Ron Paul, does he stand a chance?

[Mimirswell]

The real problem in that video is the first segment and Ron Paul talking far too long to the point it becomes repetitive, droll and sounding more like a rant than a coherent statement. He should of cut ~30-45 seconds off his opening argument and focused more on counterarguments for Bernake. Basically, he wasn't as prepared as he should of been.

[Arbitrary]

Originally Posted by FulorianC

How fucking stupid are you if you think inflation doesn't affect the US aside from imports?

Beyond all measure sir!

[darksensei]

Originally Posted by Havelock

Libertarianism isn't necessarily isolationist. And if the Republican party really did agree on every other issue, life would be grand, but sadly that's not the case.

And just to confirm this, Ron Paul voted to go into Afghanistan. And while I came across as against force in general, I should clarify my main problems are with the idea of preemption, and supporting of regimes like Pakistan making us look like fools supporting a military dictator.

[chaos]

Originally Posted by Soriak

The enlightenment grew exactly out of questions like these and we don't have to argue about the impact that had. It's not the questions itself that are directly meaningful, but what we understand when we think about it.

Voltaire said that people who were used to regurgitate now began to think and once the time of thinking had come, it'd be impossible to rob the people of that power.

Originally Posted by darksensei

This isn't some plebeian versus patrician debate, if you don't care about fundamental questions regarding entities that regulate your life that is your own problem. The majority don't care, but I doubt the majority ever think about it.

If it mattered in the course of people's lives, people would care. It isn't my problem or anyone's problem, it's the fact that it doesn't factor into real life choices at all. It isn't about plebian vs patrician, it's reality vs academia. When you remove yourself from the equation it becomes easy to think about philosophical things such as this. You can't remove yourself from your reality, though. For all Voltaire's writing, or Shaw or whoever, most people don't even know who they are. There thoughts live on in academia, and the masses could still give a shit less. Nothing changes.

[Khorum]

I'm sure there was plenty of reason to doubt whether Ron Paul's (or anyone's) philosophical nuances had any practical effect on the electorate on and before November 4th 2007. But while I suppose you could imagine some other appealing characteristic about Ron Paul that would merit 4.3 million dollars in 24 hours, I think most folks would be inclined to agree that at least some of those 32,000 donors coughed up their money because they sympathized with Paul's largely abstract philosophical appeal.

[darksensei]

Originally Posted by Khorum

I'm sure there was plenty of reason to doubt whether Ron Paul's (or anyone's) philosophical nuances had any practical effect on the electorate on and before November 4th 2007. But while I suppose you could imagine some other appealing characteristic about Ron Paul that would merit 4.3 million dollars in 24 hours, I think most folks would be inclined to agree that at least some of those 32,000 donors coughed up their money because they sympathized with Paul's largely abstract philosophical appeal.

QFT, it's why the people that do support Ron Paul are so passionate about his candidacy. For example, at the democrat's debate on MSNBC.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by FulorianC

How fucking stupid are you if you think inflation doesn't affect the US aside from imports?

Inflation (these days more often "core inflation") matters domestically: shit you buy and live on gets more expensive. As mentioned, this is currently 2.2%, when the fed considered 2% as their target rate. With the housing trouble, that target rate may have had to be adjusted anyway, we'll know more when next year's target rate is known. Either way, 0.2% more inflation is well within normal and hardly incoming doom.

When Ron Paul says inflation (or currency devaluation) is 10%, he's talking about the exchange rate to some unnamed currency - maybe the Euro. The "cost" of a lower dollar there is entirely more expensive imports, which is countered by an increase in exports and ideally more tourism. (anti-terror measures and current unfavorable opinion towards the US hurts that somewhat) A low dollar on the exchange market doesn't cost jobs, in fact it's more likely to create them as the US will become more attractive to foreign investors.

The whole debt issue is then again a third issue that is connected to the international exchange rate, but not so much inflation. That it could mean trouble in the future and probably isn't the best thing is true, but it doesn't cost jobs today and it doesn't screw the average worker. The average blue collar worker has some debt and inflation helps him with that.

Originally Posted by chaos

It isn't about plebian vs patrician, it's reality vs academia.

Well, the 'academic' ideas of the enlightenment lead to the American and French revolutions, so at least for a while people did care. Empiricism - the philosophy that only that which can be perceived and experienced, or be deduced from that, exists - had to take hold first and founded the scientific process that has become natural today.

I'm not saying every stoned college-kid with some "deep" insight is on to something, but philosophy should have some place in every home. I think most people have an idea what they want the role of government to be - it may not be formalized, but it doesn't have to be. People have different views on a lot of things and that's fine, as long as they gave it some thought. But simply regurgitating what someone said on TV is like going back to those dark times when following king and church was the only thing people knew.

Originally Posted by Rousseau

It is too difficult to think nobly when one thinks only of earning a living.

Maybe he was on to something, even if probably fewer people heard of him than of Voltaire

[Burf]

Ok, Soriak, admit it.....You really live in the US, right?

[Cadrid]

Originally Posted by Soriak

When Ron Paul says inflation (or currency devaluation) is 10%, he's talking about the exchange rate to some unnamed currency - maybe the Euro. The "cost" of a lower dollar there is entirely more expensive imports, which is countered by an increase in exports and ideally more tourism.

Considering how we've been treating foreigners since the "War on Terror" (as you acknowledged) and the fact that other countries make better products than we do at a competitive price (China/Japan), what does the US export for a significant profit, offsetting the fact that our money is worth only 90% of what it used to be worth? The only thing that comes to mind, initially, is agricultural surplus (wheat, corn, etc.), but that alone can't possibly account for a 7.8% currency devaluation.

I'm not trying to put forth a counterpoint, I am simply intrigued as to how we could cover the cost when we import nearly everything we use from other countries.

[Soriak]

The largest US export good is parts for nuclear reactors - over $185bn a year. There's a few countries that want to go back to nuclear power and they'll have a couple suppliers to choose from, a low dollar can be an advantage - although low cost isn't the primary objective with those constructions. It's followed by electronics, where a boost in exports should be noticeable.

More directly, US retailers at the Canadian border already see increased sales, which is met by equal displeasure on the Canadian side. As will anyone shipping to Canada - even with import fees it's becoming cheaper than purchasing it there. EU countries also import mostly from the US and will likely do so even more, especially with the very high Euro. This is already paying off for cheap items like books and will only do so even more with electronics. (2nd largest US export product) Now if more stores would adapt and ship globally... since HDTVs now use the same format, the whole PAL/NTSC problem is resolved.

Remember that even stuff manufactured in China is largely just outsourced by US companies, so the biggest share of the revenue still stays in the country. If it leads to more sales/lower cost, the company may hire more people for the design or advertisement teams. Essentially you're trading low-paid work for jobs with higher salaries. Outsourcing definitely makes economic sense for everyone, opposition comes from politicians who want to look like they're helping the little guy. Over the long term, he's better off with the job abroad and government funded training programs can mitigate the social cost if necessary.

The international currency exchange is all about supply and demand of a currency. As more people want to buy items in US Dollars, the demand for the dollar will go up and with that its price. Fewer Americans will travel abroad, or import things, which means less demand for other currencies and those prices go down. This is of course a little more complicated, as central banks mess around with it as well. For example the European central bank can (and probably will do so more) buy US Dollars with Euros, driving down the price of the Euro and bringing the dollar back up.

The EU central bank could also buy dollars with Yen, for example. That'd then piss of Japan as the Yen moves away from where they want it to be, forcing them to either buy it to drive up the value, or sell it if they want it lower. (the fed can buy dollars with Yen, too, which would lead to heads exploding everywhere) All this somehow hurts and benefits each country at the same time, depending on whom you ask. In reality it's business as usual. (and, just as an side, a reason to keep the fed around - no central bank means the US can't affect the dollar on the global market, but every other country will be able to mess with it at will)

As for the US... at some point gas may just get unbearably expensive, but the market will adjust for that as well - people will drive less, more fuel efficient cars become attractive... heck, the Smart Car is coming to the US:



Before rising gas prices, this wouldn't have sold well.

Another consequence of higher gas prices is that telecommuting becomes more attractive - not just in the US but everywhere. Something that'll also be great to export.

Assuming a democratic president who can get CO2 taxes passed, you can bet on more successful alternative energy companies popping up across the US. They'll also export globally as demand goes up, which beats importing it from European companies the way it's looking now.

I think it's much more important to look ahead, recognize trends and do everything to nudge the domestic industry there without doing too much harm. For example a CO2 tax that will start low and increase every year up to its final rate. Gives people and businesses time to plan ahead and forces change now, instead of adding it all at once and constantly delaying the date. (like what's happening with analog TV)

If this can be done well, the trade deficit may just fix itself. If not, it's just going to grow much faster regardless of what happens now.

[Tolanin]

why would we ever tax co2 when global warming doesnt even matter?

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Tolanin

why would we ever tax co2 when global warming doesnt even matter?

Yawn, you can do better than that.

[chaos]

I just can't help but think that we currently do not have the right people to make this happen. When I think about what a Roosevelt or Eisenhower or even a Wilson would have done to make the switch to alternative fuels happen, given the current political status of our world, I can't help but think it would have been more, better and faster.

I don't have faith that the economy will just suddenly adapt the moment the national gas average hits 5 bucks a gallon. I live in Northern VA, right outside DC, and this entire area is based around commuting. Everything from the Metro to the freeways to the absurd housing prices around the Northern VA area. When even upper middle class people cannot reasonably afford to live within a 45 minute commute of their work, how is the economy supposed to just magically adapt all of the sudden? Another urban housing boom? Yeah that's all we fucking need. I don't know mucha bout economics and would never pretend that I do, but I do not see any kind of infrastructure in place for the impending reality of what gas prices will be.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Tolanin

why would we ever tax co2 when global warming doesnt even matter?

This is the beauty of it: It doesn't matter at all for investment purposes.

There's a trend amongst companies to go green, because they know exactly how much it'll cost them and once installed the upkeep cost is almost nothing. Contrast this to oil which is a big uncertainty. Oil is a limited resource, even if we're good for another 50 years without a massive price bump, it'll still run out eventually. The key is to prepare early, because sitting it out and freeloading of others' research tends to not work. If you look at every major computer hardware developer, they're almost exclusively located in the US. Even though how modern computers work isn't a secret, you couldn't just start up the next Intel in Germany - the people who excel at designing them want to do it in the US. Likewise the next google, youtube, myspace, etc won't be coming from Europe, for similar reasons.

So you have two ways to encourage research: let the government fund it, or make buying alternative energy technology more attractive. Usually a combination of this needs to be done. Alternative energy can be made more attractive by offering tax deductions for buying them as well as making oil more expensive. (again, doing both a little is best)

If you can create a demand for these technologies, companies will start up to try and meet it. The money they earn will then also fund product improvements, which will make the technology more competitive down the road - the market at work.

As for taxing CO2 emissions, it's important to keep it budget neutral. Meaning any revenue generated from those taxes goes back in equal shares to taxpayers. So if you pollute less than the average, you'll get back more than what you paid in the CO2 taxes - if you pollute more, you get back less.

Pollution is the best example of market failure, so trying to solve the issue without regulation is certain to fail.

Originally Posted by chaos

I don't have faith that the economy will just suddenly adapt the moment the national gas average hits 5 bucks a gallon.

You're absolutely right, it won't. It's impossible to adapt so quickly without serious damage, which is why it's important to start working on it long before it becomes a problem. The solution will probably be different for every location and industry, so it's best to let the market and local and state government figure it out and just force them to start doing so now. Maybe it'd make sense to have a commuter train from the suburbs to the city - or even cooler a monorail.

Although the primary incentive would still be to just encourage more fuel efficient cars. If you go from 30MPG to 60MPG that halves your gas bill. As heating gets more expensive, better isolation of houses will become more of an issue as well. There are some existing standards for construction that save home owners a lot over time, but people are bad comparing upfront cost to longterm savings so it doesn't have the 100% adaptation rate it should have. One solution there is to mandate a higher standard by law or simply let people figure it out down the road as prices go up and up.

Once alternative energy generation is more widespread, we can look at other ways to fuel cars. Doesn't matter if it takes more power to create the new gas than we get from burning it, as long as the power used comes from renewable energy the supply will not be limited and likely end up much cheaper anyway.

[kegkilla]

just got back from the rally in philly. i am a somewhat apprenhensive ron paul supporter myself, i went with my buddy who is a big time supporter and his lil bro. there seemed to be a ton of energy at the rally but considering its the only rally i've ever been to i don't have anything to compare it to. unfortunately, a good portion of his supporters seem a bit nutty. we were grabbing a bite at mcdonald's before the rally and some wackjob noticed my friend's ron paul hat and came over and asked us if we knew 9/11 was an inside job. wtf does that? its that kind of shit that will turn main stream voters off from ron paul's campaign. also saw some Rastafarian type characters there, but on the plus side met a good number of normal looking people, even older 50+ish type people. big turn out also, i'd say at least 3k.