Register to reply

Ron Paul's candidacy

by Char. Limit
Tags: candidacy, paul
Share this thread:
Angry Citizen
#451
Feb2-12, 10:15 PM
P: 867
Quote Quote by Tosh5457 View Post
In principle I don't think a central bank is bad, it can reduce the volatility in GDP and inflation. I have a problem with the Fed in particular, and the influences and interests behind it (particularly the banking sector). An independent agency which controls the monetary market is prone to be influenced by special interests, that's expected. Greenspan was appointed chairman because he's a neoliberal, and the same happened with Bernanke.
Oh I fully agree on that, but Ron Paul doesn't want to bring it under control, he wants to kill it entirely. He thinks the US should not have a central bank. Personally, I favor nationalization of all banks, including the central bank.
Tosh5457
#452
Feb2-12, 10:23 PM
P: 239
Quote Quote by Angry Citizen View Post
Oh I fully agree on that, but Ron Paul doesn't want to bring it under control, he wants to kill it entirely. He thinks the US should not have a central bank. Personally, I favor nationalization of all banks, including the central bank.
Just ending it and putting the gold standard monetary system back would be even better than controlling it. The gold standard brings stability and sound money. Switzerland for example, has a system close to a gold standard, since they have a lot of gold reserves.

Hmm nationalization of all banks is crazy in my opinion, the government can't and shouldn't run an entire sector. What we need is more regulation, and start by putting back the regulations that existed before, like distinguishing between commercial and savings banks.
Angry Citizen
#453
Feb2-12, 10:27 PM
P: 867
The gold standard brings stability and sound money.
No it doesn't. In times of economic pain, a gold standard will destroy an economy. Keynesian economics is a proven format - it's just that most nations don't bother to pay down the debt in times of plenty like J.M. Keynes advocated.
vela
#454
Feb2-12, 10:44 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 11,731
Quote Quote by Tosh5457 View Post
Aside from this, then there's the lender of last resort issue.
The Fed was created specifically to be a lender of last resort. It was supposed to be there to provide loans to otherwise healthy banks when there was a run on them so that they wouldn't collapse and cause a financial panic.

I think Ron Paul is nutty about wanting to go back to a gold standard, but I can understand why he has problems with the Fed. The Fed wields an incredible amount of power over the economy, and its track record has been uneven at best. Reverting to a gold standard would wrest all that power out of the hands of the interests who control it now.
ParticleGrl
#455
Feb2-12, 11:13 PM
P: 685
Quote Quote by Angry Citizen View Post
Oh I fully agree on that, but Ron Paul doesn't want to bring it under control, he wants to kill it entirely. He thinks the US should not have a central bank. Personally, I favor nationalization of all banks, including the central bank.
The US central bank has done much better than the European central bank as far as these things go. Yea, nothing is perfect, but would a nationalization really be helpful? Would it be a good thing if a politician seeking reelection could create a bubble at will?
Angry Citizen
#456
Feb2-12, 11:16 PM
P: 867
Quote Quote by ParticleGrl View Post
The US central bank has done much better than the European central bank as far as these things go. Yea, nothing is perfect, but would a nationalization really be helpful? Would it be a good thing if a politician seeking reelection could create a bubble at will?
Sure it would be helpful. The private sector creates bubbles just to extract some money from people (see housing crisis). I don't think you have much to worry about as far as politicians, so long as an informed citizenry exists.

... On second thought, perhaps we need to wait until Americans become more similar to Europeans in terms of political consciousness. Given certain political realities in America today, it's obvious that Americans are pretty lacking in that department.
Pythagorean
#457
Feb3-12, 02:15 AM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,287
Anybody that can comment on the legitimacy of this? (with something besides overspeculation or opinion, of course)

Anonymous Hacks Neo-Nazis, Finds Ron Paul
http://www.care2.com/causes/anonymou...-ron-paul.html
Pythagorean
#458
Feb3-12, 02:20 AM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,287
Quote Quote by Pythagorean View Post
Anybody that can comment on the legitimacy of this? (with something besides overspeculation or opinion, of course)

Anonymous Hacks Neo-Nazis, Finds Ron Paul
http://www.care2.com/causes/anonymou...-ron-paul.html
I tried to go to www.nazi-leaks.info to see the documents, and it wouldn't load... then I think I found out why. A white supremacy forum is launching a DDos attack here:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t857212/

edit:
as of this edit, the white supremacist forum has been taken out, the site is available again:
http://www.nazi-leaks.info/
Pythagorean
#459
Feb3-12, 03:36 AM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,287
most of the links in the nazi-leaks site work, but the particular damning one with the relevant e-mail is going really slow, despite being only 66MB; I have tried downloading four times now, each time I reach a different point before it gets cut off. Going to keep trying though.
Pythagorean
#460
Feb3-12, 05:03 AM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,287
Finally got it downloaded. It's a lot of material, but so far the only mention of Ron Paul is that they would vote for him. Can't find anything like what the article reports.
Jasongreat
#461
Feb3-12, 02:12 PM
P: 75
Quote Quote by Angry Citizen View Post
The private sector creates bubbles just to extract some money from people (see housing crisis). I don't think you have much to worry about as far as politicians, so long as an informed citizenry exists.
If, "an informed citizenry exists", then "The private sector creates bubbles just to extract some money from people (see housing crisis)." would never happen. Even with a informed public as long as government provides free money or practicly free money(low interest) housing bubbles will continue to exist, would you pay more than a house is worth if it isnt going to have compounding interest on the overcost, how about if there is 5% compounding interest? How about 10% interest? I think I would be less apt to overpay the higher the interest rate goes, the opposite would be true the lower they go. The other side of the coin is the local governments, the ones who value your property for tax purposes, it is in thier interest to say your property is worth more than it is, since it gives higher tax revenue for the city, county, parish or whatever. If a true market controled the price, bubbles would be less apt to happen, as long as government controls the market, bubbles will continue to happen.
Dotini
#462
Feb3-12, 02:14 PM
PF Gold
P: 513
An "alliance" between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney is reported by the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...oiQ_story.html

RENO, NEV. — The remaining candidates in the winnowed Republican presidential field are attacking one another with abandon, each day bringing fresh headlines of accusations and outrage.

But Mitt Romney and Ron Paul haven’t laid a hand on each other.

They never do.

Despite deep differences on a range of issues, Romney and Paul became friends in 2008, the last time both ran for president. So did their wives, Ann Romney and Carol Paul. The former Massachusetts governor compliments the Texas congressman during debates, praising Paul’s religious faith during the last one, in Jacksonville, Fla. Immediately afterward, as is often the case, the Pauls and the Romneys gravitated toward one another to say hello.

The Romney-Paul alliance is more than a curious connection. It is a strategic partnership: for Paul, an opportunity to gain a seat at the table if his long-shot bid for the presidency fails; for Romney, a chance to gain support from one of the most vibrant subgroups within the Republican Party.


Respectfully submitted,
Steve
lpetrich
#463
Feb3-12, 03:29 PM
P: 530
Quote Quote by Jasongreat View Post
The south was trying to protect thier legal property, it was the US government when writing the constitution that continued the princple of slaves(human beings) being property.
The original Constitution nowhere mentioned "slave" or "slavery". In fact, it tries to dodge that issue in a few places, like where states get to include in their population for representation purposes "three fifths of all other Persons."
Protecting property is one of the enumerated powers of the general government.
Where?
The founders did found thirteen different colonies(countries) domestically, one unified front for foreign affairs like treaties, wars, and trade, atleast they intended to.
Everybody else would call it a nation -- it's more than (say) the European Union.

The only problem I have with the term democracy being used is we are not a democracy, that belief is the one that allows for the justification of tyrannical policies.
Pure hairsplitting. Reminds me of the lengthy argument I once had on another board about someone who insisted that the UK is not a "crowned republic" or a "monarchical republic".
The constitution should be legally binding, however it has not proven to be so in most cases.
News to me and to just about every jurist in the business.
Angry Citizen
#464
Feb3-12, 05:05 PM
P: 867
Quote Quote by Dotini View Post
An "alliance" between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney is reported by the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...oiQ_story.html

RENO, NEV. ó The remaining candidates in the winnowed Republican presidential field are attacking one another with abandon, each day bringing fresh headlines of accusations and outrage.

But Mitt Romney and Ron Paul havenít laid a hand on each other.

They never do.

Despite deep differences on a range of issues, Romney and Paul became friends in 2008, the last time both ran for president. So did their wives, Ann Romney and Carol Paul. The former Massachusetts governor compliments the Texas congressman during debates, praising Paulís religious faith during the last one, in Jacksonville, Fla. Immediately afterward, as is often the case, the Pauls and the Romneys gravitated toward one another to say hello.

The Romney-Paul alliance is more than a curious connection. It is a strategic partnership: for Paul, an opportunity to gain a seat at the table if his long-shot bid for the presidency fails; for Romney, a chance to gain support from one of the most vibrant subgroups within the Republican Party.


Respectfully submitted,
Steve
This is rather laughable, to be blunt. Ron Paul selling out his principles to ally himself with the Republican whose record is the least conservative, most "big government" of all.
ThomasT
#465
Feb4-12, 02:28 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by Pythagorean View Post
Anybody that can comment on the legitimacy of this? (with something besides overspeculation or opinion, of course)

Anonymous Hacks Neo-Nazis, Finds Ron Paul
http://www.care2.com/causes/anonymou...-ron-paul.html
I wouldn't know how to ascertain whether this is true or not. Imho, the main reason to not vote for Paul is because he's a libertarian who believes that the less government intervention and regulation the better. We know that this is an orientation leads to big problems. Even Alan Greenspan admitted that his libertarian economic approach was wrong. It seems that Paul hasn't learned some important lessons that our history might teach us.
MarcoD
#466
Feb4-12, 09:34 AM
P: 98
I have the feeling that lots of people in the US romanticize the glory days of how the west was won (I don't blame them.) They always seem to want to return to the 'primordial soup' of society. It wouldn't surprise me if libertarians and the extreme right-wing US share that belief.

Doesn't say a lot about Ron Paul, though.
Jasongreat
#467
Feb4-12, 04:32 PM
P: 75
=ParticleGrl]I call BS. And thinking this betrays such a lack of study that no one should give you the benefit of the doubt on anything you've written about history.
Which is exactly the point I was making, I have no doubt that you are intelligent and 'well' educated. Yet you hold the exact politically correct understanding of american history I was refering to.

I hope that neither you nor anyone else gives anyting I say the benefit of the doubt. But I think if you study the same sources I have you will come to the same conclusion.


The south succeeded and tried to raise a country with the EXPLICIT goal of defending slavery. Read the succession documents from the various states! Here is a choice quote from the Cornerstone Speech:



Alexander Stephens was the vice president of the Confederacy. He was not alone in championing this "ideal",again-the South succeeded, according to its leaders explicitly to defend slavery.
I came to my beliefs reading Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Madison, John Taylor of caroline, the federalist and anti-federlist papers among others, and for the souths view I read the rise and fall of the confederate states, by the president of the confederacy Jefferson Davis.

And always remember- the opening act of aggression in the Civil War was South Carolina militia firing on Fort Sumter.
Another politically correct 'fact'. The south had been victims of the norths aggression for years before fort sumter. Your fact also fails to take into account that while the south had people in washington trying to negotiate a peaceful solution, the north were sending reinforcements and supplies to fort sumpter. If I was in a city, and across the bay a fort was being filled with men, weapons and supplies, I would consider that aggression, especially since those in the forts had been free to go into town to re-supply.

It has long been the custom that to the victors goes the spoils, in this case the victor re-wrote history to justify its unjust, unneeded, anti-constitutional war. That is the history taught in school today and is why I labeled it the way I did.
Jasongreat
#468
Feb4-12, 04:49 PM
P: 75
=lpetrich;3743631]The original Constitution nowhere mentioned "slave" or "slavery". In fact, it tries to dodge that issue in a few places, like where states get to include in their population for representation purposes "three fifths of all other Persons."

Where?(In response to property being protected in the USC)
So your argument is that since slavery is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution that it does not qualify as protected property?

1) At the time the constitution was adopted, slaves were held as legal property.
2) In that same constitution it meantions no ex-post-facto laws can be passed. Therefore one cannot pass a law depriving one of their legal property. You can make a law effecting all future property, but cannot make a law effecting presently held property.
3) In the fourth ammendment it says that all persons are to be secure in their effects, effects are property, unless through due-process. Going to war is not due proccess.

I am well aware that today it is easy to distinguish between human beings and property, but at the time in question, human beings were legally binding property, unfortunately.


As fun as this has been, and even with states rights being part of pauls platform, civil war history however is a bit off topic and as such I will not reply to any more post on this subject, feel free to respond though, you all will have the last word, if you so choose.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Paul Dirac Science & Math Textbooks 12
Paul the octopus Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 5
Les Paul General Discussion 10
Ron Paul Current Events 197
The Taz-Cut Con - Paul Krugman Current Events 1