| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
Ron Paul is a hell of a lot better than Romney and Grintrich combined: I strongly disagree that neo-isolationism and a strange passion for an archaic monetary system are a good prescription for the country's ills. Also you can't win an election advocating radical, deconstructionist reform of the welfare state, it just doesn't work. People want sensible reform, not the baby thrown out with the bathwater. | ||
|
Playguuu
United States926 Posts
| ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On November 23 2011 11:51 DeepElemBlues wrote: I strongly disagree that neo-isolationism and a strange passion for an archaic monetary system are a good prescription for the country's ills. Also you can't win an election advocating radical, deconstructionist reform of the welfare state, it just doesn't work. People want sensible reform, not the baby thrown out with the bathwater. In reality Paul is preaching a Non-interventionism style foreign policy "Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence". Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul. Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their polices from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade." source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism Also, what do you mean deconstruction of the welfare state? He's actually gonna help re-finance SS and Medicare by bringing back the troops. He's the only Republican not cutting those programs with a plan because those were promises issued by the government: P.S. Your either trolling or really clueless on what's going on. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
I wish there was a place to put him where he could watch for government overreach without getting anywhere near the economy. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On November 23 2011 12:10 acker wrote: Oh Ron Paul...such sensible civil rights policies. Such batshit crazy economic policies. I wish there was a place to put him where he could watch for government overreach without getting anywhere near the economy. Tell me what "batshit" crazy economic policies are you referring too? Because if your talking about Keynesian economic policies vs Austrian economics. Those are still debatable. All you have to do is look at our economy right now and say should we keep practicing Keynesian economics style Or do something different? We can't keep spending more money than what we make. That's the truth. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On November 23 2011 12:10 acker wrote: Oh Ron Paul...such sensible civil rights policies. Such batshit crazy economic policies. I wish there was a place to put him where he could watch for government overreach without getting anywhere near the economy. you just don't get economics that's all | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On November 23 2011 12:12 Kiarip wrote: you just don't get economics that's all I completely agree with you. Fortunately, that's what the econ department over here is for. On November 23 2011 12:11 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: All you have to do is look at our economy right now and say should we keep practicing Keynesian economics style Or do something different? We can't keep spending more money than what we make. That's the truth. To be blunt, no one in the econ department over here defends his major economic policies, be they post-Keynesian, neo-Keynesian, neoclassical, or monetarist. You'd have to look pretty hard to find an economist who does. | ||
|
discodancer
United States280 Posts
And what's your background if you don't mind? | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On November 23 2011 12:14 acker wrote: Holy crap, the Internet just put a Ron Paul ad to the right of my TL screen. I completely agree with you. Fortunately, that's what the econ department over here is for. Yeah, let's not think at all. Let other people do it for us! | ||
|
GhandiEAGLE
United States20754 Posts
On August 16 2011 22:50 SpiffD wrote: Bachmann/Palin I am pretty sure most countries will just shoot us outright. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On November 23 2011 12:17 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Yeah, let's not think at all. Let other people do it for us! *shrug* They've been studying economics for decades. I've been dabbling in economics for a fraction of that time. It'd be stupid of me not to acknowledge that, or to think I know something that they don't. Unless there was a good reason to, like conflict of interest or inquiry. | ||
|
ploy
United States416 Posts
On November 23 2011 12:17 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Yeah, let's not think at all. Let other people do it for us! I'd rather have people defer to experts than be emotionally attached to their own uninformed/ungrounded opinions. Unfortunately , I'd wager that at least 90% of society falls under the 'emotionally attached to their own uninformed/ungrounded opinions' side. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
| ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On November 23 2011 12:14 acker wrote: Holy crap, the Internet just put a Ron Paul ad to the right of my TL screen. I completely agree with you. Fortunately, that's what the econ department over here is for. To be blunt, no one in the econ department over here defends his major economic policies, be they post-Keynesian, neo-Keynesian, neoclassical, or monetarist. You'd have to look pretty hard to find an economist who does. Well if mainstream economists would understand what was going then we probably wouldn't be in this mess would we? but then again... lol | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
Which is why Ron Paul is right in economics. Even the new Nobel Prize in Economics Winner Echoes Ron Paul on Monetary Policy. An interview of Professor Sargent by the Minneapolis Fed in August 2010 summed up some of his contributions succinctly: “Policymakers can’t manipulate the economy by systematically ‘tricking’ people with policy surprises. Central banks, for example, can’t permanently lower unemployment by easing monetary policy, as Sargent demonstrated with Neil Wallace, because people will (rationally) anticipate higher future inflation and will (strategically) insist on higher wages for their labor and higher interest rates for their capital.” Source: http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/10/a-nobel-for-thomas-sargent | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On November 23 2011 12:24 Kiarip wrote: Well if mainstream economists would understand what was going then we probably wouldn't be in this mess would we? Maybe. I hardly think it's that black and white, though. We know more about cancer and civil engineering than we do about economics, but cancer happens anyways and bridges keep falling down. On November 23 2011 12:26 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Which is why Ron Paul is right in economics. Even the new Nobel Prize in Economics Winner Echoes Ron Paul on Monetary Policy. An interview of Professor Sargent by the Minneapolis Fed in August 2010 summed up some of his contributions succinctly: “Policymakers can’t manipulate the economy by systematically ‘tricking’ people with policy surprises. Central banks, for example, can’t permanently lower unemployment by easing monetary policy, as Sargent demonstrated with Neil Wallace, because people will (rationally) anticipate higher future inflation and will (strategically) insist on higher wages for their labor and higher interest rates for their capital.” This is called the inflation-adjusted Philips curve. Did Sargent find out something new about this? Friedman and Lucas found evidence supporting this forty years ago. Edit: From what I've gathered on wiki, Sargent won the Nobel for creating more econometric tools and analyses on cause and effect. Not exactly what you're looking for... | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On November 23 2011 12:17 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Yeah, let's not think at all. Let other people do it for us! Yea! Damn those scientists doing all the research and coming up with scientific theory for us! Let's stop being sheeple and declare the Earth the center of the universe, since we can't explain gravity (and other phenomena) with other models! | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
Also, what do you mean deconstruction of the welfare state? He's actually gonna help re-finance SS and Medicare by bringing back the troops. He's the only Republican not cutting those programs with a plan because those were promises issued by the government: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8nJuXG5zqmk P.S. Your either trolling or really clueless on what's going on. I return the bold charge back to you. As anyone who has a clue to the numbers knows, you could end all military spending tomorrow and barely make a dent in the projected future obligations laid out by Social Security and Medicare. An extra ~trillion dollars a year is not enough. Your video is a good example of a politician selling snake oil. Yes we can assume that if 100% of desired objectives are accomplished that they will all produce the predicted results and the grand objective is obtained. It doesn't work that way in the real world... In reality Paul is preaching a Non-interventionism style foreign policy Toe-may-toe, tuh-mah-toe, I've heard this before. "Non-interventionists" like to play up the "economic differences" between the two, when the main focus and purpose of both is identical, and political in nature. Namely, the removal of the United States from the international institutions that we gave life and strength to like the UN. I am not in favor of reneging on the ideals we laid out in 1917 and promised to uphold in 1945. And we did not lay out those ideals to the governments of the world, or make the promise to them. We made the promises and laid out the ideals to the peoples of the world. You adopt Soviet agitprop reasoning and dress it up as a principled stance in regards to American foreign policy, you distort Washington's words, and what you advocate would result in a return to the world of the 19th century in matters of relations between states and in monetary policy. No thanks. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
Keep it going, guys. It's always good to be reassured about the public mentality of my birth-country. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On November 23 2011 12:28 aksfjh wrote: Yea! Damn those scientists doing all the research and coming up with scientific theory for us! Let's stop being sheeple and declare the Earth the center of the universe, since we can't explain gravity (and other phenomena) with other models! I think you should look at your candidate again. Is Obama with the people or with the fat cats? http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/obama-heckled-for-allowing-police-brutality-against-protesters.htm | ||
| ||
|
GSL
Epic.LAN
Big Brain Bouts
OSC
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
Epic.LAN
IPSL
eOnzErG vs McRibbed
LancerX vs StRyKeR
AI Arena Tournament
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
