$1T?
They've got the wars on bush's seggy, but that was off the books. Are they backcalculating?
Liberals live in a world of clichés
- Thread starter Hello Kitty
- Start date
They've got the wars on bush's seggy, but that was off the books. Are they backcalculating?
Guess we'll just have to give him an other term to see if he can out spend W.
Let's not and say we did
And replace him with whom exactly? Ron Paul?Let's not and say we did
It's sad that in 2012 we are still more concerned about sensationalizing racism than we are with implementing sound economic and foreign policies. Some insensitive texts from 25 years ago have nothing to do with the country sucking right now.And replace him with whom exactly? Ron Paul?
True, but only because it's been stuck in our faces like a cheap lap dance middle of the day. When Barry got elected, I thought this country had really made some progress along the lines of racial equality and tolerance. But the past three years has shown that we still have a long way to go.
Can you please explain "sound economic policy" with regards to the ending the Fed and the impact on M2/M3 money supply? Graphs would be nice.
Stormfront agrees, racism is dead!
Now don't get me wrong, I want to like Ron Paul, I certianly agree with his stance on several issues, but, as has already been pointed out, we also don't live in a magical fairly land where everything is cotton candy clouds and everyone gets a pony. So in the mean time, I'll continue to go with someone more.......pragmatic, lets say.
*I'm a little confused, is the person on the right in this picture a woman?
Now don't get me wrong, I want to like Ron Paul, I certianly agree with his stance on several issues, but, as has already been pointed out, we also don't live in a magical fairly land where everything is cotton candy clouds and everyone gets a pony. So in the mean time, I'll continue to go with someone more.......pragmatic, lets say.
*I'm a little confused, is the person on the right in this picture a woman?
Last edited:
Are you justifying this because people made a big deal over Obama's racist and American hating preacher? This was Obama's nutjob preacher afterall, not some guy that seeked him out in a crowd for a photo op.
Candidates can't control who can or cannot support them. Any self respecting person, regardless of race, would find common ground with Ron Paul's belief in individual rights. To suggest otherwise would be... well, racist.
Can you show me some graphs with the effets of Ron Paul's economic policy from 2012-2020? No you can not.
Can you please explain "sound economic policy" with regards to the ending the Fed and the impact on M2/M3 money supply? Graphs would be nice.
Time and place.
I know... I never heard racism as much as I have in this forum. I'm trying, perhaps unsucessfully because every few days someone on here is sensationalizing some bogus claim of racism, to use your own tactics in order to point out that you guys will jump at any opportunity, no matter how dated, to point out racism.
Last edited:
If you want to change the current system, show how the economy would be better under Paul's system. Otherwise how can you claim that Ron Paul's economic policies would be positive?
By the way, prior to the Federal Reserve there were liquidity crises every 10 years or so with massive numbers of bank failures directly caused by a lack of available currency in the system. It's *why* the Federal Reserve was created. My guess is that we'd suffer those exact same issues with deflationary spirals caused by runs on banks and the inability of the US government to obtain the cash necessary to combat it.
You know, history repeating itself.
You can guess that, and that's about the most you can do.
I have hope with Ron Paul, but maybe you're right. I had hope with Obama too.
I'll trust economists as opposed to a crank who's economic theory is derived primarily by his anti-government political philosophy. And the fact that you can't answer my question about what the positives of ending the Fed would be tells me that you have NO idea what it actually does. None. You're putting your blind trust in someone who hates *all* aspects of government and you're not bothering to even do the *slightest* bit of research into the propaganda that you're being spoon-fed by the Libertarians.
It's why Paul won't win the presidency, because the people who have actually bothered to do the slightest bit of independent research see what a complete and utter idiot he is, and how *dangerous* his positions would be if he actually implemented them.
I don't think I know more about it than you do, but I also don't think you know more about it than Ron Paul does. There is more than one way to get the economy turned around. There are plenty of economists representing both sides that know far more than you and me.
You can watch the news and listen to 'experts' talk about how dangerous Republican, Libertarian, and Democratic economic policies are all day.
I don't think anyone is expecting us to be trading with gold coins when he becomes president, but if he can get Americans away from the mindset that we can spend as much money as we want as long as we keep pulling out a new credit card to pay down the other credit card bills; that would be a big plus.
Last edited:
If you're watching "experts" on tv, you're moving backwards, not forwards.
And I'm pretty sure that there aren't very many *actual* economists promoting the end of the Federal Reserve. The ones who have studied our past crashes and actually looked at the damage a "liquidity crisis" can cause are all pretty much in agreement that the Federal Reserve is necessary to keep our nation and our nation's banks funded and operating.
But honestly, don't take my word for it, and stop watching so-called "economists" on TV. Go do research, find out WHY the Federal Reserve was created, what inflation/deflation mean (with regards to monetary supply, *not* just that prices are going up) and figure it out for yourself. If you come to the conclusion that nothing bad will happen, we'll magically have a stable money supply without the Fed to exert it's influence, and that history won't repeat itself with a series of liquidity crises causing depressions/recessions, great, go vote for Ron Paul.
But for gods sake, don't just take whatever Ron Paul says at face value and trust him without doing the research yourself. Or if you do, don't come on here and make some wild claim like "strong monetary policy" without anything to back it up because you will get challenged on it.
And I'm pretty sure that there aren't very many *actual* economists promoting the end of the Federal Reserve. The ones who have studied our past crashes and actually looked at the damage a "liquidity crisis" can cause are all pretty much in agreement that the Federal Reserve is necessary to keep our nation and our nation's banks funded and operating.
But honestly, don't take my word for it, and stop watching so-called "economists" on TV. Go do research, find out WHY the Federal Reserve was created, what inflation/deflation mean (with regards to monetary supply, *not* just that prices are going up) and figure it out for yourself. If you come to the conclusion that nothing bad will happen, we'll magically have a stable money supply without the Fed to exert it's influence, and that history won't repeat itself with a series of liquidity crises causing depressions/recessions, great, go vote for Ron Paul.
But for gods sake, don't just take whatever Ron Paul says at face value and trust him without doing the research yourself. Or if you do, don't come on here and make some wild claim like "strong monetary policy" without anything to back it up because you will get challenged on it.
I am willing to give it a try considering the current economic outlook.If you're watching "experts" on tv, you're moving backwards, not forwards.
And I'm pretty sure that there aren't very many *actual* economists promoting the end of the Federal Reserve. The ones who have studied our past crashes and actually looked at the damage a "liquidity crisis" can cause are all pretty much in agreement that the Federal Reserve is necessary to keep our nation and our nation's banks funded and operating.
But honestly, don't take my word for it, and stop watching so-called "economists" on TV. Go do research, find out WHY the Federal Reserve was created, what inflation/deflation mean (with regards to monetary supply, *not* just that prices are going up) and figure it out for yourself. If you come to the conclusion that nothing bad will happen, we'll magically have a stable money supply without the Fed to exert it's influence, and that history won't repeat itself with a series of liquidity crises causing depressions/recessions, great, go vote for Ron Paul.
But for gods sake, don't just take whatever Ron Paul says at face value and trust him without doing the research yourself. Or if you do, don't come on here and make some wild claim like "strong monetary policy" without anything to back it up because you will get challenged on it.
I know I've posted this before, but this is one of my favorites as well: http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/fed-bernanke-deflation-inflation-reflation-printing/9/14/2009/id/24469?page=full
or this one:
http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/mauldin-velocity-money-fed-loans-consumers/3/15/2010/id/27278?page=full
Part of the thing for me that makes me think that the Friedmans of the world (including Bernanke) were right and the Austrians were wrong is that it's been over 3 years since the '08 crash, 3 years since we've been flooding the market with dollars and we haven't experienced anything *near* the hyperinflation that was predicted. Inflation can only take place when demand is there, and without demand companies might be getting squeezed but prices certainly aren't skyrocketing. By the way, this is also an interesting site that tracks M2/M3 and you can see that M3 actually *contracted* in 2009 to mid 2011 as debt deflation was taking place. That's literally the exact opposite of the hyperinflation that was predicted/warned about/etc.
Anyway, that's enough "light reading" for you for tonight...
or this one:
http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/mauldin-velocity-money-fed-loans-consumers/3/15/2010/id/27278?page=full
Part of the thing for me that makes me think that the Friedmans of the world (including Bernanke) were right and the Austrians were wrong is that it's been over 3 years since the '08 crash, 3 years since we've been flooding the market with dollars and we haven't experienced anything *near* the hyperinflation that was predicted. Inflation can only take place when demand is there, and without demand companies might be getting squeezed but prices certainly aren't skyrocketing. By the way, this is also an interesting site that tracks M2/M3 and you can see that M3 actually *contracted* in 2009 to mid 2011 as debt deflation was taking place. That's literally the exact opposite of the hyperinflation that was predicted/warned about/etc.
Anyway, that's enough "light reading" for you for tonight...
lol... Krugman? Really? The same guy that wished 9/11 and the Japanese earthquake had done more damage to stimulate the economy.
I am sure a brilliant economic mind such as yourself can identity how Krugman's theories are wrong as opposed to character assassination. Have at it.
BTW, how about a link to where he says either of the things you accuse him of?
I don't begin to think that I am on the same level of economic theory as Paul Krugman... and for his sake, I would certainly hope to not be. I can read and listen to what Krugman, Bernanke, Friedman, Paul, and others have to say about the economy. Turns out Ron Paul makes some accurate predictions that the others don't.
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/09/12/correcting-krugman-on-ozone/
Last edited:
This is from a right wing think tank and what I would consider to be pure supply side drivel.
As for Krugman, It is hardly a stretch to say a 3 trillion dollar rebuilding effort would be stimulative. He also never said he wished there was more damage from either tragedy. In fact, if you read the Krugman articles they link to, they are eerily predictive. Bush did use the terror attacks as political leverage and Greenspan did prop up the economy with the housing bubble. The guy is right a lot of the time. That is why he is despised on the right and inconvenient to the left.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/opinion/reckonings-after-the-horror.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html
Interesting....
Found this site where an Austrian economist is actually apologizing to Krugman and points out that Krugman identified the housing bubble before he did.
Furthermore, his critique of Krugman's statement in '02 really seems to ring hollow. Krugman said that the Fed needed (and got) a housing bubble to replace the stock market bubble. That's from the Fed's perspective if you go back and reread what he actually wrote. The Fed has control over one thing, housing. By lower interest rates they can incentivize borrowing and building, which is what they do during recessions to generate economic output. Leaving those interest rates low when it's obvious that the housing market is roaring to heights that it's never been to was never part of Krugman's recommendation...
Found this site where an Austrian economist is actually apologizing to Krugman and points out that Krugman identified the housing bubble before he did.
Furthermore, his critique of Krugman's statement in '02 really seems to ring hollow. Krugman said that the Fed needed (and got) a housing bubble to replace the stock market bubble. That's from the Fed's perspective if you go back and reread what he actually wrote. The Fed has control over one thing, housing. By lower interest rates they can incentivize borrowing and building, which is what they do during recessions to generate economic output. Leaving those interest rates low when it's obvious that the housing market is roaring to heights that it's never been to was never part of Krugman's recommendation...
By the way, if anyone wants to go back and read a prediction that's f'ing *hilarious*, check this out:
http://www.fgmr.com/on-the-cusp-of-hyperinflation.html
http://www.fgmr.com/on-the-cusp-of-hyperinflation.html
Shortly after he wrote that the M3 that he was referring to (as such a sign of hyper-ZOMFG-inflation) went *negative* as shown by the chart that I posted earlier from SGS. It's also coming up on 3 years later, and inflation is up all of.... 4.5%?Article from March said:
Jeebus, sounds like a Zerohedge article. Buy gold now! 
March 9, 2009: Gold $906/ozJeebus, sounds like a Zerohedge article. Buy gold now!
March 9, 2009: SPY $68
Jan '12: Gold $1540/oz (70% increase)
Jan '12: SPY $129 (90% increase)
And that's without dividends included (currently 2% TTM), *and* the fact that if you sell the SPY now you pay the long-term cap gains of 15% (max) vs a 28% cap gains in Gold....
While that's all well and good, and I wish I'd gotten some of that action, you and I both know that's not why zerohedge is "GOLD GOLD GOLD!" 24/7.
Right because unregulated and ineffectively regulated free reign caused this 'current economic outlook' so maybe unregulated free reign will also solve it!
I bet for profit banking institutions really learned their lesson!
GOOOOLLDD!!!!!
holy crap this thread is still going!?
Whuuut? The Ron Paul thread just took over the HK hate thread!
Ron may or may not be racist. Who cares? He's a crazy old man with some good ideas and some crazy ideas.
What really matters is, now that the primary have started its becoming pretty clear that he will not be our alternative to Obama in the next election.
Ron may or may not be racist. Who cares? He's a crazy old man with some good ideas and some crazy ideas.
What really matters is, now that the primary have started its becoming pretty clear that he will not be our alternative to Obama in the next election.
Dammit!
And I so wanted to see what it was like to live on the frontier in the 1700s!!
It's how the authors of the constitution framed the rest of america's existence, so it's only fair.
And I so wanted to see what it was like to live on the frontier in the 1700s!!
It's how the authors of the constitution framed the rest of america's existence, so it's only fair.
What do you make of this video?
Desmodo, is that you?
Putting aside the Nostradamus-like vagueness of his speech, I've said that I agree with Ron Paul on the foreign policy and civil liberties aspect.
What I have a problem with (and I note that he said NOTHING about in the video) is his desire to end the Federal Reserve, the FDA, EPA, Dept of Education, Dept of Commerce, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment and so on. If he ran on *just* the civil liberties and foreign policy aspects of his platform and left everything else alone he'd be identical to Kucinich and probably running in the Democratic primary instead of the Republican one.
What I have a problem with (and I note that he said NOTHING about in the video) is his desire to end the Federal Reserve, the FDA, EPA, Dept of Education, Dept of Commerce, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment and so on. If he ran on *just* the civil liberties and foreign policy aspects of his platform and left everything else alone he'd be identical to Kucinich and probably running in the Democratic primary instead of the Republican one.
