Maybe he considered running the newsletter to be of little importance. I can’t really say. I’m not familiar with the structure of it’s organization, maybe he had little oversight.
I do not believe we have had a man fit to run a government in many years. He seems to be a hard-working individual that’s all I can base my judgement on.
It tells me that they need to be persuaded to do otherwise.
We had this “outside the box thinking” in the 19th century, the good old days before the 1906 Pure Food And Drug Act and all the unnecessary regulations that followed to promote safe and effective drugs, clean air, drinkable water, non-tuberculosis contaminated milk, freedom from having to fear mass epidemics of vaccine-preventable diseases - all those evils of the modern age.
Vote Ron Paul - let’s be free* to sicken and die without government interference!
*a.k.a. “Health Freedom”.
[quote=“Marley23, post:58, topic:600082”]
It is. And you should know are also free to decide to treat your cancer with St. John’s Wort or vitamin C or homoepathic nonsense or anything else sold over the counter at the drugstore or grocery. Those things have rarely been tested, and they certainly aren’t tested in scientifically controlled studies, so for all you know, they could work. Don’t you feel like a better informed consumer already?
Why couldnt there be a sort of Consumer Reports or Moody’s of drug testing? If this company was effective it would be difficult to hide bad studies. If there is a consumer demand for info on the efficacy of drugs, an industry would be formed.
Continue to operate and perhaps expand.
Oh no the past was scary! Nothing can harm us now that we have Our Government.
The difference between then and now is the internet. Information is available quickly and cheaply. There is no excuse for an uninformed consumer. There is no reason a private company couldnt’ do what the FDA does. If there is consumer demand for a service, the niche will be filled
I’d be curious to see a concise factual discussion of the “competing currency” idea Paul envisions to “strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.” Is he thinking of gold certificates? Foreign exchange baskets? (I’ll confess I find the idea bizarre and wrong in too many ways to summarize here. It might be a good solution to some problem, but not a problem relevant to today’s U.S.)
I am not asking for a link to yet another screed about deficit spending, etc. I’d just be curious to see a concise and sober description of how the “competing currency” might actually operate.
Do you really want the general public basing its healthcare decisions on shit they read on the Internet?
And we’re not even addressing the fact that computers and the Internet are not hardwired into every baby at birth. Not everyone has access to that worthless information, you know.
Just wait.
Why would the drug companies participate? They already announce the good news themselves. They do announce the failures at times, but there have been instances they hid unfavorable results for big products. What’s their incentive to participate with or support an independent company* that would bring more attention to their failures?
*Which is not a good description of ratings agencies like Moody’s, which are paid by the companies they are rating. Remember the financial crisis?
If a publication like this already existed and had attained a significant amount of clout, it could arguably do this job. The problem is that it doesn’t, so it would have to attain that status, and there’s no guarantee that it would. So you’re going to to have to explain why it’s better to overhaul the system to that extent than to work with what already exists, and how everybody’s going to be better off- particularly if it doesn’t work out.
So your out of the box proposal is that companies keep doing what they’re already doing? Slow down, maverick!
Out of curiosity, what would returning to the gold standard do to demand for (and therefore price of) gold? Paul is heavily invested in gold and gold mining stocks.
The scary part is the people who are unaware of or in denial of the past.
Yes, uninformed, biased and commercially self-interested babble is available ever so much more easily now. A few minutes of Googling to find what confirms your prejudices, and voila! an informed consumer. :rolleyes:
In general, Ron Paul devotees seem convinced that there is a media plot to keep the public ignorant about the fabulousness of their candidate. They should only hope for such a conspiracy. The more people who know the specifics of what Ron and his fan club believes, the more repelled and scornful they’ll be.
And Western silver-mine-owners were all for Free Silver.
Get real now. It is possible that a reputable third party company could provide that service. I’m not suggesting people troll the SDMB for advice.
If they don’t have access their doctor most likely does. Whatever the case may be, information is more widespread than in the days before the FDA.
So, looping this back to the current discussion, what gives you confidence that this is a thoughtfully considered fiscal plan by Mr. Paul, when he was unable to keep racist screeds written in his name out of a newsletter named after him?
On a fundamental level, if hundreds of billions of dollars are cut out of next year’s Federal budget, do you think unemployment will go up, go down, or stay the same?
Do you mean when people insist that increasing spending is the way out of a recession, because it worked so well for FDR? Or when they refuse to admit that Harding slashed federal spending during the depression of 1920-21 and it was over in a year?
The media in general do ignore him. I’m not one to speculate on their reasons for doing so. But they seem to enjoy covering people like Rick Perry and Hermain Cain. These candidates don’t even know the specifics of their own beliefs. i think people with a coherent message should be covered more. And his message is coherent whether or not people believe it.
Dr. Paul. This is a plan that is in line with many things he has been saying for many years. He is claiming authorship of the plan, while he didn’t claim authorship for the newsletter.
I think that in the long run it will cause positive growth in the private sector. Initially it may go up a little, but I’m no economist. All I can say is Harding did the same thing in the early '20s and it worked. Also, the budget was cut drastically after WWII and to the chagrin of Keynesian economists it created a boon.
You guys caught him. He got into government in the 1970’s when Nixon took us off the gold standard in international transactions so that when the economic crisis hit in 2008 he would be poised to capitalize on public sentiment for a return to the gold standard.
He was simply a shrewd investor because he knew that as the dollar declined, the price of gold would go up. Shame on him for relying on the tenants of Austrian economics in practice while espousing their merits to the public.
Is it not possible that the nature of our economy is just a little different than it was 90 year ago (or 65 years ago)? Approaches which worked well then might be completely inappropriate today.
I am sure the boom (you meant boom, not boon, right?) had everything to do with the budget cuts and nothing to do with the end of World War II. Yes. While we’re at it, let’s not forget the opposite also happened: the economy started to recover before the war, and when Roosevelt responded by cutting spending, it sank again. It is also not true that there was no economic recovery until the war.
Carter was on a mission to shrink the government when he was in office. I heard an interview with him, in which he said not being able to shrink the government was one of his great regrets. Everybody says they will cut it down. But it not that easy. One mans wasted bureau is the next mans pet project.
Some of the agencies Paul would eliminate are important to cutting pollution and overseeing industries. Simply eliminating them would be stupid.
One function of the government is to 0protect the people and the land. He would be Greespannian and allow the polluters and bankers to police themselves.
Ron Paul is an idiot.
I don’t think anyone else has addressed this one. American and Britain, during the 19th century, were poverty-ridden shitholes–compared to 2011 standards, of course. No highway system, barely any train service, incredibly high transaction costs, no standards on food or drugs…the list goes on and on. Burkina Faso is a fair comparison to 19th century America.