Why would I care what troops think? Honestly, I respect everything that troops do in terms of being courageous, but I'm not going to act like I think they are the most educated class of people. I trust physicists in physics, biologists in biology, etc. I trust a soldier in how to shoot a gun, but not how to choose a candidate.
Not to mention that it doesn't paint an honest picture (not like I was expecting better of bob). Not only are Obama's top contributors now "Microsoft Corp, Comcast Corp, University of California, Harvard University, and Google Inc" in that order, but dig around the site a little and you'll find that Obama pulls in 11x what Paul does from "public servants," which includes military. The percentages may not be similar, but it's clear more people in the public sector trust their support for Obama over Paul.
The numbers for Romney are "accurate," though. He get's almost nothing from the defense sector and civil servants alike, and his top contributors mostly represent the financial industry.
Not including University of California or Harvard for Obama is dishonest as they have given as much as those businesses listed, and for a good reason as Obama is the only candidate who fully stands behind government research funding.
Why would I care what troops think? Honestly, I respect everything that troops do in terms of being courageous, but I'm not going to act like I think they are the most educated class of people. I trust physicists in physics, biologists in biology, etc. I trust a soldier in how to shoot a gun, but not how to choose a candidate.
Not to mention that it doesn't paint an honest picture (not like I was expecting better of bob). Not only are Obama's top contributors now "Microsoft Corp, Comcast Corp, University of California, Harvard University, and Google Inc" in that order, but dig around the site a little and you'll find that Obama pulls in 11x what Paul does from "public servants," which includes military. The percentages may not be similar, but it's clear more people in the public sector trust their support for Obama over Paul.
The numbers for Romney are "accurate," though. He get's almost nothing from the defense sector and civil servants alike, and his top contributors mostly represent the financial industry.
Ron Paul is number 2 when it comes to government workers yet, he rakes in more money from our military than Obama does:
I also find it hilarious that you Obama apologists try and make it seem like he isn't bought off. He hired a huge number of Goldman Sach's employees to work UNDER HIM. How the hell does that not tip you off that something is wrong? BTW, I have a gift for you which might help you get your head out of the sand:
Why would I care what troops think? Honestly, I respect everything that troops do in terms of being courageous, but I'm not going to act like I think they are the most educated class of people. I trust physicists in physics, biologists in biology, etc. I trust a soldier in how to shoot a gun, but not how to choose a candidate.
Not to mention that it doesn't paint an honest picture (not like I was expecting better of bob). Not only are Obama's top contributors now "Microsoft Corp, Comcast Corp, University of California, Harvard University, and Google Inc" in that order, but dig around the site a little and you'll find that Obama pulls in 11x what Paul does from "public servants," which includes military. The percentages may not be similar, but it's clear more people in the public sector trust their support for Obama over Paul.
The numbers for Romney are "accurate," though. He get's almost nothing from the defense sector and civil servants alike, and his top contributors mostly represent the financial industry.
Ron Paul is number 2 when it comes to government workers yet, he rakes in more money from our military than Obama does:
I also find it hilarious that you Obama apologists try and make it seem like he isn't bought off. He hired a huge number of Goldman Sach's employees to work UNDER HIM. How the hell does that not tip you off that something is wrong? BTW, I have a gift for you which might help you get your head out of the sand:
Obama has Bill Daley, who had worked under Goldman, Jacob Lew, who also worked under Goldman, and Timothy Geithner, who had also worked under Goldman. These are capable budget directors, who are at the tap and not the top.
Look at the Wall Street money this time. Almost all of it is going to Mitt Romney. But what about 2008, when affiliates and employees of Goldman were top donors (with 0.13% of Obama's campaign sum?)
Remember back then (long ago, wasn't it?) Obama was astronomically popular. He entered the White House with soaring approval ratings and a big promise for change. The scenario some detractors would like to paint is that Obama came begging for cash from the Goldman machine to get elected. In 2008 with the banks failing and a wildly popular Presidential candidate perfectly capable of raising over 700 million without any bank money, this scenario doesn't make much sense. A much more plausible scenario is that the President wanted to govern as a pragmatic problem solver and (misguidedly) attempt to achieve bipartisan consensus and to get the best legislation that could gain 60 votes in the Senate passed. That, or he actually believed that rescuing the banks was necessary for a financial sector.
Did the banks get a lot of what they wanted? Sure. They got bailouts but people who suffered from banking collateral damage didn't. They got a watered-down banking rule which fell far short of the ideal Obama pushed for well, everywhere. But this has a lot more to do with having to attain Scott Brown's crucial 60th vote and Obama's misguided belief that he could transcend partisanship by collaborating with business (and this approach has done a lot of good in the auto industry and healthcare reform) than witth being "bought off".
As for the website you bring up, I'm glad they bring up legitimate concerns and cite their sources.But a lot of the site is based on the idea that Obama can play both legislator and executor. This is not true at all. Guantanamo bay? Try the 95-0 Senate vote blocking relocation of detainees. Public option and exempting abortion services? Try the 20+ Democrats representing (hint: they're called "representatives" for a reason) conservative districts opposing its passage. This one: "continued to defend the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy" from legal challenges" really made me chuckle. You can balance it out with the whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com And the website you bring up definitely savages Obama from the left, attacking his administration for not being proactive enough. I have no idea how that meshes with Ron Paul's belief on the limited scope of government.
We've gone through the whole campaign contribution thing like three or four times already, and every single time bobthepropagandist's posts were debunked. Why do you keep doing the exact same shit again and again? It's like either he goes through amnesia or he hopes everyone else goes through selective amnesia.
In terms of ron paul campaign contributions etc etc, I have no problem when it is used to defend his foreign policy involving troops. When people say "military hates Ron Paul" something does speak to the contrary.
This is not to say the majority of government personnel are for him
On January 31 2012 13:47 koreasilver wrote: We've gone through the whole campaign contribution thing like three or four times already, and every single time bobthepropagandist's posts were debunked. Why do you keep doing the exact same shit again and again? It's like either he goes through amnesia or he hopes everyone else goes through selective amnesia.
How were they debunked? They are from a none partisan fact website ....opensecret.org . Dude are you really that blind? Get your head out of the sand please and see how much of a fake Obama is. He's for bankers not people. Ask yourself why hasn't Obama prosecuted any bankers at all? Why did he let the war criminals Bush go free? Please do some thinking before you go out to vote.
On January 31 2012 13:47 koreasilver wrote: We've gone through the whole campaign contribution thing like three or four times already, and every single time bobthepropagandist's posts were debunked. Why do you keep doing the exact same shit again and again? It's like either he goes through amnesia or he hopes everyone else goes through selective amnesia.
How were they debunked? They are from a none partisan fact website ....opensecret.org . Dude are you really that blind? Get your head out of the sand please and see how much of a fake Obama is. He's for bankers not people. Ask yourself why hasn't Obama prosecuted any bankers at all? Why did he let the war criminals Bush go free? Please do some thinking before you go out to vote.
Can you do third grade math? Goldman's million dollar sum is 0.0013 of Obama's campaign total.
On January 31 2012 02:40 Hider wrote: Hi Tor, I honestly just wondered if there actually was a empirical critic of the austrian school. Of course I don't think it can proove anything, but I would still be interest in reading it. Anyway I will read your link later when I have time.
Not Tor, but I do have an M.A. in Economics so maybe I know something. Well, probably not lol.
The empirical evidence against Austrian economics is called econometrics.
IME trying to have a discussion with an Austrian trained individual is somewhat like talking to global warming deniers. They have every excuse in the world why all data is wrong except for the one crack pot who cooked the books to agree with them. Case in point are the people who selectively "cleaned" pre-WWII data to try and construe the new deal as doing more harm than good.
On a more general note, though still on the topic of economics here, I have personally given up any hope that macro models will ever be of any predictive use. I think that trying to predict the behavior of human beings is a fool's errand and that even in aggregation people can be fooled for quite a long time (e.g. home prices, the current price of gold, etc) to a degree that makes prediction a waste of time. More useful is the use of econometrics as a descriptive science to hopefully give us a best guess as to which programs may or may not work.
Ron Paul is then, at least as far as I care, completely useless. He has a preconceived, and intransigent, mindset when it comes to policy and will simply impose his theory on an economy and, as so many who have the same outlook do, ignore the effects as it's happening.
I don't believe that Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney have the slightest understanding of economics. I dont believe that Mitt Romney actually knows anything about business that you dont learn in business school (i.e. enough to be dangerous but not enough to do any good). All in all, I think everyone left in this race is just as ****ing ignorant as the rest of us. So, I think that the least disastrous outcome is that Romney wins because I think his staff will be the most reasonable. Gingrich is a crazy person and Ron Paul is a well meaning idiot.
I will vote for Mitt. Not because I am a conservative person; but rather I think that Mitt Romney will be like a early 20th century vaccine; poisonous to remind people why the Republican party shouldnt be in charge of anything but not bad enough to wreck the country irreparably.
On January 31 2012 13:47 koreasilver wrote: We've gone through the whole campaign contribution thing like three or four times already, and every single time bobthepropagandist's posts were debunked. Why do you keep doing the exact same shit again and again? It's like either he goes through amnesia or he hopes everyone else goes through selective amnesia.
How were they debunked? They are from a none partisan fact website ....opensecret.org . Dude are you really that blind? Get your head out of the sand please and see how much of a fake Obama is. He's for bankers not people. Ask yourself why hasn't Obama prosecuted any bankers at all? Why did he let the war criminals Bush go free? Please do some thinking before you go out to vote.
Can you do third grade math? Goldman's million dollar sum is 0.0013 of Obama's campaign total.
So, you admit to him taking money from Goldman Sach's? Tell me how was opensecret.org debunked if you finally agree that he did indeed take money from them.
On January 31 2012 13:47 koreasilver wrote: We've gone through the whole campaign contribution thing like three or four times already, and every single time bobthepropagandist's posts were debunked. Why do you keep doing the exact same shit again and again? It's like either he goes through amnesia or he hopes everyone else goes through selective amnesia.
How were they debunked? They are from a none partisan fact website ....opensecret.org . Dude are you really that blind? Get your head out of the sand please and see how much of a fake Obama is. He's for bankers not people. Ask yourself why hasn't Obama prosecuted any bankers at all? Why did he let the war criminals Bush go free? Please do some thinking before you go out to vote.
Meanwhile, Ron Paul has over $1 million invested in mining! This is an obvious example of mixed interests. He knows if he becomes president, the price of silver and gold will skyrocket, and even if he doesn't, his fear-mongering will do the same (to a lesser extent). Ron Paul is all about the big gold payout, it's all over his speeches, debates, and documents!
Despite the well known fact that going back to the gold standard would destroy the economy, he continues to peddle it. His goal is to sell out the American people, all for a yellow metal and all the riches he could want! If this wasn't true, why hasn't he denounced those "cash for gold" scams people have been running? Why doesn't he vary his portfolio? Please wake up and realize Paul is all about cashing in on American ignorance!
On January 31 2012 02:40 Hider wrote: Hi Tor, I honestly just wondered if there actually was a empirical critic of the austrian school. Of course I don't think it can proove anything, but I would still be interest in reading it. Anyway I will read your link later when I have time.
Not Tor, but I do have an M.A. in Economics so maybe I know something. Well, probably not lol.
The empirical evidence against Austrian economics is called econometrics.
IME trying to have a discussion with an Austrian trained individual is somewhat like talking to global warming deniers. They have every excuse in the world why all data is wrong except for the one crack pot who cooked the books to agree with them. Case in point are the people who selectively "cleaned" pre-WWII data to try and construe the new deal as doing more harm than good.
On a more general note, though still on the topic of economics here, I have personally given up any hope that macro models will ever be of any predictive use. I think that trying to predict the behavior of human beings is a fool's errand and that even in aggregation people can be fooled for quite a long time (e.g. home prices, the current price of gold, etc) to a degree that makes prediction a waste of time. More useful is the use of econometrics as a descriptive science to hopefully give us a best guess as to which programs may or may not work.
Ron Paul is then, at least as far as I care, completely useless. He has a preconceived, and intransigent, mindset when it comes to policy and will simply impose his theory on an economy and, as so many who have the same outlook do, ignore the effects as it's happening.
I don't believe that Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney have the slightest understanding of economics. I dont believe that Mitt Romney actually knows anything about business that you dont learn in business school (i.e. enough to be dangerous but not enough to do any good). All in all, I think everyone left in this race is just as ****ing ignorant as the rest of us. So, I think that the least disastrous outcome is that Romney wins because I think his staff will be the most reasonable. Gingrich is a crazy person and Ron Paul is a well meaning idiot.
I will vote for Mitt. Not because I am a conservative person; but rather I think that Mitt Romney will be like a early 20th century vaccine; poisonous to remind people why the Republican party shouldnt be in charge of anything but not bad enough to wreck the country irreparably.
@aksfjh You mean he's actually practicing what he preaches? He has told people for YEARS to invest in gold because the FED keeps printing more money. This is common knowledge that the more money the FED prints the more our dollar is devalued. So, tell me why are you trying to lie to everyone when Paul has stated that he wants competing currencies with Gold and Silver. Latest interview on it:
On January 31 2012 14:13 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: [ Wow, this is the kind of attitude that makes terrible voters. Btw, New Nobel Prize in Economics Winner Echoes Ron Paul on Monetary Policy so, tell me how someone like you can think some of his policies wouldn't work when you have people like Thomas Sargent saying similar things?
The nobel prize is given to people who do good work, not people who are right.
They gave one to Krugman, though I suppose that wouldn't meet the criteria for you to bring that up, would it?
I am not suggesting that Ron Paul is wrong on every single accord. I am suggesting he is wrong in most cases.
Treating me like a child by pulling out a name and an article is not going to get you far. I went to a top 25 program; I have taken classes by highly cited and known economists. I have a lesser opinion of their predictive abilities than people who are not trained economics, almost without exception. Not that I think I know better than they, rather I actually have some first hand experience as to why when it comes to economics the Emperor probably doesnt have any clothes on.
On January 31 2012 14:18 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @aksfjh You mean he's actually practicing what he preaches? He has told people for YEARS to invest in gold because the FED keeps printing more money. This is common knowledge that the more money the FED prints the more our dollar is devalued. So, tell me why are you trying to lie to everyone when Paul has stated that he wants competing currencies with Gold and Silver. Latest interview on it:
Open your eyes and educate yourself. It's common sense that people diversify their portfolio. Any good investor will tell you that. He's feeding you a big lie, all to line his pockets as the price of mined minerals skyrockets.
Look at that! Gold prices have been going up ever since Paul hit mainstream. It's no coincidence. Him and his lackeys have been hard at work deceiving good, hardworking Americans to run up the price on precious metals. Scaring the elderly out of sound, safe investments all for a quick buck. Swindling young people to invest in gold instead of housing, stocks, and a good education. He only wants competing currencies to continue to drive those prices through the roof, so his mining companies will hit it big. This is Ron Paul's "economic advisor":
All he does is sell gold to those that will listen to him. His company, Euro Pacific Capital, deals primarily in the trade of precious metals. Him and Paul rigged this scheme together. It won't stop until you take a stand against Paul!
On January 31 2012 14:13 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: [ Wow, this is the kind of attitude that makes terrible voters. Btw, New Nobel Prize in Economics Winner Echoes Ron Paul on Monetary Policy so, tell me how someone like you can think some of his policies wouldn't work when you have people like Thomas Sargent saying similar things?
The nobel prize is given to people who do good work, not people who are right.
They gave one to Krugman, though I suppose that wouldn't meet the criteria for you to bring that up, would it?
I am not suggesting that Ron Paul is wrong on every single accord. I am suggesting he is wrong in most cases.
Treating me like a child by pulling out a name and an article is not going to get you far. I went to a top 25 program; I have taken classes by highly cited and known economists. I have a lesser opinion of their predictive abilities than people who are not trained economics, almost without exception. Not that I think I know better than they, rather I actually have some first hand experience as to why when it comes to economics the Emperor probably doesnt have any clothes on.
First of all Paul Krugman won it in 2008 and he lost all credibility when he supported bailouts for the wealthy:
Secondly, I don't care what schools you went too. People can still make mistakes even if they went to some top the top 25 programs. If you don't haven't scored an Economics Prize then your opinion means almost nothing to me when it comes to the economy. Also, you have provided us with zero citations that Paul is wrong "in most cases". So, with that being said that's like your opinion man:
On January 31 2012 14:34 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: If you don't haven't scored an Economics Prize then your opinion means almost nothing to me when it comes to the economy.
this sentence is almost too good to be true.
well, I have to give you credit; you certainly have succeeded in dragging down the level of discourse in this forum. given that this is the internet, that is quite the accomplishment.
On January 31 2012 14:18 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @aksfjh You mean he's actually practicing what he preaches? He has told people for YEARS to invest in gold because the FED keeps printing more money. This is common knowledge that the more money the FED prints the more our dollar is devalued. So, tell me why are you trying to lie to everyone when Paul has stated that he wants competing currencies with Gold and Silver. Latest interview on it:
Open your eyes and educate yourself. It's common sense that people diversify their portfolio. Any good investor will tell you that. He's feeding you a big lie, all to line his pockets as the price of mined minerals skyrockets.
Look at that! Gold prices have been going up ever since Paul hit mainstream. It's no coincidence. Him and his lackeys have been hard at work deceiving good, hardworking Americans to run up the price on precious metals. Scaring the elderly out of sound, safe investments all for a quick buck. Swindling young people to invest in gold instead of housing, stocks, and a good education. He only wants competing currencies to continue to drive those prices through the roof, so his mining companies will hit it big. This is Ron Paul's "economic advisor":
All he does is sell gold to those that will listen to him. His company, Euro Pacific Capital, deals primarily in the trade of precious metals. Him and Paul rigged this scheme together. It won't stop until you take a stand against Paul!
Wow aksfjh, I never thought you were the kind of person that would divulge into conspiracies like a nut. Anyways, I have educated myself to know that Gold has been going up ever since Nixon took us off it.
The only reason he advocates it is because our dollar has been losing value ever since the creation of the FED.
So, how far are you willing to stick your head in the sand and ignore everything that is going on around you?
On January 31 2012 14:34 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: If you don't haven't scored an Economics Prize then your opinion means almost nothing to me when it comes to the economy.
this sentence is almost too good to be true.
well, I have to give you credit; you certainly have succeeded in dragging down the level of discourse in this forum. given that this is the internet, that is quite the accomplishment.
Maybe if you actually cited real sources instead of pulling stuff out of your ass. Then people might start to believe what you have to say. So, give me some sources please?
On January 31 2012 14:13 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Wow, this is the kind of attitude that makes terrible voters. Btw, New Nobel Prize in Economics Winner Echoes Ron Paul on Monetary Policy so, tell me how someone like you can think some of his policies wouldn't work when you have people like Thomas Sargent saying similar things?
There's the broad point, which you might be saying (?), that for pretty much any economic theory, some smart economist out there thinks it is valid.
But disagreeing with Keynesians isn't the same as agreeing with Austrians (despite the way some Austrians frame it, there are way more than two competing schools of economic thought). Sargent seems to fit more into the neoclassical/neoliberal school.
Points 5 and 6 are relevant to Sargent vs the Austrian perspective. "Indeed, if Sargent and Sims represent a slap in the face to Keynes, they must be regarded as a knee to the groin of Hayek."
The Prize Lecture he gave implies that the US Constitution gave more stability than the less centralized Articles of Confederation; whereas Paul (and Austrians generally) seem to prefer a system that puts more power in the hands of the States, if they have to choose a statist system to live under. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2011/sargent-lecture.html
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nGtA8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.propertysecrets.net/images/blog_images/gold_graph.jpg)
