The ineffectiveness of Ron Paul

The real, stable yet gradual economic growth under a stable currency structure needs to be framed within the 21st century. From my perspective, and this is after researching Ron Paul's policies, reading his books and articles on the Ludvig Von Mises Institute website for months, and thinking through every single facet of specifically Ron Paul's competing currencies legislation, I do not think it is possible to frame what Ron Paul desires to a "T" without regression of our economic production.

 

we have created more debt than increase in production, for a net loss

 

Yes, I completely acknowledge that. My approach to dealing with that is through fiscal policy that will not return us to 19th century economic output in pure dollars and cents. Ron Paul's approach is like that of Andrew Jackson, an economic and specifically moral opposition to debt in general. I fear the moral side of his policies could bring down this nation, forcing it to start from square one, which is highly unnecessary because every single policy of Ron Paul's can maintain every single positive aspect of the 21st century economy, eliminate every negative aspect of the 21st economy, and bring back positive aspects of the 19th century economy. All that is needed is a few changes here and there.

 

You mean that "liquid, artificial" production? Well, true, Paul's policies would not allow us to continue to live in our dream world, where we owe trillions of dollars and it doesn't really matter because we can just print up some more money, devalue the currency some more, and call it good. The truth is, the economic fantasy that is the current policy will inevitably crash. It must, for it is bogus to begin with. Those trillions WILL catch up to us, and there's just no digging our way out of a hole this deep, particularly while refusing to understand why we are in a hole to start with. Paul's ideals are based on sanity and reality. If anyone doubts this, they should question their own sanity, or at least their intelligence.

 

I am fully aware that we need to abandon the current structure. However, it is insane to argue that Paul's approach is the only option. You know, there are financial analysts such as James Rickards, and Democrats such as Dennis Kucinich that understand that the Federal Reserve is a corrupt institution that must be radically reformed or obliterated. Their approaches are not the same as Ron Paul's yet are equally as effective, if not more effective. I favor their approaches because they are a variation of my own.

Ron Paul supporters tend to believe that Ron Paul is the only renowned public figure advocating for an alternative currency structure and a stabler economy. There are plenty of people who believe in his sentiments, yet fundamentally disagree with his approaches. I am one of them.

 

Is your political awareness, by the hour? Or by the second? From 2000 thru 2007 the USA was under Republican control, Congress and the WH. Throughout that time period the debt to GDP ratio was between 57% and 61%. The last time it was below 60% previous was under Reagan. Also a Republican.
In Clinton's time the D/GDP went from 60% straight up to the mid 80%'s until one of the lying dishonest Republican Candidates (Gingrich) FORCED Clinton to reign in and it came back down to 60%. That 85% under Clinton was the high mark in modern times [1970 on] Now under obama and Democrat control since 2008 ONLY, the debt to GDP ratio skyrocketed to above 100%. 102.74% as of RIGHT NOW. Paul had NOTHING to do with bringing Clinton's high down, nor did Paul do anything to stop obama's outrageous increase. But Gingrich, that lying miserable slime that Paul can't beat DID THAT.

You could write all you seem to know about politics and the debt to GDP ratio on the point of a needle and have room left over for an encyclopedia.

That's the debt to GDP.

Now deficits. Highest ever deficit by a Republican Congress, $412.7 billion in FY 2004. Then the Republican deficits dropped precipitately. $318 billion, then $248 billion, then $160.7 billion in FY 2007.

$412.7 billion, the Republican record. And that is by no means a good number, it is a bad number.

But then Democrats took control of Congress.
FY 2008 was $458.6 billion. A new all time record and more than $40 billion more than the Republican record. No time to worry on that however because in 2009 the Democrat deficit was $1,412.7 TRILLION. the first ever deficit over a TRILLION and exactly 1 TRILLION higher than the Republican record. And Paul sat in Congress and did nothing. Then 2010 with $1,293.5 TRILLION and 2011 with $1,299.6 TRILLION. And Paul sat and watched.

So that's D/GDP ratio and deficits.

Now, national debt itself.

Our nation is 235 years old. Up to FY 2007 we had accumulated a total of $8.7 TRILLION in debt by all Congresses and administrations. Then Democrats took over in 2008. Since then, they have increased the debt by $6.8 TRILLION. That is 44% of the 235 year debt accumulated in only 4 years of Democrat control. And Paul sat in Congress and watched.

Bush the horrible dummy was president for 8 years. That's 96 months. With both Republican Congresses and Democrat Congresses the debt increased $4,899 TRILLION in Bush's presidency. A BAD number.

obama has been president for 38 months. The national debt has increased under obama's presidency with a Democrat Congress for most of it and a split Congress for a year, $4,874 TRILLION in only 38 months

That IS an increase of $128.26 billion per month. Bush was $51.03 billion per month. obama is increasing the debt 2.51 TIMES faster. If you're driving down the Interstate at 70 mph, and a car passes you going 2.51 times faster,,,,,,,He is doing 176 mph.

Paul is a pipsqueak footnote that has never done a thing. He DOESN'T MATTER. The Democrats must be kicked out!

What will I be doing Nov 7? hopefully rejoicing! But in any case I'll be doing the same thing I do now. Talking to Congresspeople and urging them to stop the insanity. See I don't just talk to whackos on a forum, I talk to whackos in office too. Both parties.

 

Obviously Paul is not the only person who understands the obvious, but there are dam few who actually hold a government office. Kucinich is probably the only Dem worth a crap, just like Paul is the token good Republican. Those two are about the only ones who don't toe the line. Are there other ways to succeed than Paul's ideas? Certainly. But the establishment, cashing in on the corruption, is intent on making sure that doesn't happen, hence the "ineffectiveness" of Paul.

 

Ron Paul has been more effective than any other politician, not in the area of laws successfully rammed through congress, but in the area of inspiring people and giving hope that every last politician has not been bought off. My vote for Ron Paul, in the '08 primary, was the only vote I have ever felt good about casting. The rest of my votes have always been voting against the other guy, never voting for someone. My case may not be typical, but it is not unique. I don't think any other politician today has that kind of enthusiasm going for them. Their supporters are more like "Well, we gotta beat Obama, so we gotta vote for this guy, even though he kinda sucks."

Anyway, people can call Ron Paul a crazy cult hero or whatever, but men like Romney win (fair?)elections, and men like Ron Paul lead social movements, and social movements have the potential to be more powerful and long lasting than a presidency.

 

Read the exit polls. Paul has inspired the naive youth and less than 50 % of them and they make up less than 10 % of the voters. He has a 12.3% approval rating among Republicans. Far less among Democrats.

That is not very inspirational unless you're delusional.

 

Actually I consider my Polical views pretty clear and understandable.
I haven't a clue as to what Paul is talking about 90% of the time.
Which probably explains why he is such a Pop Politician.
Ron Paul is like Pop Art { Andy Warhol }... It's interpretation is
secondary.It's just there.Enjoy it for merely being there.Like a
roomfull of tin foil.The glitter is what matters most.Ron Paul says glitter
stuff for tin foil hat types.If anyone has bothered to notice,Paul does
that in all the debates.Just acts like everything he states and believes
is some forgone conclusion.Little, in the way of Historic backdrop or
context.It's actually more rooted in mass appeal.Like he says stuff
no tested or rational candidate would ever dare state.
That is supposedly the charm of Ron Paul.

 

You cannot debate logically can you? You instantly attack the person rather than the message because it's too hard for you to do so. I find it funny because you'll most likely reply with an insult towards me without having to counter my rebuttal.

 

I am interested to hear what part of Paul's message (if not all of it) Foolardi abhors and why.

 

Yet How Ironic for a guy to be such the monumental authority
on the most grave issues facing this Country and nothing to back
it up.Tell us all what Ron Pauls authority is.If you mean his ability
to pop off at the drop of any tin foil hat,his insistences,yes Ron
Paul is if nothing else one who INSISTS stuff,like that in and of itself
PROVES his authority,then yes,you have a point.
The same point a martian makes when appearing in most
all 50's Sci-fi Movies.
Creep on ... dude.

 

Ron Paul's message can be backed by the scholarly works of the Austrian School, especially the likes of Hayek and Von Mises. Elements of his non-interventionist stance can be found in the philosophies of Murray Rothbard. Paul himself has also been a contributor as a socio-economic scholar to the Austrian School.

His commitment to Constitutional principles are simply an adherence to a strict constructionist method of interpretating the Constitution, not a literalist or originist approach. On civil liberties, he epitomizes the principles of the libertarian party as well as philosophies of the Austrian School. Essentially, if you had to describe his montra, it would be "live and let live".

I suggest you read up on Austrian School philosophies and on Ron Paul literature. You may not like reading about where Ron Paul is coming from, but at least you will be more informed on a variety of issues:

http://mises.org/
http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=author&Id=392

 

Understandable.That you are one so easily hoodwinked by the
faux charm of a Ron Paul.Which is actually just a professorial
far right version of Bernie Sanders.maybe not so far right.
If Pops Paul was a Professor,I'd tend to agree with yer assessment.
But as I've said all along,way before this OP thread ever started,
Ron Paul has literally No feather in his cap in all his years as a
Congressman.He is just an aging,failed Politician with nothing to
cite as a Congressional accomplishment.Not even an ability to
caucus.Actually he's a disaster.I don't give a fig about all his
messages as far as Theory and how to be a Constitutionalist.
We have Universities and professors for that.
Newt Gingrich was a College professor and wrote many books.
BTW ... has Pops Paul had the time or the energy or the
smarts to write down in some published book what his ideas
encompass.if not than it's basically Beer Talk for Tin foil hat types.

 

Well, nice conclusion, but ironically I am not a Ron Paul supporter. I simply understand his ideology, yet I criticize it quite often, and for similar reasons as you do. As for what his ideas encompass, there are multiple works authored by him covering his ideas. In regards to his ideas on a gold standard, they can be found in The Case for Gold and Gold, Peace, and Prosperity, as well as End the Fed. In regards to his ideas on civil liberties, they can be found in Freedom Under Seige. In regards to his non-interventionist foreign policy, his ideas can be found in A Foreign Policy of Freedom. On his general ideas, you can read The Revolution: A Manifesto. In regards to free trade, you can read The Case for Free Trade. All of his books are not just theories, but legitimate economic, political, or social rationale and actual proposals that go beyond what his campaign site states. After all of the theory and rationale in the book The Case for Gold, Ron Paul along with his co-author Lewis Lehrman lay out their proposal for an alternative currency structure under a gold standard. The reason why I rarely get attacked by libertarians despite being a critic of Ron Paul is because I know his ideas, his stances, and his proposals better than some of his own supporters. The reason why people like yourself are attacked is because you cite simplistic, politically charged talking points that do not debunk Ron Paul's theories, policies, or stances. If anything, they add fuel to the libertarian fire.

 

I am humbled because I did not know of Ron Paul and his
published works.I did notice they were ALL written within the last
few years,the earliest being ... - The Case for Gold - Jan.2007.

 

Have you read any Rothbard?

 

The current so-called system of chaotic monopoly is both unjust and unsustainable. Obviously, it is not feasible to overturn it overnight, and no one is suggesting that.

Ron Paul's strategy is similar to FA Hayek's. Tweak the laws to allows private currencies to compete with the dollar on a level playing field. No one would have to use them; people could stick to the dollar. However, since, in a free market, more effective goods outcompete less effective ones, the dollar would be outcompeted overtime by higher quality private currencies.

 

Why? Because you think Romney will be better than Obama? Good luck changing the face on the balcony.

 

The "naive" youth make up 10% of the vote now. In twenty years, the naive old farts will have croaked and those youth will be their thirties and forties. Libertarianism is on the ascendancy because we're increasingly tired of the abject failure of statism, Dem and GOP brands both.

 

"I don't understand what Ron Paul is talking about, but I hate him anyway."

So who are you voting for? Rick Santorum?

 

We don't just need an alternative approach; we need a good alternative approach. Kucinich, from what I understand, just wants to shift the money monopoly from the Fed to Congress. That solves nothing. We need to move towards a monetary free market. Legalizing competing currencies is a good first step. Maybe you don't think it's the best strategy, but once Mitt Romney starts talking about another strategy for moving towards free market market, I'll start paying attention.

 

So how do we avoid the problem of workers being paid in exploitative Company Script?

 

We are already paid in scrip. The only difference is that the scrip comes from the state rather than a company. And the difference between states and companies is that states are monopolies whereas companies, if they are obeying the rules of the marketplace, are competitive.

So the way to the deal with company scrip is to quit in exchange for another competing company; most people would prefer to work for a company that pays them in a currency in widespread circulation and good at most establishments.

But there is no good way to deal with state scrip. You are forced to emigrate and abandon your own property.