Dr. Woods: 26 things people who don't vote for Dr. Paul are saying.

[Rainsford]

I really never get tired of Ron Paul supporters telling me what an idiot I am for not supporting him, particularly when presented in condescending list form containing the stupid things I MUST be thinking to not want to vote for Ron Paul. Political arguments usually seem less about converting anyone and more about preaching to the choir, but this type of pro-Ron Paul argument stands out even in that field.

The worst part is that it seems like pro-Ron Paul folks are being deliberately obtuse in not understanding the opposition to him as President. Many people, including myself, have concerns about various aspects of our governmental leadership and would like to see some changes. That doesn't automatically make Ron Paul a good choice, or even an OK choice, or even a better alternative.

His position is incredibly black and white when it comes to almost every issue, ignoring both political and practical realities. Maybe the reason he has a major budget cutting policy while other candidates don't is that other candidates (of all political stripes) realize that adjusting government spending is more complex than simply crossing out a bunch of items and going home early. There are serious issues to consider for and against every spending item for one thing...and the President doesn't decide them all by himself in any case. Somehow despite spending 400 years in Congress, Ron Paul doesn't appear to understand either of those things. Yes, presenting an ambitious plan is easy...it's the following through that's hard, and maybe that's something others are considering.

The other problem though isn't ideological, it's personal. Ron Paul has been in the government for decades now, and has virtually nothing to show for it besides being the resident Scrooge about much of what the government does. That's fine and everything, but at some point you'd expect someone who thinks they should be President to actually step up and try to make a difference. Ron Paul feels deeply that the government should undergo some serious changes...was he just killing time waiting to become President to actually work on any of them? His uncompromising approach to every issue is likely why there's been little progress, since we live in a democracy and he's only one congressman among many. But that's a problem for Presidents as well. He'd have more power in the White House, but he wouldn't be dictator. Is he really going to be able to get anything done THERE, or would we face 4 years of nothing but Ron Paul vetoing everything and then getting overridden until the government ground to a complete halt?

The whole idea of the Ron Paul candidacy seems about idealistic rebellion against the status quo than a practical alternative to our choices so far. Which is fine, but can those that support him PLEASE stop pretending that there's no possible reason why ANY clear thinking person could fail to support him?

And I know it may be petty of me, but for some reason the dogged insistence on him being called "Doctor" Paul is among the most grating things in modern politics, and every time someone does it it makes me want to vote for him even less. He hasn't been a practicing doctor since before I was born, and the reason he's a topic in politics is his role as a Congressman and Presidential candidate. When even the president's name isn't often prefixed with his CURRENT title, I think we can relax on the "Dr. Paul".

 

[Munky]

Anyone can claim credit expansion leads to collapse, point to one particular recession that eventually occurs (as they predictably always do throughout history), and claim their prediction (call it, say, Austrian economics) was sage. It's a irrelevant point to make since everyone knows that overextending credit can lead to bubbles and collapses; this isn't unique to Austrians and is something that is taught in classical, neoclassical, Keynesian, etc. economics. So your point is moot.



Krugman says nothing of the sort. He, in fact, has stated for years (well before this recession ever started and stopped) that austerity during a recession is antithetical to growth, something supported by an extreme majority of economic analysis and study of the stimulus and bailouts with 20/20 hindsight in place. It's not controversial economics and we have lots of documented history about what a failure of credit expansion during a recession can cause (i.e. 1930's style depression).

The recession has stopped? Someone tell Ben Bernanke, because he insists on maintaining ZIRP for the next few years. Someone tell congress critters, because they're debating extending unemployment benefits when clearly the jobs must be coming back any moment now.

As for Krugman, he writes a whole column how deficits don't have to be paid back. Of course, interest on those deficits does have to be paid back, along with all the other mandatory government spending for SS, medicare, welfare, and defense spending. I wonder what Krugman is gonna say when the interest payments get so large that there is not enough tax base income to support them along with all the other mandatory govt spending.

 

[momeNt]

Utility and marginal utility both predate Menger, who made notable contributions. Menger and Hayek are the Austrian school's claims to fame, but no one uses them except an ancillary footnotes in any serious economic analysis or policy in any government in the world. Think about that carefully; governments motivated to consolidate power and most choose the most sustainable path to that end; i.e. through economic growth. Yet not a single country leverages Austrian economics in any central role. How can you explain this?

Austrian economics is antithetical to government in general outside of the most basic of purposes. What's a government to do once they get the most basic of laws and regulations set up? Pat themselves on the back and say let's go home? No, they try and respond to every crisis with legislation, never let a crisis go to waste, always passing more legislation, always energetic. Government's business is control and power. Once governments were able to convince the people that controlling the currency was beneficial and even necessary for the welfare of the economy, there was no turning back.

Keynes was a little ahead of his time in wishing for the reserve currency be controlled by a global central bank, but he'll either get his wish eventually, or we'll return to a free market money.

Austrian economics is a definition of how man acts, the economy simply is an explanation for how man creates markets and exchanges goods and services. Mainstream economists are tinkerers, always searching for ways to change how man acts for desired outcomes. USA stopped sitting around and lettings things simply be in 1907.

 

[Anarchist420]

I really never get tired of Ron Paul supporters telling me what an idiot I am for not supporting him, particularly when presented in condescending list form containing the stupid things I MUST be thinking to not want to vote for Ron Paul. Political arguments usually seem less about converting anyone and more about preaching to the choir, but this type of pro-Ron Paul argument stands out even in that field.

The worst part is that it seems like pro-Ron Paul folks are being deliberately obtuse in not understanding the opposition to him as President. Many people, including myself, have concerns about various aspects of our governmental leadership and would like to see some changes. That doesn't automatically make Ron Paul a good choice, or even an OK choice, or even a better alternative.

His position is incredibly black and white when it comes to almost every issue, ignoring both political and practical realities. Maybe the reason he has a major budget cutting policy while other candidates don't is that other candidates (of all political stripes) realize that adjusting government spending is more complex than simply crossing out a bunch of items and going home early. There are serious issues to consider for and against every spending item for one thing...and the President doesn't decide them all by himself in any case. Somehow despite spending 400 years in Congress, Ron Paul doesn't appear to understand either of those things. Yes, presenting an ambitious plan is easy...it's the following through that's hard, and maybe that's something others are considering.

The other problem though isn't ideological, it's personal. Ron Paul has been in the government for decades now, and has virtually nothing to show for it besides being the resident Scrooge about much of what the government does. That's fine and everything, but at some point you'd expect someone who thinks they should be President to actually step up and try to make a difference. Ron Paul feels deeply that the government should undergo some serious changes...was he just killing time waiting to become President to actually work on any of them? His uncompromising approach to every issue is likely why there's been little progress, since we live in a democracy and he's only one congressman among many. But that's a problem for Presidents as well. He'd have more power in the White House, but he wouldn't be dictator. Is he really going to be able to get anything done THERE, or would we face 4 years of nothing but Ron Paul vetoing everything and then getting overridden until the government ground to a complete halt?

The whole idea of the Ron Paul candidacy seems about idealistic rebellion against the status quo than a practical alternative to our choices so far. Which is fine, but can those that support him PLEASE stop pretending that there's no possible reason why ANY clear thinking person could fail to support him?

And I know it may be petty of me, but for some reason the dogged insistence on him being called "Doctor" Paul is among the most grating things in modern politics, and every time someone does it it makes me want to vote for him even less. He hasn't been a practicing doctor since before I was born, and the reason he's a topic in politics is his role as a Congressman and Presidential candidate. When even the president's name isn't often prefixed with his CURRENT title, I think we can relax on the "Dr. Paul".

He's the only one who is any different. I can understand ambivalence depending on certain circumstances, but I will never understand people who want a difference and are against him.

 

[dank69]

He's the only one who is any different. I can understand ambivalence depending on certain circumstances, but I will never understand people who want a difference and are against him.

Different isn't always better. Things like this shouldn't have to be said.

 

[First]

The recession has stopped? Someone tell Ben Bernanke, because he insists on maintaining ZIRP for the next few years.

Bernanke agrees that the recession has ended, he has stated as much before multiple times. Should I google it for you, or will you concede defeat on this rhetorical point?

Someone tell congress critters, because they're debating extending unemployment benefits when clearly the jobs must be coming back any moment now.

You're looking to Congress for guidance on macroeconomic trends? lol.

As for Krugman, he writes a whole column how deficits don't have to be paid back. Of course, interest on those deficits does have to be paid back, along with all the other mandatory government spending for SS, medicare, welfare, and defense spending. I wonder what Krugman is gonna say when the interest payments get so large that there is not enough tax base income to support them along with all the other mandatory govt spending.

Nowhere in that article does Krugman say that we shouldn't pay back debt the way you're claiming and/or insinuating (I can't tell exactly because you haven't been very detailed on this point). He understands money has time value, it's finance 101. Therefore he knows that, over time, a country (and similarly, a person) can be in debt their entire lives, live perfectly comfortably AND pay good interest rates for that debt financing. You don't need to pay off your entire debt load, that's nonsense and irresponsible unless you're just totally risk averse and/or your interest rates have become sky high. That's what Krugman is saying. And the U.S. doesn't have to deal with sky high interest rates on their debt.

 

[First]

Austrian economics is antithetical to government in general outside of the most basic of purposes. What's a government to do once they get the most basic of laws and regulations set up? Pat themselves on the back and say let's go home? No, they try and respond to every crisis with legislation, never let a crisis go to waste, always passing more legislation, always energetic. Government's business is control and power. Once governments were able to convince the people that controlling the currency was beneficial and even necessary for the welfare of the economy, there was no turning back.

Again, the lack of foresight here is astounding. This is why learning and understanding history is so important. The idea of a central bank goes back to our founding fathers, Hamilton in particular. It worked when it existed, there's verifiable evidence for that. No central bank also worked....except that the U.S. couldn't respond to panics, to changing and unforseen conditions, so Americans had basically zero confidence or incentive to invest in banks or equity if it was likely to go up in smoke eventually. The panic of 1907, where massive amounts of wealth and private investments went up in smoke (as in gone, not just diminished, on a country-wide scale) is how the Fed eventually came to be. Out of necessity for an ever-growing industry (financial investments and instruments) that didn't exist in the past. This sort of innovation has greatly enriched American lives and standards of living. Lack of a central bank in modern economics is unthinkable to nations for a reason; because a level of control over the currency is necessary to promote confidence and ensure investments and deposits in a much larger, more complicated and feature-rich financial industry than 200 years ago. Other logical progressions; deposit insurance aka FDIC, fraud aka SEC.

Keynes was a little ahead of his time in wishing for the reserve currency be controlled by a global central bank, but he'll either get his wish eventually, or we'll return to a free market money.

Again, there's no way we will return to "free market money" because history shows it doesn't work. When unaccountable, uncontrollable independent private actors (corporations, wealth individuals, whoever) are allowed to have control over currencies, it leads to a lack of confidence in said currencies. These unaccountable, uncontrollable independent private actors won't set inflation targets like the Fed does, won't have public meetings about how to deal with credit contraction, won't ensure that currency isn't forged (actually that's the Secret Service, another logical progression of gov't responding to market forces). Free, competing currencies don't work, either; never have. All the above problems ran rampant and caused huge, varied swings in confidence going back to the Roman empire's denarius and sestertius currencies.

Austrian economics is a definition of how man acts, the economy simply is an explanation for how man creates markets and exchanges goods and services. Mainstream economists are tinkerers, always searching for ways to change how man acts for desired outcomes. USA stopped sitting around and lettings things simply be in 1907.

Austrian's cannot simply define how people act, and because action isn't black or white, Austrians fail to come up with consistently verifiable methods in predicting those actions. That's, again, why Austrian economics has never become a booming area of research in ANY well known university. There's nothing to verifiable to research. When new particles are discovered in physics, scientists flock to the field and suddenly research in particles booms. People follow trends in areas they can see and/or verify. You cannot verify practically anything an Austrian claims.

 

[momeNt]

Again, the lack of foresight here is astounding. This is why learning and understanding history is so important. The idea of a central bank goes back to our founding fathers, Hamilton in particular. It worked when it existed, there's verifiable evidence for that. No central bank also worked....except that the U.S. couldn't respond to panics, to changing and unforseen conditions, so Americans had basically zero confidence or incentive to invest in banks or equity if it was likely to go up in smoke eventually. The panic of 1907, where massive amounts of wealth and private investments went up in smoke (as in gone, not just diminished, on a country-wide scale) is how the Fed eventually came to be. Out of necessity for an ever-growing industry (financial investments and instruments) that didn't exist in the past. This sort of innovation has greatly enriched American lives and standards of living. Lack of a central bank in modern economics is unthinkable to nations for a reason; because a level of control over the currency is necessary to promote confidence and ensure investments and deposits in a much larger, more complicated and feature-rich financial industry than 200 years ago. Other logical progressions; deposit insurance aka FDIC, fraud aka SEC.

Again, there's no way we will return to "free market money" because history shows it doesn't work. When unaccountable, uncontrollable independent private actors (corporations, wealth individuals, whoever) are allowed to have control over currencies, it leads to a lack of confidence in said currencies. These unaccountable, uncontrollable independent private actors won't set inflation targets like the Fed does, won't have public meetings about how to deal with credit contraction, won't ensure that currency isn't forged (actually that's the Secret Service, another logical progression of gov't responding to market forces). Free, competing currencies don't work, either; never have. All the above problems ran rampant and caused huge, varied swings in confidence going back to the Roman empire's denarius and sestertius currencies.



Austrian's cannot simply define how people act, and because action isn't black or white, Austrians fail to come up with consistently verifiable methods in predicting those actions. That's, again, why Austrian economics has never become a booming area of research in ANY well known university. There's nothing to verifiable to research. When new particles are discovered in physics, scientists flock to the field and suddenly research in particles booms. People follow trends in areas they can see and/or verify. You cannot verify practically anything an Austrian claims.

Currencies fail, on a long enough timeline they all fail for one reason or another, there have been over 800 researchable fiat currencies, only around 200 remain in use today. To blame the inflation and failing of Roman currencies on the fact they were gold is either disingenuous or ignorant, I think the former because you appear smart. Research the average lifespan of fiat currencies, it's less than 30 years. So I'm not sure what your point is about that.

We also are losing confidence in our currency, countries are bypassing the dollar in trade, gold is still surging - always a sign of the level of confidence in fiat. Ron Paul just represents the side of reform towards free market currency, all others lean towards establishing a global currency once the dollar has lost enough of its value. Quite honestly I would prefer a hard currency controlled by market forces and not some agency controlled by powerful political interests. I suppose being American it would work out pretty well for us, with the best army and most nukes, but still, I'd like for it to be fair.

As for your comments on central bank vs no central bank, the issue is immaterial as long as banks expand the money supply either through central bank or on their own (and accept other banks currencies at par in a "free banking" system). Banks in free banking need to compete for the backing, instantly killing any inflation of the money supply as redemption would make a bank that inflated insolvent. But I'm crazy for even proposing full reserve banking requirements...

 

[Anarchist420]

Again, the lack of foresight here is astounding. This is why learning and understanding history is so important. The idea of a central bank goes back to our founding fathers, Hamilton in particular. It worked when it existed, there's verifiable evidence for that. No central bank also worked....except that the U.S. couldn't respond to panics, to changing and unforseen conditions, so Americans had basically zero confidence or incentive to invest in banks or equity if it was likely to go up in smoke eventually. The panic of 1907, where massive amounts of wealth and private investments went up in smoke (as in gone, not just diminished, on a country-wide scale) is how the Fed eventually came to be. Out of necessity for an ever-growing industry (financial investments and instruments) that didn't exist in the past. This sort of innovation has greatly enriched American lives and standards of living. Lack of a central bank in modern economics is unthinkable to nations for a reason; because a level of control over the currency is necessary to promote confidence and ensure investments and deposits in a much larger, more complicated and feature-rich financial industry than 200 years ago. Other logical progressions; deposit insurance aka FDIC, fraud aka SEC.



Again, there's no way we will return to "free market money" because history shows it doesn't work. When unaccountable, uncontrollable independent private actors (corporations, wealth individuals, whoever) are allowed to have control over currencies, it leads to a lack of confidence in said currencies. These unaccountable, uncontrollable independent private actors won't set inflation targets like the Fed does, won't have public meetings about how to deal with credit contraction, won't ensure that currency isn't forged (actually that's the Secret Service, another logical progression of gov't responding to market forces). Free, competing currencies don't work, either; never have. All the above problems ran rampant and caused huge, varied swings in confidence going back to the Roman empire's denarius and sestertius currencies.



Austrian's cannot simply define how people act, and because action isn't black or white, Austrians fail to come up with consistently verifiable methods in predicting those actions. That's, again, why Austrian economics has never become a booming area of research in ANY well known university. There's nothing to verifiable to research. When new particles are discovered in physics, scientists flock to the field and suddenly research in particles booms. People follow trends in areas they can see and/or verify. You cannot verify practically anything an Austrian claims.

Can Keynesian Theory been verified? More importantly, has Keynesian policy worked without failures? Could it be that there is more to the Panic of 1907 than you think there is? For example, when the first banks started failing, the Treasury secretary (who was part of the power elite) started a national specie reserve ratio mandate for commercial banks (and the fact that he refused to keep it at 100%)? Maybe the Panic of 1907 wasn't as bad as the mainstream historians make it out to be.

Also, the Roman emperors and rulers devalued their currencies, not the market. They devalued them because they needed to fund their empire building. Isn't that eerily similar to what the United States has been doing since 1913? Didn't Hamilton favor paper money, at least partially due to the fact that he favored building up power of the state (and forming an elite) rather than completely because he thought it good for humanity? Keep in mind that the pro-inflation Hamiltonians (who were the Keynesians of their day) didn't exactly hold humanity in the highest regard and that was part of the reason they wanted more power for the state. Keep in mind that Jefferson was the democrat and the hard money man. Wouldn't Jefferson be the one who wanted the best for humanity and less centralization of power?

 

[D007]

Truth is if you don't vote Paul your an idiot. Likely that's why people tell you that, because it's true. This explains it better than anything..

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/26-things-non-paul-voters-are-basically-saying/

Voting for anyone else means simply that you're a tool who has been duped by the media, to accept a candidate that is so unacceptable, they can't even get delegates. All those straw polls mean nothing, absolutely NOTHING. The delegates are Rons and for good reason. He is the only candidate who gives a shit about America and he will be our next president, count on it..

 

[palehorse]

He is the only candidate who gives a shit about America and he will be our next president, count on it..

Paul fanatics are just so... cute?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Truth is if you don't vote Paul your an idiot. Likely that's why people tell you that, because it's true. This explains it better than anything..

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/26-things-non-paul-voters-are-basically-saying/

Voting for anyone else means simply that you're a tool who has been duped by the media, to accept a candidate that is so unacceptable, they can't even get delegates. All those straw polls mean nothing, absolutely NOTHING. The delegates are Rons and for good reason. He is the only candidate who gives a shit about America and he will be our next president, count on it..

Do you really think that if you don't vote for Ron Paul because you just can't vote for a racist, that this makes you an idiot?

To be blunt, I think that you have to be very questionable to want to vote for such a racist man.

 

[disappoint]

Here.

I love it all, most particularly his prediction about the other candidate's increasing spending. Even though they vaguely say they're going to cut spending, they never do. Romney has yet to detail how he's going to cut spending. His "cap spending at 20% of GDP" plan is as nebulous as saying "I'm going to buy you a used car, but it's going to be new."

First of all, the government and the private sector contribute to GDP. GDP growth could be at above market levels in the private sector and still see an increase in Federal spending. So basing spending on GDP gives him too much room to significantly increase Federal spending. That's especially possible if he cartelizes more industries, grants even more patents, protects American industry, lots of junk is made, etc. So that could possibly balance the budget, but it's makes no difference if it's done that way. I have a feeling that he's going to be very pro-regulatory and somewhat anti-redistribution (I say somewhat because the large military he wants is a redistribution of wealth).

2nd, we don't know whether he's counting for inflation.

He wants to adjust the minimum wage for inflation. So that means GDP will go up if he forces employers to hire people or if he gives them incentives for jobs creating junk.

We also need to remember that he's probably going to increase Federal revenue (even when adjusted for inflation and more jobs) because he wants more tariffs. Meanwhile, reducing the top marginal income tax rate to 25% isn't going to decrease Federal revenue. It could increase it and that would not be good.

Is my analysis retarded?

Just one thing missing. Let's assume Ron Paul is the best presidential candidate since George Washington like most Paul Bots seem to think. Probably not true by a long shot but let's give them, Ron Paul, and you the benefit of the doubt and assume that anyway.

Do you realize you don't live in a dictatorship? What makes you think Ron Paul will be able to accomplish all this change you wish to see in Washington?