Statements by Ron Paul: is he a quack?

Page 4 of 8 [ 116 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

How do you regard Ron Paul's economic ideas?

He is my hero	10%	[ 5 ]
I adore his ideas	2%	[ 1 ]
I agree with him more than I disagree	27%	[ 13 ]
Meh, I can take his ideas or leave them.	4%	[ 2 ]
He has some good points, but is mostly wrong	17%	[ 8 ]
He is a complete and utter quack, when it comes to economics	25%	[ 12 ]
He is a threat to the nation	0%	[ 0 ]
He is a threat to the world	4%	[ 2 ]
Ron who?	10%	[ 5 ]

Total votes : 48

MayBitsu
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 9 Oct 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 55
Location: NE Pa

13 Oct 2012, 2:02 am

pandabear wrote:

Burzum wrote:

If you've ever debated a supporter of Keynesian economics you know the point they will bring up the most is how government spending during WW2 "ended the depression".

But, that is what happened. Do the so-called "Austrians" want to go back to the great times of the Great Depression?

Recent Government spending, by Bush and Obama, seems to have kept us from repeating the depression.

When the depression was going full swing, Hoover cut spending, raised taxes and import duties, tried diligently to balance the budget, and things just got more higgledy-piggledy.

Recent gov spending seems to have kept us from something ..

Key word ' seems " gov always banks on this plausibility factor

as an excuse to spend expand & spend (do you see the pattern?)

and create more inflation thus degenerating the quality of life

Until one studies the little details of the great depression

they should not compare it to today..

MayBitsu
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 9 Oct 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 55
Location: NE Pa

13 Oct 2012, 2:05 am

VIDEODROME wrote:

I would like to see these stupid wars and us policing the world end. Like this insanity in Libya. I was interested in Ron Paul in 2008, but I will also be listening to Gary Johnson for 2012.

Me and many i follow will be ordering a mail in ballot and writing Ron Paul in..

MayBitsu
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 9 Oct 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 55
Location: NE Pa

13 Oct 2012, 2:09 am

Burzum wrote:

dionysian wrote:

He pretends to be an economist, when really he sounds like he just watched some youtube videos made by gold bugs and conspiracy theorists.

No, he has read the works of economists such as Mises and Hayek.

He only sounds like a 'quack' if you have never studied or simply don't understand Austrian economics.

There are videos from the 80s of Ron Paul.. before many of you were born..

I would be inclined to think he knows a thing or 2..

No other candidate has his qualifications.. if you want to look..u will see

MayBitsu
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 9 Oct 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 55
Location: NE Pa

13 Oct 2012, 2:11 am

arthead wrote:

one can not have a decent debate with another who is so closed-minded.

Very true..

MayBitsu
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 9 Oct 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 55
Location: NE Pa

13 Oct 2012, 2:43 am

DerStadtschutz wrote:

simon_says wrote:

Whatever anyone thinks of him he's not going to win. He's saying the same Ron Paul things in the same Ron Paul way. We already saw that movie, he lost. If he's not trying to grow his share of voters, we're watching the same movie.

Am I the only one who sees a problem with the fact that when a man is consistent on what he stands for, nobody wants to vote for him?

Yes ... Some folks dont see the value in reliability..
..or liberty or prosperity..Oy..

MayBitsu
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 9 Oct 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 55
Location: NE Pa

13 Oct 2012, 2:52 am

pandabear wrote:

Burzum wrote:

I can give you another example too, to demonstrate why mass government spending on arbitrary things like wars does not create economic growth. If the government decides to create jobs by building mud pie factories and employing everyone as mud pie bakers, and then buying all the mud pies, there is going to be a spike in employment rates and GDP output, isn't there? Well if you're a Keynesian economist, this is great news! However, does it create economic growth? Since there is no real demand for mud pies (only artificial demand created by the government), it's pretty obvious that it's not creating economic growth.

But wait, if unemployment is down to 0% and GDP is up, what's the problem? The problem is the government has to take on large amounts of debt in order to finance this whole scheme, since there is no actual economic growth. So it should be obvious why this can't work: If you're unemployed and in debt, you can't just take out another loan to pay it off. Sure, it will help for a little while, but you're going to be in even worse shape in the future. It's analogous to caffeine - When you start feeling tired you can drink caffeine, and then when you start crashing from the caffeine you can drink even more caffeine, but eventually you're going to crash and burn extremely hard. So there you are, that's a Keynesian bubble in a nutshell. Yes, WW2 lowered unemployment rates and boosted GDP, but it didn't help the economy, it just bolstered the Keynesian bubble.

Suppose the government spends for things that are useful? Like roads, education, health care? And, suppose the government taxes appropriately to pay for it?

I read a few of your posts and get the feeling your atleast 2 people thinking..

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

13 Oct 2012, 7:17 am

Philologos wrote:

Totz estrauntge!

NEVER in a moderately long life seen it used on anything but the medical profession.

I wonder when the extension took place?

In my day / area one would just have said phony for anything but doc or vet.

I have heard SOME folks( one guy in college actually- he was from Pakistan- but spoke english well usually) use the term for non medical targets of derogation.

But I agree that "quack" is usually for those who wrongly. profess medical solutions- and medical only. And further- its confusing when the person in question IS a doctor ( and you quote him talking about delivering babies) but then go on to question his expertise in something OTHER than medicine- and DONT question his doctoring ability.

So..

Dont call him a "quack".

Call him a "crank", or call him a "crackpot" then!

ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 122
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

13 Oct 2012, 8:51 am

Definition of Quack wrote:

quack/kwak/

Noun:

1.The characteristic harsh sound made by a duck.
2.A person who dishonestly claims to have special knowledge in some field, typically in medicine.

Synonyms: noun. charlatan - mountebank - quacksalver

"Typically" doesn't mean "exclusively."

TM
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

13 Oct 2012, 9:32 am

Here are his economic ideas, in the first post he speaks of a Keynesian bubble, which a reference to the ideas of John Maynard Keynes, which is a series of thoughts on how and when government should spend money. It's more closely a criticism of the Federal Reserve, which is an institution which controls the money supply.

His second statement is a comment on a well-known tax loophole where US corporations that operate in foreign countries are not taxed on their foreign income until they bring it home, thus creating an incentive for corporations to reinvest that income in foreign markets.

The two former statements are linked to his third, which deals with government influence on private enterprise.

John Maynard Keynes was a British economist who was very influential in the past decade. Part of his policy was for government spending in "bad times" and higher taxation in "good times" something which isn't a fundamentally bad policy. This is what Keynes referred to as "countercyclical financial policy"I could go on a longer tangent, but I'd put most of you to sleep.

What Paul means when he says there is a 70 year old Keynesian trap is that the government has spent in bad times, but failed to tax properly in good times, resulting in an overall negative slope for government capital, thus requiring that more be printed, weakening the currency. This also caused the natural mechanism for fixing an economy in capitalism, namely bankruptcy to become less effective since bad businesses could be bailed out or saved by Keynsian policy, thus prolonging "bad business".

Furthermore, government "meddling" in business, can alter the spending pattern for capital within that business, making projects that are fundamentally unprofitable profitable and vice versa.

The third comment is that through that tax loophole, the U.S government encourage outsourcing of jobs, since spending the capital in the countries where it was earned would result in a lower project cost. I'm not exactly sure how it would work with the interest tax shield since I'm not a U.S tax expert.

If this is unclear, please let me know and I'll elaborate.

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

13 Oct 2012, 10:43 am

TM wrote:

What Paul means when he says there is a 70 year old Keynesian trap is that the government has spent in bad times, but failed to tax properly in good times, resulting in an overall negative slope for government capital, thus requiring that more be printed, weakening the currency. This also caused the natural mechanism for fixing an economy in capitalism, namely bankruptcy to become less effective since bad businesses could be bailed out or saved by Keynesian policy, thus prolonging "bad business".

... and debt accumulation. The Euro zone debt crisis in a nutshell.

Keynes apparently made the error of trusting politicians (or his disciples did). Such naivety is rarely rewarded.

While I have issues with Ron Paul (his views on evolution and abortion - the latter especially problematic, as he is a gynaecologist), he often hits the mark when speaking about the economy.

TM
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

13 Oct 2012, 11:26 am

GGPViper wrote:

TM wrote:

... and debt accumulation. The Euro zone debt crisis in a nutshell.

Debt accumulation was in essence what I meant when I wrote "overall negative slope", I just elected to accrue all the negatives into one rather than stating all of them individually.

GGPViper wrote:

Keynes apparently made the error of trusting politicians (or his disciples did). Such naivety is rarely rewarded.

I've come to the conclusion that until politicians are elected based on their individual merits within a field, they must largely be deemed as incompetent panderers and little else. The complete and utter lack of ability on their part to decouple their ideology from decision-making is further problematic.

To use the Keynesian example from my post, if you are going to use Keynesian policies in down-times, you have to use them in "up" times as well, otherwise you find yourself in a position where you don't have the needed capital to fund the down times saved from the up times.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Oct 2012, 8:56 pm

Anyone bring up Paul's association with white supremacists, yet?
In case you're wondering, I think that association is a bad thing.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

13 Oct 2012, 11:45 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

Anyone bring up Paul's association with white supremacists, yet?
In case you're wondering, I think that association is a bad thing.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

It's about as real as Obama being a Muslim is real.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Oct 2012, 12:09 am

Jacoby wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Anyone bring up Paul's association with white supremacists, yet?
In case you're wondering, I think that association is a bad thing.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

It's about as real as Obama being a Muslim is real.

I actually recall seeing him appearing in a photo with the head of Stormfront, and his son, both of whom were contributors to the Paul campaign. Then there are the racist statements made in his newsletter.
Personally, I hope he's not a bigot.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

14 Oct 2012, 12:39 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Anyone bring up Paul's association with white supremacists, yet?
In case you're wondering, I think that association is a bad thing.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

It's about as real as Obama being a Muslim is real.

politicians take pictures with lots of people, that doesn't mean they endorse their beliefs or even know who they are. I attended a relatively small event with Barack Obama in person before he became president and if someone snapped a picture of us two, that wouldn't mean he endorses my beliefs or knows who I am.

Bringing up a debunked dead issue is just low. Personally, you hope he's not? Ya, I bet.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Oct 2012, 12:58 am

Jacoby wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Anyone bring up Paul's association with white supremacists, yet?
In case you're wondering, I think that association is a bad thing.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

It's about as real as Obama being a Muslim is real.

As a matter of fact, I do hope he's not. He comes across as genuine in his convictions, even though I don't agree with them, and seems to be very personable as an individual.
Who knows, maybe he really doesn't know those two Stormfront a**holes, even though it was their implication that he did.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Page 4 of 8 [ 116 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Jump to:

Statements by Ron Paul: is he a quack? Post Reply New Topic

Statements by Ron Paul: is he a quack?