True. Bush's third term here courtesy of Mr. Obama should be a crystal clear fountain of evidence that it doesn't matter which asshole from the usual suspects gets in, we still get a rusty pipe shoved up our rear ends in the end.
I know I've asked in other threads. But If you're a Ron Paul detractor, please include in your post who you intend to vote for in 2012. Alot of people would like to laugh at whichever person you're going to vote for since they are all a complete joke.
to avoid being global police.
That's one thing I wouldn't mind see end. It's almost expected of us though because (I'm pretty sure) we spend the most money maintaining our army, so we better damn well spend even more to use it.
You guys all realize that we aren't the global police out of the goodness of our hearts, right? We do it to enforce our interests, not because we're some put upon cop figure.
"our" interests as in "we the people"? it is war for profit no doubt just not "our" profit.
He has a Machiavellian view on government, he likes it to be big and strong as if it were his favorite boxer or football team. He feels safe so long as he feels he understands why it is big and powerful.
Sure!
1.) Return to the gold standard or other commodity based currency. (he thinks paper money is unconstitutional, hahahaha)
2.) Is against UHC.
3.) Is a global warming denier.
4.) Is an evolution doubter.
5.) Is anti-abortion.
I could go on, but I don't feel like writing any more on someone who really doesn't matter.
His views on evolution, and abortion are not relevant, he isn't going to be making any policies that have anything remotely to do with either.
And none of that is part of his campaign. He understands that the way we do things now financially is going to ruin this country, and it is. A lot of people are against UHC, as well as the fact MMGW is a scam. His views on evolution, and abortion are not relevant, he isn't going to be making any policies that have anything remotely to do with either.
Ron Paul has a cartoonish, fringe understanding of economics that would be highly dangerous to the world economy if he ever had a chance to implement it.
Examples?
Examples?
I get your a youtube scholar.
What university did you goto that allow you to cite youtube in your academic work?
The financial system is collapsing right now do you read the paper or just watch you tube?
We are teetering on the edge of a cliff. The slightest of nudges and this deck of cards is coming down. It might come down anyways.
Please show me a graph detailing the value of the dollar since 1913. The fiat system has been debasing the currency through inflation. inflation adjusted, blue collar wages are lower than they've been in 30 years!
What are you babbling about now? I'm one of the biggest civil libertarians on this board. If people on this board spent a lot less time trying to tell others what they think and more time refining their own thoughts, we'd be a lot better off.
How's the RON PAUL REVOLUTION coming, anyway? Last time I checked you guys were hovering right around 8 percent in primary polling! Keep up the good work, I'm sure the REVOLUTION is almost at hand.
Well that's clearly untrue. As president he would be nominating supreme court justices, and they absolutely would have an impact on abortion.
I don't care about your faith that global warming is a scam, and it's fine if lots of people are against UHC. Ron Paul has a cartoonish, fringe understanding of economics that would be highly dangerous to the world economy if he ever had a chance to implement it.
Oh, and for the Paul nuts that still think his economics are legitimate, can anyone explain why there are no Austrian economics departments at any major, respected universities if this is a serious discipline dedicated to creating economic models that accurately predict micro and macro economic fluctuations year-to-year? Does anyone seriously believe there's not a single good reason Austrian econ is a dead-end research-wise at every single major university in the country? I just find that kind of faith laughably naive, almost child-like.
If you want to also look at research being done on a neo-keynesian level you can look for Steve Keen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Keen
He follows the works of Hyman Minsky. Establishment economics is slowly eroding, just make sure you aren't the last person on the boat when it finally sinks and you'll be okay.
According to his own bio page it doesn't look like Boettke has done any recognized research, and Rizzo has been widely debunked (no idea he as at NYU, sadly for NYU). Of course the point is moot if 2 Austrians is the best you've got.
It's not slowly eroding in any real sense that Austrians have been able to show or prove. That's just empirical fact.
If your only measure is how much empirical research they are putting out, then we're having a pointless discussion.
Also to imply that the discussion on whether or not economics should be studied on an a priori level vs posteriori has been settled is premature but obviously many of us have been trained to think it has been.
Cite yours without youtube.
Think of Mises's writings on praxeology and epistemology and I think you'll undertand. You don't even have to actually read it, just wiki it.Explain why empirical research is a pointless discussion?
How has any form of economics been able to? All establishment economics try to do is fit models to historical data which tells us nothing about how that model will predict future data. Austrian economics recognizes that fitting models to data can lead to false premises looking correct.How has the Austrian theory of economics been able to predict current and prior periods of financial turmoil?
Think of Mises's writings on praxeology and epistemology and I think you'll undertand. You don't even have to actually read it, just wiki it.
How has any form of economics been able to? All establishment economics try to do is fit models to historical data which tells us nothing about how that model will predict future data. Austrian economics recognizes that fitting models to data can lead to false premises looking correct.
I already knew the answer, I was just curious if you'd finally come out and say Austrians offer no true econometrics or arithmetic to show their models are empirically accurate.
Plenty have been accurate, particularly any combination of neo-Keynesian and classical aggregate demand economics. And no, historical data is a fantastic predictor of future returns; see Jeremy Siegel's work on equity returns in the United States since 1806 here http://www.amazon.com/Stocks-Long-Ru...=AG56TWVU5XWC2. If all else is equal, if the context is generally the same and if the foundation of the various working parts of the world economies in question haven't fundamentally changed, they are very accurate predictors, and this isn't opinion this is documentable fact.