| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| you should have supported Ron Paul as the *opponent* you wanted to see |
Talk about a 'Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue'! 
One of the concerns right now is an extended deep depression around the world. The last time we had that, 80 years ago, lots of people chose extreme political solutions from the fringe because they were angry and scared.
The essence of Ron Paul's philosophy is what got us into this mess. So 'he' is not the solution, he's the problem. |
Talk about not understanding what I wrote. All I'm saying is that Ron Paul as the GOP nominee would have meant a more substantive debate in these elections, compared to what we have now:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/19/AR2008091903524_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008091903542&s_pos=
Palin: "The economy is hurtin' and needs fixin'." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't think one can make a serious argument that the "essence of Ron Paul's philosophy got us into this mess". The largest factor in this crises is the Fed. Ron Paul is and has been totally opposed to the inflationary outcomes of the Fed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
By 'essence' I meant the hands off, laissez faire captialism/small government philosophy.
Mith, I did understand your point about debating issues in the election. However, I don't believe more than a relatively small minority on the right want the government to keep hands off and risk letting the system collapse. People pay lip service to small government ideals in the general, but in the specific they reject it. It's been that way for about 80 years.
In primary after primary people heard Paul's views and less than 10% voted for him. As I said in an earlier post, the problem isn't with RP's predictions, it's with his solutions. 90% of the people who are closest to his overall views rejected them in free election after free election. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| VanIslander wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The US isn't even in recession. Financals are down and out but the rest of the economy isn't. |
the fundamentals are strong eh joo rip |
Get oil down and the US economy will easily , easily take care of the rest. No question about it.
Get oil down to 40 $ and the housing crisis is a joke that will be over in a couple of weeks.
Get oil down and the fundamentals are VERY strong.
40$ oil means the Dow is 17,000 and the Nasdaq 5000.
Miracle Cure All. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It's very easy to speak reality when you have no hope of being elected. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| In primary after primary people heard Paul's views and less than 10% voted for him. As I said in an earlier post, the problem isn't with RP's predictions, it's with his solutions. |
And just exactly how did a large proportion hear him when he was shut out of several debates and the mainstream media?
Do you mean to say that, even in the midst of this current debacle you still support the Federal Reserve bank??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
In primary after primary people heard Paul's views and less than 10% voted for him. As I said in an earlier post, the problem isn't with RP's predictions, it's with his solutions. 90% of the people who are closest to his overall views rejected them in free election after free election. |
This is silly.
Ron Paul wins his Congressional District in elections with 70% of the vote.
The voters who have gotten to know Ron Paul best, support him. If the general public had had the chance to hear his message, the would have flocked to it. Especially now that the whole world is waking up to the fact that the Federal Reserve has caused yet another major financial crisis.
Even Bernanke and Greenspan know that the Fed caused the Great Depression and this second coming great depression. They too know that the only way out, in the end, is to get back to a gold standard. They just don't know how to get there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Watch this video from the April 1977 Korelin Economics report: In this interview of Ron Paul he explains how the government is causing the bubble and how we may be headed for an "inflationary depression."
Especially watch from the 6 minute mark.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=cziN3gt-hic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Korelin is excellent. As is Financial Sense Newshour with Jim Pupliva (sp?). I learn so much from listening to their show. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Kevin Philips interview on Bill Moyers is good. He's highly critical of the past 25 years. One devastating point he made was that we are stuck relying on the people who created the problem to now fix it.
I was surprised he was so openly contemptuous of Phil Gramm, 'Mr. & Mrs. Enron' as he called them, and of McCain for relying on him for economic advice. The only glimmer of hope about McCain that I got from the interview was that he grew up in a navy family and therefore might not be so sympathetic to Wall Street.
Philips didn't blatantly say so, but I got the impression that he thinks Obama will win and that he, Philips, wants Obama to win.
BTW, Philips was absolutely scathing in his comment about Bush being the worst possible president at such a dangerous time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Holy crap was he right:
| Quote: |
Return to the
1999 Congressional
Record directory
Project FREEDOM
Opening Page
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: Nov. 8, 1999
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 900, GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT
------------
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
[Page: E2297]
* Madam Speaker, today we are considering a bill aimed at modernizing the financial services industry through deregulation. It is a worthy goal which I support. However, this bill falls short of that goal. The negative aspects of this bill outweigh the benefits. Many have already argued for the need to update our financial laws. I would just add that I agree on the need for reform but oppose this approach.
* With the economy more fragile than is popularly recognized, we should move cautiously as we initiate reforms. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan (in a 1997 speech in Frankfurt, Germany and other times), Kurt Richebacher, Frank Veneroso and others, have questioned the statistical accuracy of the economy's vaunted productivity gains.
* Federal Reserve Governor Edward Gramlich today joined many others who are concerned about the strength of the economy when he warned that the low U.S. savings rate was a cause for concern. Coupled with the likely decline in foreign investment in the United States, he said that the economy will require some potentially `painful' adjustments--some combination of higher exports, higher interest rates, lower investment, and/or lower dollar values.
* Such a scenario would put added pressure on the financial bubble. The growth in money and credit has outpaced both savings and economic growth. These inflationary pressures have been concentrated in asset prices, not consumer price inflation--keeping monetary policy too easy. This increase in asset prices has fueled domestic borrowing and spending.
* Government policy and the increase in securitization are largely responsible for this bubble. In addition to loose monetary policies by the Federal Reserve, government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have contributed to the problem. The fourfold increases in their balance sheets from 1997 to 1998 boosted new home borrowings to more than $1.5 trillion in 1998, two-thirds of which were refinances which put an extra $15,000 in the pockets of consumers on average--and reduce risk for individual institutions while increasing risk for the system as a whole.
* The rapidity and severity of changes in economic conditions can affect prospects for individual institutions more greatly than that of the overall economy. The Long Term Capital Management hedge fund is a prime example. New companies start and others fail every day. What is troubling with the hedge fund bailout was the governmental response and the increase in moral hazard.
* This increased indication of the government's eagerness to bail out highly-leveraged, risky and largely unregulated financial institutions bodes ill for the post S. 900 future as far as limiting taxpayer liability is concerned. LTCM isn't even registered in the United States but the Cayman Islands!
* Government regulations present the greatest threat to privacy and consumers' loss of control over their own personal information. In the private sector, individuals protect their financial privacy as an integral part of the market process by providing information they regard as private only to entities they trust will maintain a degree of privacy of which they approve. Individuals avoid privacy violators by `opting out' and doing business only with such privacy-respecting companies.
* The better alternative is to repeal privacy busting government regulations. The same approach applies to Glass-Steagall and S. 900. Why not just repeal the offending regulation? In the banking committee, I offered an amendment to do just that. My main reasons for voting against this bill are the expansion of the taxpayer liability and the introduction of even more regulations. The entire multi-hundred page S. 900 that reregulates rather than deregulates the financial sector could be replaced with a simple one-page bill. |
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec99/cr110899-glb.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
Holy crap was he right:
| Quote: |
Return to the
1999 Congressional
Record directory
Project FREEDOM
Opening Page
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: Nov. 8, 1999
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 900, GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT
------------
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS |
|
I voted for this guy for president 20 years ago. If only...
Isn't it hilarious how the Paulhaters around here still continue on in Lalaland? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hmmmm....where's that post of Kuros' about Libertarianism being dead? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
