Ron Paul, does he stand a chance?

[Cadrid]

Originally Posted by Tolanin

the only reason i dont support paul is because his monetary policy is retarded

I guess I have Down's syndrome, because I don't really see what's so "retarded" about taking an economical monopoly away from the obscenely wealthy and giving it back to the country as a single entity. Please elaborate.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Cadrid

I guess I have Down's syndrome, because I don't really see what's so "retarded" about taking an economical monopoly away from the obscenely wealthy and giving it back to the country as a single entity. Please elaborate.

Sure. For one, there's no "country" as a single entity. Who should control monetary policy? The president, congress or the treasury department?

Now keep in mind that monetary policy is a long term effort, whereas politicians are elected every 4 years. How many would risk long term stability just to get some increased activity just before an election? This is the reason why the fed is not a government agency, they need to be free (or as free as possible) from such considerations and focus on the long-term wellbeing of the nation.

You could leave it all up to the market, which would certainly work. But that has its own implications: it'll lead to much more frequent ups and downs, hence mass layoffs and mass hirings will happen more frequently. This is a social question as well as an economic one. From an economic point, firing people then hiring others and having to train them again isn't optimal. From a social view, such uncertainty is a big burden on people who depend on an income; this will also affect their economic activity and likely lead to more saving. (less consumption also means fewer employees, so more people get fired) But back on the social cost: Considering most US states already have little employee protection, you could essentially be fired tomorrow, rehired somewhere else a month later, fired two months later and so on. This is not something many people could afford to have happen to them.

The increased volatility would also make the US far less attractive for foreign investors, who seek stability. Less foreign investment means less growth, less money coming into the US.

But is a central bank just the least bad option? Turns out, a central bank independent from government is actually a pretty good thing. It's so well established, Panama is the only country in the world that doesn't have one. (they use the dollar and hence don't have their own monetary policy)

Why is it good? Look at what a central bank does: they help with short term liquidity through repos (repurchasing agreements, see the FAQ above on that) and by doing so they increase confidence in banks, which is crucial to global capitalism. By setting the rate they loan money to banks, they decide between an expansionary or contractionary policy which influences growth, unemployment, inflation and so on. They also influence the value of the currency on the currency market, by buying or selling their currency; also important for stable growth.


People seem to object largely to fiscal policy and go from that to wanting to get rid of the fed, which does not control government spending. The central bank does monetary policy, the government does fiscal policy - a significant difference.

I've read an interesting article about bias towards bad science on youtube: a study was done with regards to vaccinations and the unscientific ones claiming they were harmful greatly outnumbered the scientifically sound ones. The difference in 'views' was even greater.

This seems to hold true for economics even more. I've scrolled through a couple dozen and didn't find a single non-sensational analysis of monetary policy... it seems to consist entirely of people who don't get "it". Example: Interest payments. Some videos claim the government pays interest to the people running the fed (some conspiracy of wealthy bankers) - this is, of course, bullshit. The government pays interest to the federal reserve, which transfers it to the treasury department, which is a government agency. The government pays interest to itself - also known as doing proper accounting. (if there was no interest attached, it'd create the false illusion of free money and that'd compromise data used for analysis.)

The government does pay interest on treasury bonds, but every investor can buy them and this isn't a way to funnel money to some influential families.

Anyway, this post is getting way too long

[tranceMiNuS]

Didn't read any part of this thread.

The only people that should be for Ron Paul are the very wealthy. Unrestricted capitalism and a complete dissolution of social responsibility does not a great country make.

I am mostly certain that the majority of people who support Ron Paul have no idea how much damage his constitutionally purist policy would do.

The forefathers were not infinitely wise, they didn't even have wikipedia.

[Lithose]

Originally Posted by tranceMiNuS

Didn't read any part of this thread.

The only people that should be for Ron Paul are the very wealthy. Unrestricted capitalism and a complete dissolution of social responsibility does not a great country make.

I am mostly certain that the majority of people who support Ron Paul have no idea how much damage his constitutionally purist policy would do.

The forefathers were not infinitely wise, they didn't even have wikipedia.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
-Jefferson

They were wiser then you think.

Jefferson saw the flaws in our current system hundreds of years before it was ever implemented. Really, these guys were a bright bunch, we would do well to listen to what they were saying.

[Soriak]

Some more quotes from Jefferson:

Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor. (which he said while owning slaves)

hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. (In favor of government regulation)


So I don't think he was a big fan of the free market either
Not that it even makes sense to compare the America of 1800 to the America of today - for one, it wasn't dependent on foreign investment and not as much on global trade.

It was a pretty crappy time - I don't get why anyone would feel nostalgic towards it.



How does the argument that less/no banking means more prosperity even make sense? Where do people think money for investments comes from? It's not like FDIC or the fed's role as banker of last resort doesn't do anything for confidence in the banking system.

[Lithose]

Originally Posted by Soriak

Some more quotes from Jefferson:

Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor. (which he said while owning slaves)

hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. (In favor of government regulation)


So I don't think he was a big fan of the free market either
Not that it even makes sense to compare the America of 1800 to the America of today - for one, it wasn't dependent on foreign investment and not as much on global trade.

It was a pretty crappy time - I don't get why anyone would feel nostalgic towards it.

Funny thing was, most, if not all of what he said is a real concern among economists now.

The rich/poor gap, the regrowth of a robber baron aristocracy and interest creating debts which can't be feasibly repaid. Jefferson's quotes, the ones you sited in fact, all point to massive flaws in bank-driven economics, they weren't implicitly for government control (Though he was a fan).

Granted a lot of our current economic flaws have to do with this weird bastardized mixture of Keynesian economics+Adam smith laissez fair. Regardless however, the people who lived then were as insightful toward politics and economics as Newton was towards Mathematics. Just because newer trends change the landscape which they predicted does not make them any less genius.

Yeah, it would be unwise to only sup from the knowledge of the past, but it's also pretty unwise to throw it away. A lot of "fixes" for our current economic mess can be found in the teachings of dead economists.

[darksensei]

Ron Paul's Realtime Q4 Donation Statistics

Tea Party charts

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Lithose

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
-Jefferson

They were wiser then you think.

Jefferson saw the flaws in our current system hundreds of years before it was ever implemented. Really, these guys were a bright bunch, we would do well to listen to what they were saying.

tranceMinus wasn't talking about Ron Paul's fiduciary stance; he couldn't give two shits about the reality in regards to budgetary policy and prolly couldn't tell a gold bullion from a chicken broth cube of the same appellation. He was talking about the "harm" our constitution and our forefathers would mean to his "social responsibility"; he means welfare and social security.

[Slepnir Sato`Sarr]

Originally Posted by darksensei

Ron Paul's Realtime Q4 Donation Statistics

Tea Party charts

There is something fun about watching the counter go crazy by visiting the site once an hour and estimating how much it'll be at the next time you click on the site.

[qLir]

Total Raised: Dec 16th vs. Nov 5th

looking good so far vs the 5th

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by qLir

Total Raised: Dec 16th vs. Nov 5th

looking good so far vs the 5th

If it keeps going like this, he may break $6m.

[Khorum]

The site says he's raised 12.5 million so far. Or do you mean just for this quarter?

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

He means 6m in one day, and his website says 15m for the 4th quarter.

[Khorum]

Ah ok... yeah looks like 15m for the quarter then. The donor map looks pretty spot-on too heh: Donor Maps

Sunday was a better day for the money bomb and it also sets up a full week of news coverage when the results trickle out.

[darksensei]

Originally Posted by Khorum

Ah ok... yeah looks like 15m for the quarter then. The donor map looks pretty spot-on too heh: Donor Maps

Sunday was a better day for the money bomb and it also sets up a full week of news coverage when the results trickle out.

It's interesting to see which states favor him. In Alaska he's leading the polls with over 30% and he is more popular in NH. These early elections will be decided on voter turnout, hopefully in RP's favor.