That doesn’t sound like a good description of that crash. Compare Paul’s words to Investopedia’s:
The problem was not “fiat currency” or the global financial system. It’s that these stocks were insanely overvalued. It’s not connected to the housing crisis, which has roots going back decades, or the derivative manipulations. They’re just not related.
Stimulating the economy.
You’re going to have to define the principle, then. I don’t see one.
Here, I found your cite for you. Your date is wrong, but whatever.
Take a look at this and let me know which of those predictions you think are spot on, and which may not be true.
Not Blackwater. Private forces with the express goal of finding Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda. You think this is seriously crazier than invading and occupying a nation (two actually) spending an estimated three trillion dollars, losing thousands of American lives and going into nation building? The point is we should have expressly targeted those individuals who would do us harm. Considering they didn’t have a nation and are spread out all over, it would make perfect sense to narrow the target much more and be more precise about the objective.
Why did the founders even include Letters of Marque and Reprisal in the Constitution? Were they all loons as well? They correctly foresaw that we would have threats which would not come from another nation, but a rogue group of individuals (the pirates in those days). Therefore the military is the improper tool to use against such a threat.
If we followed his advice we would have saved trillions, not be bogged down in overseas wars, prevented the deaths of thousands or American and foreign deaths, and probably have captured bin Laden and put him on trial by now.
You say Ron Paul is the loon? I say those who advocate the use of our military to fight what is essentially a police action is loony. Our military is designed to fight against other nations.
Well, do you think Ron Paul was right or not? He clearly saw what was going on. Maybe there were others who saw it as well. Good for them. But give credit were it is due.
As to your second link, many if not most of those things appear to have come to pass. The rest seem sure to happen in the future. I don’t see anything there that has been dis proven by events.
jrodefeld, it seems like you’re mixing up the economy and the stock market here. There was an economic slowdown in the late 90s after a long period of growth. That’s not ‘the world economy falling apart.’ The Dotcom Crash as I understand it was a stock market problem: tech stocks were overpriced. There was an economic slump in 2002, partly because of the September 11 attacks. The markets did not do well during that time but that wasn’t the cause. The latest trainwreck began with the housing crisis and spread from there. It led to both a recession and a stock market crash. This year the stock market has done well, but the recovery in the economy has been much a lot slower.
Ok. Got it. So when Ron Paul makes a prediction that seems to be borne out by events (housing bubble collapse), it counts as a correct prediction. If he makes a prediction you think is sure to happen in the future, it counts as a correct prediction.
Tell me, what possibly could happen that would, in your mind, disprove the following predictions?
[ul]
[li]an oil boycott will be imposed[/li][li]China, ironically assisted by American aid, much more openly will sell to militant Muslims the weapons they want, and will align herself with the Arab nations. [/li][li]a major war, the largest since World War II, will result. [/li][li]The Karzai government will fail, and U.S. military presence will end in Afghanistan. [/li][li]An international dollar crisis will dramatically boost interest rates in the United States. [/li][li]The draft will be reinstated, causing domestic turmoil and resentment. [/li][li]Many American…civilians will be killed in the coming conflict. [/li][li]The leaders of whichever side loses the war will be hauled into and tried before the International Criminal Court for war crimes.[/li][/ul]
Is there any point in time when you’d look at an item on that list, and think, “that did not happen, Ron Paul was wrong.”
Right, and I can tell you that there’s a hot pink raven out there somewhere, and you won’t ever be able to disprove that.
Nothing I’ve read in this thread his dissuaded me from my longstanding opinion that Ron Paul, MD, is a loon. (Hey, I live in Texas!)
But I’ll have to agree with the OP that he would be a great candidate to challenge Barack Obama in 2012. (I’m also a Democrat.)
Maybe he could convince Caribou Barbie to share the ticket with him…
In all seriousness, the predictions are either so vague as to be meaningless, or he’s obviously wrong, unless you spin things so much as to make them right. Which one’s do you think are correct?
-XT
So, jrodefeld, what do you think about Nostradamus? Visionary, or merely correct about everything?
See, the problem is you are basing your perceptions on Ron Paul on either what I have posted, what other people have said, or other second hand information.
What is a loon? Someone who believes things different from what you may have learned? Someone who believes that Washington has been on the wrong track for a few decades? Does being “out of the mainstream” make someone crazy and unhinged?
I have posted a lot of youtube videos and there are a lot of writings from Ron Paul on the internet. He has published many books. Could you please give me specific examples of why his philosophy doesn’t make any sense? Don’t just pull out one or two, like “he believes in a gold standard”, or “he associates with conspiracy theorists”. Give me your disputes as far as:
Foreign Policy, Economic Policy, War on Drugs, Civil Liberties, Auditing the Federal Reserve, The Constitution, Medical Care.
Be a little more specific. If you want to call someone a “loon” or other derogatory names, you better have a good grasp of what they actually believe. There is a lot there. It isn’t enough to pick out a few positions that you feel are “out there” and then label these people as nuts. Its not like there isn’t a strong tradition of believing in liberty and the constitution in this country.
As a stoner, I support Dr. Ron Paul’s candidacy for state flower of Texas.
Personally I think that being loony about one or two things is enough to establish that a person is a loon - they have a demonstrated tendency to choose their own (loony) beliefs and cling to them in the face of conflicting reality. The fact that they have not yet decided that marijuana is a secret mind control potion given to us by the lizard people doesn’t mean they never will, and thus things they currently don’t seem insane about are weak reassurance that they will remain that way.
Someone who demonstrates their inability to perceive and reason correctly, and whose intellectual impairment puts their judgment itself in question (at best). Someone who, like Paul, is anti-vax, wants to go back to the gold standard, believes that there’s a secret conspiracy for a NAFTA superhighway, wants there to be a new investigation into 9/11…
It’s almost like you keep ignoring the actual things that are said to you while kicking a strawman around.
And by almost, I mean exactly.
So, in other words “give me examples of where his political philosophy doesn’t make sense and how he comports himself is suspect, but don’t use examples of where his political philosophy doesn’t make sense and how he comports himself is suspect.”
If this was a game of poker you’d have stacked the deck.
You think calling the housing bubble and the misguided effort in Iraq was “vague” and has no meaning? I think he nailed it pretty accurately. Most news networks, that treated him badly during the election season, are showing him respect and acknowledging that he was right about these issues.
And let me say that I don’t pretend that everything Ron Paul says or is concerned “may” happen in the future always comes to pass. He is right a much higher percentage of the time than other people in our government.
As far as the Predictions link that was given, it was a list of things Ron Paul was concerned may happen if our government follows certain policies. Some of these things have come to pass already. Others may still happen. The jury is still out. But just based on that list, the following things certainly have happened:
*Military and police powers will grow, satisfying the conservatives. The welfare state, both domestic and international, will expand, satisfying the liberals. Both sides will endorse military adventurism overseas.
During the next decade, the American people will become poorer and less free, while they become more dependent on the government for economic security.
The war will prove to be divisive, with emotions and hatred growing between the various factions and special interests that drive our policies in the Middle East.
Agitation from more class warfare will succeed in dividing us domestically, and believe it or not, I expect lobbyists will thrive more than ever during the dangerous period of chaos.
The Congress and the President will shift radically toward expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government. This will satisfy both the liberals and the conservatives.
Erosion of civil liberties here at home will continue as our government responds to political fear in dealing with the terrorist threat by making generous use of the powers obtained with the Patriot Act.
Federal Reserve policy will continue at an expanding rate, with massive credit expansion, which will make the dollar crisis worse. Gold will be seen as an alternative to paper money as it returns to its historic role as money.
Price inflation, with a major economic downturn, will decimate U.S. Federal Government finances, with exploding deficits and uncontrolled spending.
The United States, with Tony Blair as head cheerleader, will attack Iraq without proper authority, and a major war, the largest since World War II, will result. *
All of these things have happened. But the most important thing, which you failed to acknowledge, is the following:
I have no timetable for these predictions,* but just in case, keep them around and look at them in 5 to 10 years. Let us hope and pray that I am wrong on all accounts. If so, I will be very pleased.*
If he makes some predictions that turn out to be false, great. I’m glad if things aren’t as bad as he fears. But most of what he has said has come true. It seems like many of you are nitpicking over whether everything he said has been 100% accurate. The truth is, most people between 1996 and 2006 were continually hyping up the economy and saying how great everything is. We can have a housing bubble forever, with prosperity created from a government printing press, and the wars will go well and will be paid for by oil. The fact that Ron Paul saw through the illusion and understood that things were not good and conditions would get much worse validates his thinking. He wasn’t the only one to get it right, but he was one of the few in Washington.
As a stoner, you should be supporting Ron Paul’s stance on the War on Drugs. How do you like the fact that Obama thinks its okay to arrest you for partaking of the herb? He’s not even for medical marijuana. He was asked a question about marijuana and he laughed at it. We can all make fun of potheads (I am one occasionally myself) but this shit is pretty serious. Think about all the violence on the Mexican border related to the war on drugs. What about our overcrowded prisons? Would you give Dr Paul props for being right on this issue?
Seriously, what is wrong with you? There is nothing wrong with believing in a Gold Standard or that some would like to cede US sovereignty over long periods of time. That is all I have heard from you people about why Ron Paul is a “crazy, fringe” guy. So, run down all the things you agree with Ron Paul about and all the things you disagree about.
I have said it before, but it bears repeating. If you haven’t immersed yourself in Austrian, Free Market economic literature and studied these subjects extensively, you have no right to say these views are “loony”. You may disagree.
Whats wrong with saying, “I don’t know much about Austrian economics and the Gold Standard, but I think Keynesian, Federal Reserve economics is superior.”
That would be fair. Also, don’t hold litmus tests for candidates. It is not a good practice. If Ron Paul ended the overseas wars and slashed the defense budget, ended the war on drugs, prosecuted corporate criminals, audited the federal reserve, brought greater transparency to government at all levels, and balanced the budget while making Medicare and Social Security solvent, couldn’t you put up with his belief in a gold standard and the north american union? That would be an amazing accomplishment for a president.
You should get your priorities straight.
I’m curious.
Do you know the difference between a president and an emperor?
Why? Because they lived in antiquated times when slavery was okay and there was nothing wrong with hiring pirates to attack other countries’ shipping.
Times have changed.
If someone were to walk around in a wig, stockings, and advocating arming our military with muskets to repel the Canadian threat, that would be fine 230 years ago, and loony today.
And your game of saying that we haven’t explained why Ron Paul is a loon is growing tiresome. We have explained ourselves a thousand different ways. Look through the last five pages of this thread. He’s a loon because:
That’s why nobody should take him seriously. So stop asking why we think he’s a loon.
I know fair amounts about each of these systems and the Austrian School advocates a totally undesirable system for economics that is inhumane and unethical.
What you don’t understand is that Ron Paul isn’t the people’s only choice. There are candidates out there who advocate ending the wars without wrecking our economy. There are candidates who want to legalize drugs without eliminating Social Security. There are candidates who want to cut taxes without throwing out common-sense environmental regulations.
The idea that if some of us were to accept some of Paul’s “good” policies, we ought to also accept the bad ones, is nonsense.
So, you must have such a superior intellectual capacity to know that someone who believes something different than you someone doesn’t accept “reality” and therefore their very sanity must be questioned. Got a bit of an ego problem? Have you ever thought that having spent more than thirty years in political life and decades of independent study may have given Dr Paul a bit of a better ability to judge whether or not there are plans for a NAFTA superhighway or whether or not we would benefit from a further investigation into 9/11?
Ron Paul is not Anti Vax, he is pro choice in medical care. Also, HE IS A DOCTOR! Are you a doctor? He believes the decision whether to vaccinate or not is between the doctor and the patient. Yeah, real lunacy there.
He doesn’t want “to go back” to the gold standard, he wants to go forward by allowing competing currencies and private money. He does want to eliminate the Federal Reserve though. FA Hayek, Nobel Laureate advocated the same position as Dr Paul. Would you say he was a loon as well?
Have some humility and admit that maybe you don’t know everything. Maybe fiscal restraint and balanced budgets would prove superior to endless deficits and high inflation. Maybe being more humble in our foreign policy and being friends with nations makes more sense than continually looking for war. Maybe protecting civil liberties and repealing the patriot act is a good idea.
Just maybe these “lunatic” ideas may make some sense.
I mean judge his overall views. What about following the Constitution? Only going to war with a formal declaration? Auditing the Federal Reserve? Cutting spending? Ending the war on drugs? Ending too big to fail and reforming the banking system? Reestablishing the proper balance of power between the three branches of government, limiting the executive and restoring proper function to the Congress?
There is a lot you just skimmed over. Maybe you know deep down that much of what he believes makes sense and you don’t have a decent rebuttal to these views.
We are having a big argument over small details. You can’t see the forest for the trees. The real question is about liberty and the constitution. Why don’t you elaborate a little on what I wrote here.