The best candidate to challenge Barack Obama in 2012 is Ron Paul

Great Debates
221

“All serious economists”. You mean the ones on tv, right? How do you know what “serious” economists think? Unless you have really studied Austrian School economics, read any of Ron Paul’s books, or listened to any serious debates where the Austrian perspective is taken into account, you cannot make these claims.

Have you seen this video?

Peter Schiff is an adherent of the Austrian School, and supported Ron Paul in 2008. The ridicule he received on the financial networks is indicative of others like him who correctly called the crisis before it happened.

You are correct that some other economists saw the crisis coming. But there weren’t many. And none of them are on Obama’s recovery team. Obama selected those that got everything wrong to be on his economics team (Geithner, Summers, reappointed Bernanke). They were all wrong over and over.

Most economists on your side would say we need to stimulate the economy, the government has to spend when the people can’t or won’t spend. A correction is the markets way of reestablishing health to the economy.

Putting aside the gold standard, Ron Paul believes that you have to allow liquidation of debt and malinvestment and allow the correction to occur as quickly as possible to establish a solid foundation from which to build up a healthy economy. Allow bankruptcies to occur. Allow it to happen in a year or two. Bite the bullet and deal with the issue head on.

Don’t you see that propping up bad debt and not allowing the correction to take place will only prolong the inevitable correction? Thats the fundamental problem. Like Mises when he predicted the Great Depression in the 20s before anybody else, the solid wisdom of the Austrians is being ignored.

Here is the real question, why did we get out of the Depression of 1920-21 so quickly? Watch this video and tell me what you think:

There, evidence of what would happen if we followed Ron Paul’s advice. A rapid and full recovery within a year or two. What if things are bad for ten or fifteen years? If we follow Obama’s policies that is what will happen.

This is the fundamental question you should ask yourself.

222

AlQaeda has lots of havens. The 911 attacks were planned in Spain, Turkey, Afghanistan,Hamburg and of course the USA. They have a presence in Sudan, Pakistan, Spain, England, Yemen and lots of other places. Afghanistan is not required since our Gen McChrystal estimates there are only 100 of them there.

223

I’ll also note that you’re still ignoring the request for you to prove that Paul made surprisingly accurate/detailed/whatever predictions rather than constant doomsaying.

This type of risible argument simply shows that your position is bankrupt. That all other economists must simply be ‘people on TV’ to be disregarded, but the Austrian School is the only one worth consideration and Ron Paul is its prophet shows that this is a matter of faith, not one that’s up for debate.

Why ever would we do that? It’s clear evidence that Paul has no clue what he’s talking about. You keep acting as if you want to talk about substance, but once we show that the issues of substance prove that Paul’s judgment is crappy, you ignore that and then want to claim that he’s a visionary.

224

AQ doesn’t have lots of havens…they have lots of places where they may have a couple of operatives or a small network. Afghanistan gave them the breathing room to train and plan in a secure and open environment, and even put the various instruments of a nation state (such as it was) at their disposal, since several upper AQ members were actually in various high level defense ministry positions. I’m sorry if that doesn’t accord with your world view, but reality is like that, unfortunately.

-XT

225

No, not in the way “haven” is used. Your argument is bogus and is equivalent to claiming that the mafia has lots of “havens” because they’re based out of many US urban centers.

Which of course ignores Afghanistan’s role in allowing Al Quaeda a safe and overt base for its operations and a central hub from which their covert actions in other nations were directed.

2001, 2010.
Same timeframe or different?

226

No, I mean the ones that aren’t advocating irresponsible and unrealistic policies like returning to the gold standard, which is just about every practicing economist in the developed world. Naturally, since the economists I’m talking about comprise just about every practicing economist in the developed world, they also include various economists who have appeared on TV, but I wasn’t using that as a selection criterion.

You are trying to persuade people that amateur economists like Peter Schiff and Ron Paul (who seem to like appearing on TV themselves, by the way) have as much professional credibility on economic matters as actual professional economists. But that argument simply doesn’t fly, because so few actual professional economists take the goldbugs seriously.

You can’t have it both ways, jrodefeld. You can claim either (1) that goldbugs like Ron Paul represent a mainstream respected economic viewpoint, in which case you need to find evidence that lots of mainstream economists actually respect them; or else (2) that they represent brilliant misunderstood prophets crying in the wilderness, in which case you need to give up this absurd pretense that they possess serious mainstream credibility.

You’re comparing apples to horseshit if you imagine that the short sharp shock of 1920 was really an analogous event either to the Great Depression of the 1930’s or to the current economic crisis. Apples are round and horseshit is round, but that’s about the extent of the analogy.

And by the way, jrodefeld, most of us here are capable of absorbing information about economic theories via our literacy skills, and don’t need or want to watch hour-long videos on youtube to see your show-n-tell versions of them.

In the future, if you want people to take your “expert cites” seriously, please try to find concise but reputable published forms of the arguments you’re promoting so that we can actually, you know, read them at our convenience. It’s more considerate than expecting other posters to waste their time watching combed-over ties and coats bloviate into a microphone for the full length of a lunch hour, or expecting other posters to go read entire books that most economists consider total crap, just so that you don’t have to go to the trouble of finding specific, on-point cites to explain what you’re talking about.

227

Exactly. Our Afghanistan policy is beyond stupid. 100,000 troops for 100 Al Qaeda? We need to be honest and stop pretending these wars have anything to do with fighting terrorism.

228

Whoa, deja vu all over again.
To remind you:

The reason we sent in troops then was because Afghanistan was an official state sponsor of Al Quaeda. The reason we have troops there now is to support the government we helped establish. But please, tell us what Afghanistan is “really” about since it’s not about fighting terrorism.

229

I think the OP just jumped the shark…

…ok, ok, s/he jumped the shark long ago. This was totally off the charts though.

-XT

230

I still want to know what the war in Afghanistan was really about. Desperate need on behalf of the US Power Elite for some really awesome kebabs?

231

When you said this?

Yeah, I thought when you said “He won every post debate poll” you meant “He won every single debate poll out there”.

Yes, it weakens your argument. But it’s not like he “won” 85-90% of debates, even according to popular opinion.

As pointed out, many of the polls were online or text polls where you could vote multiple times. Online polls showing Paul getting 70% of 7+ candidates are not credible, and need to be disregarded. Particularly when they are compared against other, similar polls - Paul’s performance in the debates, when assessed by polls that reach more likely voters and are not prone to ballot-stuffing, was not as remarkable as you’ve been stating.

You’re entitled to your opinion. But on the facts, you’re wrong.

232

Cite for Paul’s prediction?

233

So if Ron Paul is a genius on foreign policy, and he knew a long time ago that Afghanistan was going to be a disaster, why did he vote for the 2001 authorization for the use of military force? That authorization is the most expansive transfer of the war power from Congress to the President in US history.

Plus it sounds like he’s a flip-flopper. I didn’t know that peoples who can see the future would be flip-floppers.

234

Evidence of the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics? He saw the future; it was just the future three universes over!

235

“Ron Paul: gifted, visionary prophet of reform and freedom… as long as he’s viewing the correct universe. Giftedness and visonaryness results may vary by your local reality. Void on Earth Prime.”

236

Having a few free moments this morning, I looked up some of Ron Paul’s predictions:

“The only problem is the financial havoc that results when the unsound system is forced into a major correction which are inherent to all fiat systems. That is what we are witnessing today. The world-wide fragile financial system is now collapsing and tragically the only cry is for more credit inflation because the cause of our dilemma is not understood.” – October 16, 1998. So far as I am aware, our financial system did not collapse in 1998. Or 1999 (I’m being generous).

“In essence, the bailout of Mexico and the financing of the payback with interest, to the sheer delight of the politicians and their Wall Street constituents, were done on the back of the United States dollar and the United States taxpayer. The real consequence, however, will not be felt until dollar confidence is lost which will surely come and be accompanied by rapid inflation and high interest rates.” February 12, 1997. Thirteen years later, I am confident in saying that we have not yet seen confidence in the dollar be lost, nor have we seen rapid inflation or high interest rates. Quite the opposite on the last two scores, actually.

" U.S. and NATO policy against Serbia will certainly encourage the Kurds. Every argument for Kosovo’s independence can be used by the Kurds for their long-sought-after independence. This surely will drive the Turks away from NATO. Our determination to be involved in the dangerous civil war may well prompt a stronger Greek alliance with their friends in Serbia, further splitting NATO and offending the Turks, who are naturally inclined to be sympathetic to the Albanian Muslims. No good can come of our involvement in this Serbian civil war, no matter how glowing and humanitarian the terms used by our leaders." March 24, 1999. Actually, the Kosovo War seems to have turned out just fine in these respects. Greece and Turkey are still part of NATO, at least.

“Mr. Speaker, a casual analysis of the world economy shows it rapidly deteriorating into recession, with a possible depression on the horizon. Unemployment is sharply rising with price inflation rampant, despite official government inflationary reports. The world’s stock markets continue to collapse, even after trillions of dollars in losses have been recorded in the past 2 years. These losses already have set historic records.” September 24, 2002. Boy, I didn’t realize we were in a depression in 2002. Was that economic crisis worse than the one we’re in today? I didn’t realize how doooooooooomed we were eight years ago!

“Oil prices are over $31 a barrel, and predictions are that they can easily go up another $15 to $20 if international tensions grow.” Same date. Huh. Ron Paul seemed to have completely missed the whole $140 a barrel thing that happened a few years later.

“However, I would remind those who support federal intervention to ``put a stop’’ to telemarketing on the basis of its annoyance, that the Constitution prohibits the federal government from interfering in the areas of advertising and communications. … Further regulation at the federal level will only result in a greater loss of liberty.” February 12, 2003. That. BASTARD. He opposed the national Do Not Call List. He is DEAD to me.

237

Easy.

From Sept. 10, 2003:

“Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market,” Paul predicted. “This is because the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans."

“Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing,” Paul went on. “Like all artificially created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing."

Check out these links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/weekinreview/15crichton.html?_r=1

http://www.minnpost.com/craigwestover/2008/09/18/3559/ron_paul_saw_this_financial_mess_coming

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul481.html

http://www.bearishnews.com/post/1204

238

He proposed going after Osama bin Laden, who at that time was in Afghanistan. He explicitly opposed nation building and staying long term. He opposed going in to Iraq from the very start.

We were justified to go after bin Laden and the Al Qaeda. There is no flip flop there.

Look at this statement from November 29, 2001:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr112901.htm
Does this not make sense to you? Ron Paul has been completely consistent in his views on war and the war on terror.

239

Have you heard of the Dotcom Crash? http://www.investopedia.com/features/crashes/crashes8.asp

That is what Ron Paul is referring to. His predictions about the unsoundness of our economy have been spot on. The difference is that Greenspan papered over the real crisis in 2000 to provide us eight more years of an artificial boom. This just made the situation that much worse. Come on, surely you know about the Dotcom crash, right? I’m sure during 1998 or 1999 everyone else was ecstatic about unlimited prosperity forever due to the internet revolution. They didn’t see the problems then. Ron Paul did.

The dollar has lost significant value since then. Confidence in the dollar is looking more shaky every day. We have seen high levels of inflation. The Treasury puts a lot of effort into hiding true inflation statistics.

Since the crash of 08, the money supply has been doubled. What do you call that? Inflation.

You’re missing the big picture. All of these predictions are addressing the fundamental problems in the economy that were papered over by Fed easy money creation. The real crisis occured in 2000, but the bubble was not allowed to burst. They just re inflated the bubble, caused the reckless speculation and made our problems so much worse. That is were we are today.

What does this prove? They went up. Many were predicting oil prices would stay the same. Obviously, oil prices did go up another $15 to $20 dollars and more. Later, he predicted further increases in oil prices, which also happened.

It is the principle that counts. Would you prefer we allow the federal government to look through our telephone records and wiretap our phone calls? It is the same principle at work here. This is why Ron Paul has my respect. Something like this may sound good, but the principle leads to abuses of civil liberties for all Americans. Should he have voted for the Patriot Act simply because it had the word “patriot” in the title? Many do vote that way, not thinking and having no guiding principles.

You’re taking this much too literally. The real issue is that Ron Paul understood the fundamental problems in the economy at a time when everybody else thought that the fundamentals were strong. We did have a crisis in 2000, a downturn in 2002, and shaky unsustainable economic “growth” since that time. He was right.

240

He seriously proposed issuing letters of marque for Blackwater-style mercenaries to go after Bin Laden. That’s not only stupid (now that we have the knowledge of how irresponsible Blackwater has carried out its business) but loony.

You asked for an example of Paul’s loonyness, that is a great example.