Has time proven Ron Paul correct?

[lone_gunman]

During the primary, Ron Paul noted that our current financial and economic policies, along with out of control federal spending, and a never ending War on Terror would bankrupt America.  Romney rolled his eyes, McCain simply ignored him, and now it seems to have come to pass.   Less than six months later, our economy is crashing and burning, with no end in sight.  We have Republicans and Democrats who seem to think the only way to get out of the hole is to spend more....

Has anyone reconsidered what Paul said?  Maybe the Republicans should have paid him more attention, and rolled their eyes a little less.

[Standing Wolf]

Maybe the Republicans should have paid him more attention, and rolled their eyes a little less.

If Republicrats and Democans were capable of learning the obvious, they'd be Libertarians.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Maybe the Republicans should have paid him more attention, and rolled their eyes a little less.


maybe if there weren't a crowd of troofers chanting around him or no one minting money with his picture on it there'd be less eyerolling

[MicroBalrog]

Yeah, because weird people supporting him = him being wrong. John McCain was supported by a woman that carved letters into her face and claimed liberals did it. Does that have any actual bearing on anything?

Of course, laughing at people who wear strange clothes or who have bizarre beliefs is a convenient excuse for not actually voting or supporting for people who support individual liberty. You know, because actual change is scary.

[lone_gunman]

I am not too interested in rehashing all the stuff from the election.  Certainly, Ron Paul had some weird people supporting him, but I supported him, and I am more or less normal.  I think it is a shame a lot of people could not get past the odd hodgepodge of supporters he had and paid more attention to the message.

The economic collapse, which Ron Paul said was going to happen, has happened.  I think that should improve his credibility in the eyes of his party, but it probably will not.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Yeah, because weird people supporting him = him being wrong. John McCain was supported by a woman that carved letters into her face and claimed liberals did it. Does that have any actual bearing on anything?


no  because weird folks all around you being embraced by you makes you seem loony tunes yourself.  the liberty dollars thing was "special". as was your attempt to find equivalency in the dingbat with the carved face liking mccain and pauls relationship with the troofers.  one doesn't have control of the nuts  one can control having em move in with you

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

think it is a shame a lot of people could not get past the odd hodgepodge of supporters he had and paid more attention to the message.

The economic collapse, which Ron Paul said was going to happen, has happened.  I think that should improve his credibility in the eyes of his party, but it probably will not.


i think its a shame he couldn't distance himself from the flakes  it might make him getting more credibility possible. but both are unlikely  and its worse than a shame  its a crime

[MicroBalrog]

as was your attempt to find equivalency in the dingbat with the carved face liking mccain and pauls relationship with the troofers

The dingbat thing was completely irrelevant to anything.

So was the appearance of truthers.


What is relevant is a candidate's views on issues, and, to a lesser degree, his character. Ron Paul has had supported individual liberty throughout his career with far more consistency than any other candidate who had run against him in the race. I suppose that this didn't matter to most voters. But if you think that wearing a nice tie and being respectable is more important than individual liberty, then maybe you're not such a big fan of individual liberty after all - which is not a crime, we are all entitled to our views.

Here is the blatant truth: what exists in modern society is not, of course, a condition of slavery. There are no death camps and no Stasi. But what exists in modern society is not freedom in the sense in which libertarians, classical liberals and Goldwaterite conservatives aspire to it.  Open up Goldwater's book and read the description of the society he wants - no Federal invovlement in education, no graduated income tax, and so forth - even that rather moderate vision is already radically different from what we have today. I.E., it is revolutionary. To get from 'here' to 'there', we require either decades and centuries of change or a revolution - a clearing away of the social institutions on which the current system rests, either rapidly or slowly.

If you really want to live in a free world, then you need to have a revolution. By this I don't mean you need to grab a rifle and storm the Bastille or some silly fantasy like that, what I mean is that the very notion of rapid political change like that is by itself a revolution. That's what the definition of revolution is, the rapid replacement of one kind of political and social system by another.

But the truth it, you can't have a revolution while wearing a three-piece suit. Wanna have freedom in your life time? Then you gotta accept some strange bedfellows. Want to nitpick people about how they're not wearing a tie? Then don't wonder why the two parties are alike or why your taxes are too high or why lefties keep taking your shiny toys.

[RocketMan]

Sigh...here we go again.  :rolleyes:

[K Frame]

How about we keep it on topic, folks, or this thread will go away really quickly.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

During the primary, Ron Paul noted that our current financial and economic policies, along with out of control federal spending, and a never ending War on Terror would bankrupt America.  Romney rolled his eyes, McCain simply ignored him, and now it seems to have come to pass.   Less than six months later, our economy is crashing and burning, with no end in sight.  We have Republicans and Democrats who seem to think the only way to get out of the hole is to spend more....

Has anyone reconsidered what Paul said?  Maybe the Republicans should have paid him more attention, and rolled their eyes a little less.

Hooray for strawmen! 

At least we've moved on from bashing Bush and are now bashing Romney, McCain, or Generic Republicans.  I guess we could call that progress.

[MicroBalrog]

So the only thing we should do is bash Obama, Dodd, Hillary, or Generic Democrats? 

[Perd Hapley]

You forgot about Ron Paul.  We can always bash Ron Paul.

Anybody can predict economic apocalypse.  The question is, did Ron Paul predict the specific causes of specific disasters we are currently seeing?  A second question would be, did he have real solutions to those problems?  Naturally, he would do a better job than Obama, but who wouldn't? 

[MicroBalrog]

Well, Ron Paul's answer was composed of three points: 1. Cut taxes and spending. 2. Reduce the regulatory power of the Federal Government 3. Reform the monetary system.

Yes, I can see how some people would be opposed to 3, but considering a. Ron Paul was never comitted to an overnight switch to free banking, that was the least dangerous part of the program and b. Ron Paul was right on so much other stuff, I'd think they'd be able to get over that.

If you think that more individual liberty and personal responsibility are bad, then Ron Paul is probably not the man for you.

But here's the thing: the reason we're now discussing this is not, in my mind, Ron Paul, the physical Pennsylvania-born physician who's now a Republican conservative from Texas.

The problem is that some of us (not just me, my opinion is pretty much irrelevant, but all those American guys who voted for RP, whose opinion is a bit more important than mine) feel that these events involving Ron Paul are not a minor occurence in the constant stream of political nonsense. A lot of people on the 'radical' wing of conservatism/libertarianism felt that the tie-wearing gradualist dudes are our friends, and that if an opportunity presented itself to smash the system, then the gradualists would grab it or at least agree to help out if the alternatives were not actually gradualist, but big-government. That turned out to be untrue. People started focusing on the quirks of the Ron Paul candidacy like high-school jocks during nerd-baiting season. Practically all of the conservative pundits, all of them Limbaughs and Levins and so forth, arrayed themselves against the only candidate that was actually capable of giving them most of what they claimed to want, if they were elected.  A lot of people seem to feel, on an emotional level, that the people that we respected (at least to some degree) have turned around and suddenly attacked us, while we had a common enemy.

Instead they turned around and rallied behind the various RINOs whom they swore up and down never to support - remember, before the election many people viewed the positions of the RINOs a so similar they were given the nickname "Rudy McRomney", as if to mock their similarity.

Suddenly "I'll never vote for a RINO" turned into "Vote for Romney, he's better than McCain!".

[Perd Hapley]

Ya know, I actually did an image search on Ron Paul and he was wearing a tie in almost every shot.  FWIW.  There's some irony in the tie remarks, but I don't know whether you see it or not.

So, Ron Paul was advising standard conservative/libertarian economic policies, plus the gold standard thing.  We all knew that.  But the OP makes him out to be a prophet, not merely a laissez faire capitalist.  That's the part I'm still wondering about. 

Your analysis of conservative response to Ron Paul is interesting, but just amounts to more whining about Ron Paul's failure to accomplish his objective.  As Rush Limbaugh frequently said for the past year or two, it is not his job to push any particular candidate.  If Paul wanted Limbaugh's support, he should have acted like it.  Why should Limbaugh et al be any more solicitous of Ron Paul than they were of McCain?  Neither candidate was especially inspiring to mainstream conservatives.  That remains their own fault.  As it turned out, the conservative punditry supported McCain, as he was better than Obama.  Paul would no doubt have received similar support. 

[MicroBalrog]

See, in my view, the reason RP was awesome is because he advocated not some form of gradualism, but getting in there and taking a hatchet to the whole bloody works.

As for "own fault", I'm not sure I ever said Ron Paul was a great politician. Ron Paul's campaign was plagued, from day one, by a variety of problems. Beause I followed it very closely, I can expound on them in great detail for your curiosity, but I don't think it's the issue here.  I think Ron Paul, for all his positive qualities, did many things wrong. But the thing is, your opinion about someone ALWAYS reveals something about you AND about that someone. So I can say that Medved or Reynolds were complete idiots for attacking Paul in the way they did even while commenting about how Ron Paul's campaign post-November 5th was completely mismanaged.

[Gewehr98]

Anybody can predict economic apocalypse.

Exactly.  My grandmother predicted a similar economic outcome last year as she watched the housing bubble burst.

Maybe she should've run for president, based on her clairvoyant skills?   

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Practically all of the conservative pundits, all of them Limbaughs and Levins and so forth, arrayed themselves against the only candidate that was actually capable of giving them most of what they claimed to want, if they were elected.

Rush is an interesting character - especially his presidential candidate non-support. Pretty sure he wiped out Buchanan.

I don't know how he picks his presidential choices... he may do it because he wants to be 'right' in the sense of 'correct'... but from my limited memories, he tends to mow down the guy that is closest to his beliefs when a primary comes around without fail. Pretty sure Fred Thompson was closer to his beliefs than Romney, but no support issued for him.

Of course, I seem to recall reading that Bill Buckley having a strong dislike of Goldwater, too. Maybe there's just serious personality conflicts involved.

[MicroBalrog]

Rush is an interesting character - especially his presidential candidate non-support. Pretty sure he wiped out Buchanan.

Please explain more about this. I have a gap in my education concerning what conservatives were doing in the 90's.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Please explain more about this. I have a gap in my education concerning what conservatives were doing in the 90's.

I believe it was the '96 primaries when Pat Buchanan, among others, was running for president. Buchanan also ran versus Bush Sr. in 92, and apparently was endorsed by Rush. A quick internet search indicates that Rush favored Phill Gramm or Steve Forbes... and I don't think Forbes was all that conservative.
My folks are the main source of this particular knowledge, since I wasn't too much into politics at that age.
Here we go:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/upcp/1998/00000015/00000003/art00007
"Recent studies suggest that what the political talk radio hosts say on the air can shape the political orientations of their audiences. Drawing on data from a panel survey conducted in 1996, I examined the "Limbaugh effect" during the GOP presidential nomination campaign. My findings cast doubt on popular assumptions about the power of Limbaugh's words. Despite weeks of listening to Limbaugh criticize Pat Buchanan, members of the audience were no more likely to harbor negative feelings toward the candidate than were nonlisteners."

So he did, as I'd heard, run Buchanan down. This particular fellow doesn't think it hurt, but I'm pretty darn sure it didn't help.
Also this:
http://books.google.com/books?id=xSUKVfOM60wC&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=%22Pat+Buchanan%22+Rush+Limbaugh+1996+primary&source=bl&ots=22La8w3L7L&sig=9rw0XJR-re0XpRjHbsGQ9nAaP7U&hl=en&ei=WdrGSbetBYLoyQXL3fykCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result

Buchanan also ran in 2000, again with no Limbaugh support.
And this.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blumert1.html

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So the only thing we should do is bash Obama, Dodd, Hillary, or Generic Democrats? 

Bash those who caused the problems.  That would specifically not include Romney and McCain.

Also, don't deify those who would have made the mess worse.  That specifically includes Ron Paul.  An inelastic money supply would have been devastating these past few months.

I'm unimpressed by the original post.  I'm tired about hearing about how evil Republicans are, and seeing as justifications things they didn't do and wouldn't have done.  I'm also tired of hearing how great Ron Paul is from people who don't understand just what the ramifications of his monetary policy would have been in a time like this.

Sure, Ron Paul predicted that a financial mess was coming.  But so did bazillions of other people, like Gewehr's grandma, basically anyone who was paying attention (that rules out Washington insiders).  Heck, you don't even need to have a clue at all to predict a coming recession.  Simply state, without any reason or cause, that a recession is coming soon.  Given the nature of the business cycle, you're bound to be proven right eventually.

The real questions to ask are who was correct in predicting the reasons why the financial problems occurred, and who is right in proposing how to solve them.  Sorry fellas, but that just ain't Ron Paul.

[MicroBalrog]

Bash those who caused the problems.  That would specifically not include Romney and McCain.

There is enough blame to go around.

  An inelastic money supply would have been devastating these past few months.

I am sorry, you are misinformed about the nature of Ron Paul's monetary policy.  It was much more creative than a simple deflationist gold-standard rant. Regardless, you didn't hear me subscribing to Lone_Gunman's views on this. The reasons that I think that Ron Paul was the best candidate are entirely different.

For the purpose of this thread, suffice it to be said that I think that it is legitimate to disagree on whether we want to have a national bank and fiat money, just as it is legitimate to disagree on anthropogenic human warming.  Disagreeing with you on this doesn't automatically make Ron Paul an ignoramus.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

There is enough blame to go around.

I am sorry, you are misinformed about the nature of Ron Paul's monetary policy.  It was much more creative than a simple deflationist gold-standard rant. Regardless, you didn't hear me subscribing to Lone_Gunman's views on this. The reasons that I think that Ron Paul was the best candidate are entirely different.

For the purpose of this thread, suffice it to be said that I think that it is legitimate to disagree on whether we want to have a national bank and fiat money, just as it is legitimate to disagree on anthropogenic human warming.  Disagreeing with you on this doesn't automatically make Ron Paul an ignoramus.

I neither know, nor particularly care, why you appreciate Ron Paul so much.  I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to the original post.

Nevermind that.  I'll respond specifically to you here. 

I very much believe that advocating for a gold standard makes one an ignoramus.  That is especially true in times like this, where the raison d'etre for an elastic money supply is kicking us in the face.  Our current deflationary crash likely would have been made many times worse by an inelastic money supply.  Also, deflationary crashes like this one would become quite a bit more common than under our current fiat system, just as they were before the Fed came into existence. 

You say that Ron Paul's version on the gold standard would have been more creative than this.  Perhaps his version was indeed more creative, but if it was sufficiently creative that it could handle times like this then I don't see how it can still be called a gold standard.  A money supply can either be expanded as needed, or it can't.  The very essence of a gold standard policy is that it is of the latter type, and the result is devastating deflation.

Why don't you enlighten me on just how creative Paul's non-gold-standard gold-standard really is.

[MicroBalrog]

I do not wish to derail this thread, but briefly: A gold standard does not mean a gold piece exists in the economy for every bit of money. It requires only that the M0 money supply be tied to gold. In a free banking system, banks are regulated in a limited manner to avoid fraud (rather than the micromanaging system that exists today),and  the system of derivatives that comprises the real currency is created by the free market process of lending and borrowing. Ultra-large banks function as lenders of last resort. Many economists believe that in this system, gold would emerge as the basis for the M0 currency.

The best book about gold-standard based Free Banking is Competition and Currency: Essays on Free Banking and Money  - in the sense that it explains the idea and attacked Friedmanism and Keynesianism rather eloquently. The author is less eloquent at defending the idea itself.

Many economists – both Austrians and Friedmanites - both disagree with your assertion – that the current crisis is deflationary in origin. Many claim that it is in fact an inflationary bubble that created this crisis. I do not wish to argue this – because I do not know who is right – but I do know that a legitimate debate exists on this point and it is ridiculous to claim any one side is composed of ignoramuses. Certainly Hayek and Mises were no ignoramuses.

[roo_ster]

I neither know, nor particularly care, why you appreciate Ron Paul so much.  I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to the original post.

Nevermind that.  I'll respond specifically to you here. 

I very much believe that advocating for a gold standard makes one an ignoramus.  That is especially true in times like this, where the raison d'etre for an elastic money supply is kicking us in the face.  Our current deflationary crash likely would have been made many times worse by an inelastic money supply.  Also, deflationary crashes like this one would become quite a bit more common than under our current fiat system, just as they were before the Fed came into existence. 

You say that Ron Paul's version on the gold standard would have been more creative than this.  Perhaps his version was indeed more creative, but if it was sufficiently creative that it could handle times like this then I don't see how it can still be called a gold standard.  A money supply can either be expanded as needed, or it can't.  The very essence of a gold standard policy is that it is of the latter type, and the result is devastating deflation.

Why don't you enlighten me on just how creative Paul's non-gold-standard gold-standard really is.

Deflation?

Lack of large amounts of inflation is not necessarily deflation.  Neither is a drop in some commodity prices and the (notional) wealth-destruction of adjustment in the housing market in the 5 states where that sort of thing has been a kick in the jimmy.

Official CPI stats went barely negative (month-to-month) in only OCT-DEC2008 and are again positive (IOW, inflationary), and the annual 2008 CPI was up 3.8% relative to 2007 (2007 was up 2.8% relative to 2006, BTW).
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/consumer-price-index-and-annual-percent-changes-from-1913-to-2008/

As is usual, the shadowstats folks show a greater inflation that official stats:
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data

FEB2009 inflation is pinned at 0.4%.

I guess I have not bought into the notion that 2-4% annual inflation is A Good Thing in perpetuity.  Holding inflation close to zero while we undergo economic and population growth seems the best policy.  Also, if a positive 2-4% inflation for years on end is harmless, deflation of a similar magnitude for a much shorter length of time ought to be similarly harmless.

But, then, we'd have to actually experiencing deflation.  Which we are not.

None of this is to endorse Paulistinian economics, but merely to point out that using a fiction to refute Paul's goldbuggery is not effective.