and armless person root-bite at a Redwood tree thinking it'll bring down the whole fucking forest. Maybe in 10,000 years you'll understand how stupid you were, but I doubt it.

And I laugh at people like yourself who are still defending a system that brought us into the fiscal nightmare we are in. And you will deny deny deny that the Federal Reserve and it's monetary policy, it's super low interest rates, created this problem. And I am in no way "choosing one boogeyman," yet another straw man argument from LK.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
When one is advocating a theory its very easy to paint an idealized picture of how thing could work, but its seldom how things work in the real world.
Like all Utopian schemes, the spirit may be willing but the flesh is weak. And there are always enough total rascals to exploit the situation, to screw the thing up.

Are you describing Keynesian economics?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I question whether or not the American people would be able to handle the sticker shock of his proposals.

You could say the same about the current system as well. Obama isn't even pretending we'll have a balanced budget anytime during his first term, and it's not looking realistic for his second as well, assuming he's re-elected. When it comes to the issue of the actual costs of proposed gov't programs, we as a populace just like to put our head in the sand and ignore the issue.

 

[Lemon law]

Bamarce asks, " Are you describing Keynesian economics? "

No, I was specifically describing Ron Paul and his ideas.

But Keynesian economic are a somewhat quantified and proven theory. Its fails not because the theory is wrong, it fails because politicians are idiots.
Government spending can stimulate the economy, but when the economy is doing well, that same theory advocates government spending should decrease, instead both democratic and republican governments keep increasing spending when times are good.

 

[dullard]

I'm pleasantly surprized at a civil thread on the topic of Ron Paul. Keep up the good work.

Note: I haven't read Paul's book.

At heart, I am a libertarian. Ron Paul is too, only in title is he remotely republican. But, I just can't bring myself to vote libertarian. Carmen, nailed the reason:

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I feel as if he leaves some things sort of vague, such as how he would propose transitioning from our current form of government to what he proposes.

To date, few libertarian candidates have proposed ANY reasonable transition mechanisms. We can't just snap our fingers, have this magical shift, and have the government/society function properly. That transition period is so critical, yet it is always glossed over. For that reason, I typically vote democratic. I see democrats as a means to get towards libertarian goals slowly and safely. Democrats may not take us that way, but they have a much more plausible path than republicans.

Take the gold standard as an example since it was brought up earlier. I won't argue it's merrits (I'm against it personally - the thought of currency value fluctuating by 100% or more in a year along with the price of gold is terrifying to me as it dwarfs the ~3% per year inflation we have). Honestly, how do we transition to it? Do we use the value of all currency + small accounts in the US (M2)? That'll be over $8 trillion. How do we get $8 trillion in gold? At current prices, that'll require the US to buy every sliver of gold ever produced in the history of the world. Sure, it is doable, but just barely. And if the US bought all that gold, the price wouldn't stay where it is at. Sure, we can shave that number down by ignoring deposit accounts and by focussing only on currency (M0), but that is over $1 trillion.

Where do we come up with $1 trillion to buy this gold? Do we tax? Do we borrow? Spending $1 trillion was hard enough to swallow as a stimulus when it gave definite boost to local jobs and/or finished useful projects. But spending $1 trillion just to have a small pile of metal in a vault? Not many people will be willing to fork over those tax dollars. And the massive taxation/borrowing is 100% in opposition of libertarian ideals.

These details just haven't been answered. And that is for a very simple concept like gold backing. Many of Paul's bigger ideas face much more difficult and unanswered questions.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Bamarce asks, " Are you describing Keynesian economics? "

No, I was specifically describing Ron Paul and his ideas.

But Keynesian economic are a somewhat quantified and proven theory. Its fails not because the theory is wrong, it fails because politicians are idiots.

:laugh:

Yeah, we just need to have good, solid, honest, moral, fiscally responsible government for it to work.

Now, who is the Utopian-seeking fool?

I mean, if we can have that, why not let them manage the entire economy? Why not give them unlimited power? Why should we have any rights at all, or rather, why should we NEED any rights at all?

:laugh:

Our government was formed with the idea that government is bad, that politicians are stupid and corrupt.

Government spending can stimulate the economy, but when the economy is doing well, that same theory advocates government spending should decrease, instead both democratic and republican governments keep increasing spending when times are good.

Well, there ya go. But that doesn't get to the root of the problem, that is the Federal Reserve, and their monopoly price-fixing of money and interest rates, their monetary inflation, their distorting of the market conditions, their causing the malinvestment, and their bailing out of the people inefficiently using resources.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: dullard
I'm pleasantly surprized at a civil thread on the topic of Ron Paul. Keep up the good work.

Note: I haven't read Paul's book.

At heart, I am a libertarian. Ron Paul is too, only in title is he remotely republican. But, I just can't bring myself to vote libertarian. Carmen, nailed the reason:

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I feel as if he leaves some things sort of vague, such as how he would propose transitioning from our current form of government to what he proposes.

To date, few libertarian candidates have proposed ANY reasonable transition mechanisms. We can't just snap our fingers, have this magical shift, and have the government/society function properly. That transition period is so critical, yet it is always glossed over. For that reason, I typically vote democratic. I see democrats as a means to get towards libertarian goals slowly and safely. Democrats may not take us that way, but they have a much more plausible path than republicans.

Take the gold standard as an example since it was brought up earlier. I won't argue it's merrits (I'm against it personally - the thought of currency value fluctuating by 100% or more in a year along with the price of gold is terrifying to me as it dwarfs the ~3% per year inflation we have). Honestly, how do we transition to it? Do we use the value of all currency + small accounts in the US (M2)? That'll be over $8 trillion. How do we get $8 trillion in gold? At current prices, that'll require the US to buy every sliver of gold ever produced in the history of the world. Sure, it is doable, but just barely. And if the US bought all that gold, the price wouldn't stay where it is at. Sure, we can shave that number down by ignoring deposit accounts and by focussing only on currency (M0), but that is over $1 trillion.

Where do we come up with $1 trillion to buy this gold? Do we tax? Do we borrow? Spending $1 trillion was hard enough to swallow as a stimulus when it gave definite boost to local jobs and/or finished useful projects. But spending $1 trillion just to have a small pile of metal in a vault? Not many people will be willing to fork over those tax dollars. And the massive taxation/borrowing is 100% in opposition of libertarian ideals.

These details just haven't been answered. And that is for a very simple concept like gold backing. Many of Paul's bigger ideas face much more difficult and unanswered questions.

Come on, even Paul doesn't support a Gold standard specifically, not anymore. And regardless, you should re-think your assessments above regarding its value (relative to the dollar particularly), and especially prices. Before you can look at the numbers next to the dollar signs, consider what money actually is. But it is the ideas behind sound, honest, hard money that are important, and which need to be argued first, before we discuss by what specifically money should or shouldn't be backed. Let's see that the answer is not "nothing" before we decide on the "something."

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Come on, even Paul doesn't support a Gold standard specifically, not anymore.

It is just an example of the good intentions but no real plan. The subject doesn't really matter. I could have said flying spagetti monster instead of gold, and my point would be the same. There is no real good plan for handling a flying spaghetti monster either.

And regardless, you should re-think your assessments above regarding its value (relative to the dollar particularly), and especially prices.

If you don't like the assessments, please tell us what assements you would like. I used roughly current numbers for everything. I didn't look up gold price to the nearest minute through.

Before you can look at the numbers next to the dollar signs, consider what money actually is. But it is the ideas behind sound, honest, hard money that are important, and which need to be argued first, before we discuss by what specifically money should or shouldn't be backed. Let's see that the answer is not "nothing" before we decide on the "something."

Before I can continue, is society "nothing" as defined by you? And will you accept that money being backed by society as a possible answer?

 

[Titan]

I don't think people need to think they can trust corporations. Or that people can trust government. That's the main idea of Ron Paul, you can't trust govt so have less of it. You don't implicitly trust anyone and go after them when they do break the law. Don't put nanny systems in place to create trust, they will just get corrupted.

Americans are too lazy and trust it will be done for them. That is why we have no oversight or accountability. That is why we are corrupt. Each of us has to work to scrutinize our govt and lives and not expect someone else to do it for them.

What was the campaign-winning slogan of Homer Simpson? - "Can't someone else do it?" Worked well for him.

There will always be a disconnect between idea and reality. But if we don't have a good idea, we will never reach a reality even resembling what we initially intended.

 

[Carmen813]

Well, I read the chapter on the gold standard, which he refers to as a subject no one can talk about in government. He does present a reasonable argument. He doesn't want to completely switch to a gold standard, but simply legalize gold as a currency that Americans can use to buy and sell services/goods. This way he feels that those who believe our current money system can work can stick with it, while giving at least some Americans the choice to avoid the financial catastrophe he sees in the near future when we have hyperinflation.

My main problem with this idea is that this basically creates multiple currencies, which is one of the reasons the Articles of Confederation failed and the Constitution was created. Back then, each state had it's own currency, and it caused serious problems. Gold is also a finite resource, which presents its own problem given that we no longer have most of it. We would need to buy it back, and that would cause it's own type of inflation.

He brings up some very good points, but I think he glosses over the potential downsides. For example, he advocates basically the complete withdrawal of American troops from every single country we currently have them in (around 130). Now, this is all fine and good, and would certainly save us a ton of money in the long term. In the short term it would be tremendously expensive, because we have to move all of those men and resources back, unless we just want to drop our guns and leave. We probably should withdraw troops from some of these countries. However, part of the reason the U.S. military is feared is because we can project force anywhere in the world within 24 hours. We currently cannot really afford this capability, which is the sum of his argument, however I imagine us leaving immediately would have unforeseen consequences.

It isn't hard to imagine that just as surely putting troops into the Middle East caused the rise of Al-Qaeda (along with other things), pulling them out and leaving the region in chaos would form another extremist group that blames America for the problems left behind. We are simply too intermingled with the rest of the world now to hit a reset button and go back, it would cause global chaos.

The same thing applies to Korea. Sure, we could leave, but at the risk of regional stability. Japan, South Korea, and China are some of our biggest trading partners.

I'm glad I've taken the time to read his book, and I would definitely recommend it, he has some good ideas, and some bad. My biggest concern is that he seems to ignore the fact that we as a country have traveled down a certain path for a very long time, and not every single decision that took us down that road was necessarily one we need to get rid of. Yes, there have been mistakes made, and yes, serious reform is needed, but let's not burn down the forest when all we need to do is uproot some nasty weeds.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I feel that though I may be naively hopeful about government programs being able to work if done properly, he may be naively hopeful about trusting corporations to make all of the correct decisions, especially given the more global and interconnected way multinational corporations function. He sort of dismissed as irrelevant the history of monopolies and poor working conditions that existed during the late 1800s as some sort of conspiracy in public education, while not really provided sources for his claim.

Bingo.

Well, what you and the OP aren't looking at is that free market capitalism always takes the blame when government intervention screws up the economy. It was true back then as much as it is true today. So if you two have some specific examples that concern you, then bring them up, or research them beforehand. We always hear of the "robber barons," yet not in the correct light.

Backwards, for Paulbots---Government always takes the blame for the inherent faults of Capitalism.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I feel that though I may be naively hopeful about government programs being able to work if done properly, he may be naively hopeful about trusting corporations to make all of the correct decisions, especially given the more global and interconnected way multinational corporations function. He sort of dismissed as irrelevant the history of monopolies and poor working conditions that existed during the late 1800s as some sort of conspiracy in public education, while not really provided sources for his claim.

Bingo.

Well, what you and the OP aren't looking at is that free market capitalism always takes the blame when government intervention screws up the economy. It was true back then as much as it is true today. So if you two have some specific examples that concern you, then bring them up, or research them beforehand. We always hear of the "robber barons," yet not in the correct light.

The Private Market F@cked us with their Fake little worthless Debt swaps

The the Guberment made it worse by making money cheap cheap


but no one would do nuthin because the Rich were too busy buying gold toilets and The guberment ( lets say the executive) was happier than a pig in Sh!t that he was spending like a crack whore, fighting 2 wars, and still had a booming Stock market

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I feel that though I may be naively hopeful about government programs being able to work if done properly, he may be naively hopeful about trusting corporations to make all of the correct decisions, especially given the more global and interconnected way multinational corporations function. He sort of dismissed as irrelevant the history of monopolies and poor working conditions that existed during the late 1800s as some sort of conspiracy in public education, while not really provided sources for his claim.

Bingo.

Well, what you and the OP aren't looking at is that free market capitalism always takes the blame when government intervention screws up the economy. It was true back then as much as it is true today. So if you two have some specific examples that concern you, then bring them up, or research them beforehand. We always hear of the "robber barons," yet not in the correct light.

Backwards, for Paulbots---Government always takes the blame for the inherent faults of Capitalism.

Oh, and is that what is happening now? How can you say we are acting within a free market capitalist society when the government is flooding the market with new money and price-fixing interest rates?