-56 votes

Reality vs. Ron Paul supporters

I have always wondered how Ron Paul supporters justify the positions they hold. They reject basic economics, and foreign policy strategy.

I am a neoconservative Republican, and a New Keynesian. My beliefs are widely held among top economists and foreign relations experts, while yours are not. How do you justify arm-chair economics and an ignorant foreign policy?




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Neoclassical monetarism is

Neoclassical monetarism is the most widely held. Neocon foreign policy is a fringe minority in academia. You fail.

Ventura 2012

Who?

predicted the housing bubble and economic collapse in 2008? The Austrian free market economists. Who were WRONG and said that there were no bubbles and that the economy was sound? and also used the FED to make the crises worse? The Keynesians. They have lost their credibility. It's due to the Keynesian economic thought that we are in this mess.

The neoconservatives are the ones with a foolish and ignorant foreign policy. Stop buying the propaganda. Whenever we get involved in other countries, we give weapons and money to dictators who end up screwing us. Both Saddam and Bin Laden were assisted by the United States before becoming their enemies. Iran, just like Iraq is a smoke screen for the benefit of the military industrial complex. We have no right to police the world, we don't know what we are doing. We FAR outspend all of the industrialized nations in military spending. You don't see Germany, England, France etc being taken over by terrorists or having nukes dropped on them.

zzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzz

The real question is..

With the economy on the brink of collapse, how do YOU justify your positions.. We've tried keynsian and endless wars.. Not working bud.

Your fearless leaders will have us in a war with China and Russia over Iran.

I personally think what we should be doing is clearing out all of the socialist neocolonic trash that this country has.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Obvious troll is obvious. And

Obvious troll is obvious.

And Hayek is a Nobel prize winner from the Austrian school.
Stick that in your blow hole.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

Paul 2002 predicted Keynesian and Neo-Con fruits.

Since long before 2000 the Keynesians and Neo-Cons have had the reins, called the shots leading to subsequent events. They obviously predicted that their policies would succeed.

Ron Paul, in a speech to Congress in 2002, predicted those policies would fail, in what ways they would fail, and why they would fail.

Watch this video before presuming his economic and foreign policies don't make sense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifJG_oFFDK0

It's simple, really...

both Keynesian economics and current US foreign policy are by definition insane: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Keynesian economics is insane because it always inevitably fails under the weight of too much corruption and too much money-printing, as proven by the failures of Zimbabwe's economy, the Weimar Germany mark, the Roman denarius, the Chinese "flying money," France's assignat, livrat, and franc, Argentina's collapse in 1932, Finland, Italy, and Norway's collapses in 1992, Mexico's "Tequila Hangover" in 1994, the 1997 collapse of the baht which screwed over Thailand and many surrounding countries, the Russian ruble in 1998, the Turkish lira a few years ago, etc. Fiat money does not work, we cannot print our way to prosperity, and trusting the corrupt and bloated federal government to set their own limits on currency is delusional.

Our foreign policy is insane because it does not make us safer and it is shredding our civil liberties and the Bill of Rights (see: NDAA, TSA, PATRIOT Act). The military's new drone strategy is inherently flawed because drones are easily hacked (as proven by UT-Austin researchers), and also because we can't really stop them from killing innocent people. Our protracted and destructive military occupations abroad are bankrupting us and only serving to create new enemies by angering the rest of the world.

Hope this helps.

I don't play, I commission the league.

Free-market economists

Have warned about the Housing Crisis as far back as Sept 2001, how come your "top economists" were not aware of it until after the bubble burst? Also, your "top brass FP Experts" were 100% wrong about the WMD's in Iraq, they were wrong about the Golf of Tonkin, and so many other events that lead to war, yet you still trust them? Perhaps if you take the time to listen, you will find why Paulers hold the beliefs they do.

Here is one video warning of the housing bubble on 9/7/2001 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFd8YluIVG4

Also, your FP experts say we are at war to protect our freedom, but why is it that the bill of rights have been dismantled piece by piece since 9-11? For our protection? But doesn't our constitution give us that protection?

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

since YOU are so smart. please explain gravity to me.

I will presuppose that you will tell me it pertains to mass.
I accept that. can you explain what mass is? no, you cannot.
Natural laws govern the subjects I have just spoken of. and Natural law would be the "authority" within this context.

what "authority" backs up your statements? none, zero, ziltch.
there are natural laws that pertain to both economics and foriegn policy. please brush up on them before posting such drivil here again.
peace.

Ron Paul has been Right...

Ron Paul and the Austrian school advocates have been pretty damn accurate in predicting where we were headed since the 70's. All those idiots that you agree with have been dead wrong on it all and continue to be!

This is probably a troll post but that't ok it's a good question

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

You assume we all feel the

You assume we all feel the need to justify our beliefs to you, or someone. That is your first mistake. I do not justify my beliefs to anyone, I have them because of determination to make up my own mind, years of research, and basic common sense.

We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. ~ George Orwell

how do I justify it???

It's simple, just look at the results.

Boom goes the dynamite!

Boom goes the dynamite! Results are damn hard to argue with!

Keynesian economics has brought us to the brink of disaster and will finish off the economy soon.

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

Welcome to the club.

As someone below noted, the very fact that you've bothered to come on here and ask, rather than just make statements, shows that you are, in fact, on the right path.

I would encourage you to check out Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson," Tom Woods' "Meltdown," and Ron Paul's "End the Fed" for a basic overview of our economic positions. All three are good reads, and provide an excellent basic summary of Austrian economics.

In regards to foreign policy, you've likely heard us mischaracterized as "isolationist." This terminology is inaccurate - we are, in fact, in favor of trading with the rest of the world. We are also not pacifist; many of us are gun owners, and acknowledge that the use of force is sometimes necessary. Our foreign policy essentially demands that a nation must pose a clear threat to the lives and liberties of Americans and actually attempt to harm us in some way, otherwise, a war is unjust. Why the necessity for attempting harm? Because China's nuclear arsenal also poses a technical "threat," but they obviously are not bombing us. Therefore, a war on China would be unjust.

I hope I've cleared it up for you. :D I certainly hope to see you again soon - keep asking questions and looking for answers. One word of advice, though: you could stand to be a little more polite.

To the DPers who are attacking this guy, shame on you. We're supposed to provide answers, not insults, even if the asker of the question may think lowly of us. It's one thing to bicker among ourselves - in the end, we're all liberty-lovers. It's another thing entirely to immediately start attacking a newcomer who's asking questions, even if the wording is rude.

I agree with you NCfor Paul.

I agree with you NCfor Paul. We don't need to act like Red State or the other sites when someone debates us or presents another view. So long as they aren't flaming people, debate is a good thing and enables members to fully articulate our positions and opinions.

BMWJIM's picture

2 HRS, 22 MIN.

Enough said!

Jim

1976-1982 USMC, Having my hands in the soil keeps me from soiling my hands on useless politicians.

Midas, I just finished

Midas, I just finished watching this timely video and it amazingly answers every question you have presented here. Please watch it.

http://www.dailypaul.com/258850/thomas-woods-explains-why-go...

If you look at economic

If you look at economic history, you will realize that Austrians are the ones that do not reject basic economics.

Austrian economics is really nothing more than recognizing that basic economics also applies even to larger groups. Even Keynes reasoned like an Austrian when looking at two actors trading. And three actors. And four actors. And five. The difference is that Keynes, like other "macro" economists decided to reject economic reasoning if three of those five actors decided to take a vote and call themselves the government. Then, suddenly, economics no longer apply, and we need instead to look to "macro" economics, which is largely empiricism and curve fitting pulled out of this air.

And from there followed an unbroken line of bizarre "predictions" and opinions, that, while great for making one seem clever at cocktail parties, fall completely flat on their face id looked at more closely. Like the notion that it is economically beneficial for government to take money and bury it, so that private industry can then employ people to search for it and dig it up. If you're some apparatchik charged with "maintaining full employment", that strategy may well make you look like a genius in yahooville, but anyone with any understanding of basic economics, realize that starting at A, and then running around like crazy just to end up at A, is not economically beneficial in any way.

Then there was the Phillips curve. Keynesian economics, employed unmodified leads to the "discovery" that there is a tradeoff between inflation and employment, so that those clever apparatchiks can sit back and choose where they want to be on the curve. Again, basic economics will tell you that this is complete bunk, since nothing prevents individual actors from adjusting their inflation expectations. But until this thirds grade insight was empirically demonstrated beyond any doubt in the 70s, the Keynesians stuck to their Philips curve nonsense. And even now, they are bending over backwards with modified, expectation adjusted, long run vs. short run blah blah Philips curve nonsense. Refusing to simply employ the same thought they would have employed if reasoning about how private actors would behave sans government. Because that is "micro"-economics, and every card carrying Keynesian "knows" that economic policy needs to be thought about in terms of "macro" economics. Never mind "macro" economics isn't really economics at all, but instead nothing more than a bunch of half though out curve fitting and attendant justifying babble.

Cyril's picture

I can give you ONLY ONE advice, OP.

On "Arm-Chair Economics"

I can give you ONLY ONE advice, OP.

Just read this book :

http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/dp/B004IEA4DM

ASAP.

Then, in the light of its content : think again; for YOURSELF, this time.

Also, since you bring up Keynesianism and "basic economics" (whatever you mean by that ?) a very interesting exercise is to comment for yourself the English construction, in grammar, vocabulary, and punctuation, of the following and to analyze which meaning is ACTUALLY conveyed, thanks TO CLOSE INSPECTION :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking#How_...

"[...]According to mainstream economic theory, regulated fractional-reserve banking also benefits the economy by providing regulators with powerful tools for manipulating the money supply and interest rates, which many see as essential to a healthy economy.[...]"

In order to help you, I just gave some hints with the phrases I put in bold emphasis. Hence, left as an exercise to the reader, comment :

1. "mainstream economic" ?

2. "fractional reserve" ?

3. "regulators" ?

4. "powerful tools" ?

5. "which many see" ?

On "Ignorant Foreign Policy"

Absolutely GRANTED, OP !

INDEED, we have NEVER BEEN INVITED to any of THEIR MEETINGS :

http://www.cfr.org/about/corporate/roster.html

Now, what about you ? HAVE YOU (ever been invited), OP ?

'Hope this helps, &

Sincerely,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

It seems to me that you are the ignorant one

You come here asking us to justify something that if you weren't so lazy to investigate for yourself you would know. The so called policy experts that you cite for justifying your idea of economics have been toying with the system for some time now and what do they show for accomplishments. Have they made this a better place? Have they improved the economics of our citizens? Has their foreign policy done anything to make us truly safer? They have waged a war on Poverty, Drugs, Inflation and Terrorism. What have they accomplished? Now you come here wanting to provoke a discussion when if you examine the information that you expect to make you right and us wrong. A belief that if you just paused long enough to really think deeper about you would come to the conclusion that you were mistaken all this time. Well many of us that come here used to think like you until we opened our eyes and say what reality is. I suggest that you sit back and enjoy the news from this site for a while before you go running off with the mouth like some stupid punk kid.

I would also like to humbly

I would also like to humbly request that members here not be so dismissive and hostile. We're not doing ourselves any favors by acting this way. We need to educate people with opposing views, especially those who are inquiring.

I would explain it to you but..

I believe you are experiencing cognitive dissonance.

"Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that would be extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect that core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in that core belief"

I could give you numbers, historical references, state the Constitution says this....but you won't accept it.

I'll leave you with one of my fav quotes from Goethe. "There is NOTHING more frightful than ignorance in action"

"Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten."
— G.K. Chesterton

I would like to ask you how a

I would like to ask you how a non-interventionist, peaceful, diplomatic foreign policy is ignorant? I base my views on history, research, and 8 years of military service with two tours in Iraq. I would hardly describe our views as ignorant, just not the norm of the past.

free market economics is the only moral model of economics

free market economics gives everyone an equal chance at prospering. a true free market has nobody picking winners or losers. there would be no monopolies or duopolies or small number of opolies in a free market, because once too many middle managers are needed, the larger company could not compete with a leaner, more efficient model. in a true free market, regulations are minimal and useful to sustain a market instead of being an impediment for new players in the market, thereby acting as insulation to the players already in the market.

In a true free market, someone so inclined could track the market and make predictions based on what the market data is saying. when the market is constantly manipulated by the gov't. and the fed, the only people that can make educated analysis as to the direction of the market are those that have insider knowledge. an honest person is left to the whim of the gov't. or central bank. in a free market economy, the market determines interest rates and that can act as a predictor of market direction. in a gov't/central bank controlled economy, only the cheaters really know where the market is heading.

modern keynesians are not true keynesians at all. Keynes believed that the gov't. should intervene in a nations markets when that nation is under economic duress. in such a time, the stimulus provided by the gov't could help jumpstart the economy and get it back to a position in which the gov't would no longer need to stimulate it. also, the stimulus should be in the form of real jobs that produces real benefit to the nation in question, such as infrastructure building. our gov't. has been "stimulating" non stop since the great depression, without ever stopping when the stimulus is really not needed. not only that, the "stimulas" has been more in the form of cronyism and not really beneficial to the country, but beneficial to the allies of whomever is in power.

if a bubble were to be created in a free market, and left to the free market to correct itself, the bursting of the bubble would take a natural course and end much more quickly. there would be some pain, but the business model that is right for the moment would take over and the market would right itself. when bubbles are created by gov't./central bank intervention, they usually get much larger before bursting. then, when the gov't./central bank tries to manage the bursting of the bubble, the pain may be slightly lessened, but almost always legnthened. also, the people that usually benefit from that intervention are political cronies.

free markets are the only moral markets

STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS

Just downvote and ignore it.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

Welcome

These are actually very important distinctions you raise. The fact that you are investigating the answers to these questions assures me that you will come over from the dark side once you thoroughly understand how things really operate. I hope you will check out Tom Woods, because he talks a lot about how he, like you, was once a GOP Koolaide drinking neocon that believed in noble causes for the wars and the logic of Keynesian economics.

Your misguided views are more widely held, because you are in good company with millions of couch potatoes across the nation that just go along with what they are told by the media, the government propaganda, government schools, and their trusted political parties and organizations. The fact that you are questioning it means you are on the precipice of a very deep rabbit hole. Welcome.

How do your Keynesian buddies

How do your Keynesian buddies plan on fixing the misallocations of capital within every country that runs an interest rate manipulating machine called a central bank.

How are you going to reverse the years of damage created by cheap and easy money? . . With more cheap and easy money?

Question 2, How is it possible to create something from nothing?

Quesstion 3, how does a centralised bank understand the needs and wants (ie, how individuals value goods and services) for every single person within the economy they control, when the value of said items, is objective?

Question 4, How do you stop a centralised power from being corrupted, and how do you implement that system to stop corruption as much as possible, or at least wide spread corruption. Why is a central bank, who holds massive power, not susceptible to corruption?

I would add...

Questions 5-8, How can you justify the current U.S. Foreign Policy? When this country was formed, until around the Spanish-American War (1900), U.S. Foreign Policy was non-existant. What has happened since? Over 100 years of war! How is our view of a non-interventionalist foreign policy "ignorant"? Your "widely held beliefs" have worked so well up to now right?

the concept of neo-con

foreign policy experts cracks me up. Will they every learn?

I love how everyone here is so hostile to this hostile newcomer

Although he would get more respect asking the question after being a member for awhile, asking it genuinely instead of mockingly, i think the real question is:

who is this guy to think he knows what economics is?

He's obviously some misinformed brainwashed democrat who thinks hes smarter than everyone around him. If he was someone of importance, why would he come try to pick fights with a bunch of random presidential candidate supporters.

Are we all masters of economics? Did we claim to be?

For me personally:
After studying both keynesian and austrian economics, yes austrian seems to make a hell of a lot more sense. You can actually predict outcomes with the philosophies of Austrian Econ, and our positions have success rates far higher than his democrat foreign advisors and keynesian economists.

However, we are still just random citizens who all have different everyday jobs.

Since he's nobody of importance, we should just disregard this post, if he wants to come out and claim hes someone of importance, lets have him debate real economists. Im sure we could line a few up for national TV.