On August 17 2011 10:35 Cush wrote: Rick Perry is going all the way. Texas has created more than 40% of jobs in the past 2 years. With that behind him, nothing can stop him.
Texas still has higher unemployment than a few states like NY and MA, 1 out of 4 Texans doesn't have health insurance, most of the "job creation" is really just population growth.
Not saying that you're wrong, just that the 40% of new jobs should be taken with a grain of salt. Not that the average voter is willing to dig deeper on a subject than they are required to.
^ The last line is exactly why American politics is a joke. So many voters are misinformed. It pains me to think every time I ask someone about their choice when they make a bold statement of a person they choose to vote for. Many of their opinions or even the facts they know about their vote are not wise due to misinformation or lack thereof.
Heres a crazy thought. How about we try and go back to a time when he didn't ask our Congress to pass every major bill and wait endless for them. Lets go back to when the state legislatures controlled almost all of our affairs. There is a right way to do things. We can not expect to elect people from all these different walks of life to a building where they will magically come up with the perfect one size fits all approach. Look at the health care law. Its too expensive and even worse it wrong on two moral levels-1.)I do not think the government has the right to force me to pay for anything. 2.)I also do not think the federal government should tell the states how to fix these problems. Look at massachusetts, now I think the law was terrible but they did not need the federal government to get involved. They did it themselves and more importantly they wanted it. You can not force people to do things they do not want to do without some sort of blow back.
Okay. I have read this whole story several times over the years, I know it well. This video is so very very perfect I don't know how to describe it. Please, everybody needs to watch this before spouting off about Iran and our foreign policy in general.
@cfoy: I'm glad this thread popped up, we ended up spending waaaay too much time arguing about the merits of Ron Paul and Iran in the other thread, and it's better to keep that discussion about the debt. Foreign policy is part of that discussion, of course, but I'd rather talk about such things here .
I'm still not positive that Keynesian economics as a philosophy is completely wrong, or is necessarily to blame for our economic problems, but I am positive that we are doing it wrong so the point is a little moot. Ron Paul predicted all our financial problems, not because he's a wizard or particularly wise, but because he believes in Austrian economics. It's probably about time we give it a try. In 1998 he also predicted a terrorist attack, but that's another story. I feel like I should copy and paste all my posts from the other thread over here, lol.
On August 17 2011 10:35 Cush wrote: Rick Perry is going all the way. Texas has created more than 40% of jobs in the past 2 years. With that behind him, nothing can stop him.
Texas also has an 8.2% unemployment rate.
Funny how high that still is, even though he created jobs. Oh, and ignore the fact they were government jobs.
On August 17 2011 11:47 cfoy3 wrote: Heres a crazy thought. How about we try and go back to a time when he didn't ask our Congress to pass every major bill and wait endless for them. Lets go back to when the state legislatures controlled almost all of our affairs. There is a right way to do things. We can not expect to elect people from all these different walks of life to a building where they will magically come up with the perfect one size fits all approach. Look at the health care law. Its too expensive and even worse it wrong on two moral levels-1.)I do not think the government has the right to force me to pay for anything. 2.)I also do not think the federal government should tell the states how to fix these problems. Look at massachusetts, now I think the law was terrible but they did not need the federal government to get involved. They did it themselves and more importantly they wanted it. You can not force people to do things they do not want to do without some sort of blow back.
This is an important point; after all, how dare someone suggest the government has the right to force you to pay for roads or schools or firefighters or police or the military!?!
On August 17 2011 12:02 Romantic wrote: Paul's support of the Austrian School is actually why I can't take him seriously even if I agree more with his foreign policy and social issues.
So you're looking for a candidate with a non-interventionist foreign policy, socially liberal, but a Keynesian (which of course is odd, since Keynesian economics is about gov't planning).
Ron Paul is not an electable candidate, which is exactly why he has received such little media attention despite a decently strong support base. His ideas are too extreme for most people. He will not stand a chance in the general election even if he somehow wins the primaries.
I think it will be a close race between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. I guess I should include Bachman's name in there too, although I don't think - or hope - she will ultimately be the Republican ticket. Personally I want Romney to win, not only because he will provide the best shot at defeating the incumbent President but I mainly view him as the most reasonable, non-isolating candidate with a pretty good track record. Perhaps his religion and the Obamacare-like health care plan might hold him down, not too sure at this point. Perry will definitely give him a run for his money though. He's going to play the job-creation card like there's no tomorrow, and the public will eat that up.
On August 17 2011 12:02 Romantic wrote: Paul's support of the Austrian School is actually why I can't take him seriously even if I agree more with his foreign policy and social issues.
So you're looking for a candidate with a non-interventionist foreign policy, socially liberal, but a Keynesian (which of course is odd, since Keynesian economics is about gov't planning).
Your post means you can't be taken seriously.
Not entirely non-interventionist, I am mixed. Overall I think Paul's non-interventionism would be an improvement.
Not necessarily social liberalism either; he voted for stronger borders which I fully support (I oppose multiculturalism) and is pro-life, which I am sympathetic towards.
Keynesian macro, specifically the Post-Keynesian macro I support, isn't about central planning as much as it is empiricism. Done properly macroeconomic conditions can be improved by governments.
My specific oppositions to the Austrian School are numerous, but to begin with they should either;
1. Use formal logic
2. Empiricism
Failure to do these things will result in banging their head against a wall repeatedly.
The differance is I chose those things. I wanted them. Obama got elected on what a 52% majority in the electorate? Thats hardly a mandate to do anything. Further those are taxes, not a commodity.
@Senorcuidado
The problem with Keynesia economics is that it expects the government to be reasonable and make tough decisions and balance budget cuts during boom times with increased government spending during bad times. That doesnt happen. They do not know how to make tough decisions unless they have no choice. The austria economics reject central government planning. It aligns mal investments and creates the boom bust cycle of bussiness. I think its funny that we call it a "cycle" as if it was a natural proccess that we can not control.
edit: sorry already posted, but please everyone watch this video. It defines the austrian perspectives focusing on microeconomics.
The Austrian School is not taken seriously by most economic schools, even the libertarian Chicago School. The Austrian School is just as good as representing libertarians as Che is good at representing socialism. In other words, misleading.
Yes because it does not use equations and models. However, it has been vindicated. It predicted the dot com bust, the housing bubble and now predicts hyperinflation.I think it would be wise to listen to what they have to say.
Yes because it does not use equations and models. However, it has been vindicated. It predicted the dot com bust, the housing bubble and now predicts hyperinflation.I think it would be wise to listen to what they have to say.
How did the Austrian School predict these things? Some adherent did, even though ABCT explicitly cannot have housing bubbles (probably because they actually put value on debt... it is a major failing of mainstream neoclassical oriented thought that they ignore debt). Then again they predict a crisis every other day.
I can say for certain hyper(price)inflation will not be happening.
On August 17 2011 12:02 Romantic wrote: Paul's support of the Austrian School is actually why I can't take him seriously even if I agree more with his foreign policy and social issues.
So you're looking for a candidate with a non-interventionist foreign policy, socially liberal, but a Keynesian (which of course is odd, since Keynesian economics is about gov't planning).
Your post means you can't be taken seriously.
Not entirely non-interventionist, I am mixed. Overall I think Paul's non-interventionism would be an improvement.
Not necessarily social liberalism either; he voted for stronger borders which I fully support (I oppose multiculturalism) and is pro-life, which I am sympathetic towards.
Keynesian macro, specifically the Post-Keynesian macro I support, isn't about central planning as much as it is empiricism. Done properly macroeconomic conditions can be improved by governments.
My specific oppositions to the Austrian School are numerous, but to begin with they should either;
1. Use formal logic
2. Empiricism
Failure to do these things will result in banging their head against a wall repeatedly.
Economics is not a science like Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. If anything it's in the Dark Ages relatively. How do you run a statistically & scientifically viable trial of a national government plan? There are no models that can account for all the variables and unintended consequences of actions of this scale.
The best thing the government can do is get the hell out the way. You can not predict the economy based on previous cases because each case has many small variations that create widely different scenarios. Interfering just misuses resources. I think the austrian economic system is starting to gain serious traction.
On August 17 2011 12:14 OneOther wrote: Ron Paul is not an electable candidate, which is exactly why he has received such little media attention despite a decently strong support base. His ideas are too extreme for most people. He will not stand a chance in the general election even if he somehow wins the primaries.
So electability is the criteria by which a candidate gets media coverage? How do you come to terms with the idea that the media influences a candidate's electability?
Also, how do you determine a candidates chances for winning? Is it fundraising (Paul is 2nd behind Romney)? Is it votes in early straw polls (Paul was 2nd by 0.9%)? Is it grassroots organization? What is the objective criteria?
Why are less electable candidates getting coverage than he isn't? Pawlenty, Santorum, Cain and Gingrich have zero chance.
Are these his extreme positions?
RP's monetary policy is being parroted by the entire GOP now. Rick Perry came out as insinuated the Bernake's policy were "treasonous" yesterday.
RP's foreign policy of pulling out of Iraq & Afghanistan is what the majority of America wants in poll after poll after poll.
Think about the extreme positions that the media portrays (that Ron Paul wants Iran to have nukes, or that Ron Paul wants to legalize heroin). Has those words ever come out of his mouth? Or are they just the media demagoguing his position.
The GOP primary is basically a race to become as right wing as possible. It's a campaign that appeals to an extreme base. Extremely pro-life, pro-war candidates do well. Ron Paul believes in social liberty and ending the wars. He's moderate by comparison.
Ron Paul is obviously an underdog, but it doesn't justify how the media excluded discussing him, given his polling numbers and his fundraising. There are obvious counterpoints to idea that electability and media coverage being related in RP's media exclusion.
Let me put it like this. Ron Paul wanted Congress to have the power to audit the Federal Reserve. Rick Perry has intimated that Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke would meet a violent end if he came to Texas. One man is clearly the pale imitation of the other, and it's the pale imitation who's getting all the coverage. That sound like good journalism to you?
On August 17 2011 12:02 Romantic wrote: Paul's support of the Austrian School is actually why I can't take him seriously even if I agree more with his foreign policy and social issues.
So you're looking for a candidate with a non-interventionist foreign policy, socially liberal, but a Keynesian (which of course is odd, since Keynesian economics is about gov't planning).
Your post means you can't be taken seriously.
Not entirely non-interventionist, I am mixed. Overall I think Paul's non-interventionism would be an improvement.
Not necessarily social liberalism either; he voted for stronger borders which I fully support (I oppose multiculturalism) and is pro-life, which I am sympathetic towards.
Keynesian macro, specifically the Post-Keynesian macro I support, isn't about central planning as much as it is empiricism. Done properly macroeconomic conditions can be improved by governments.
My specific oppositions to the Austrian School are numerous, but to begin with they should either;
1. Use formal logic
2. Empiricism
Failure to do these things will result in banging their head against a wall repeatedly.
Economics is not a science like Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. If anything it's in the Dark Ages relatively. How do you run a statistically & scientifically viable trial of a national government plan? There are no models that can account for all the variables and unintended consequences of actions of this scale.
I agree that economics is in the dark ages.
You cannot account for all variables, you are correct. That is fine. I support private ownership of property, business, etc. I don't want the government designing and producing shoes. Keynes called his theory conservative for a reason.
To be fair, no such models exist for medicine or psychology or anything else, but that doesn't mean we don't have good tools for fixing problems.
Fundamentally individuals cannot make economic calculations about optimal choices either. Decentralization does not fix the knowledge problem in the way Austrians want it to.
Not only do his policies make sense, but as an added bonus, if he wins we get to see all the big government fascists cry and weep about how they're going to miss getting shafted by their tyrannical government
EPT
.
