Ron Paul: We're Witnessing "The Failure Of A Keynesian Economic Model"

Hi ATS and especially Americans.

came across this on liveleak and found Ron Paul to make a lot of sense... again.

piece of an interview on MSNBC.

he deals with the economic crisis and his 'draconian' cuts as they're called.

Thoughts?

ETA:

for easier viewing.

reply to post by kn0wh0w


At least Ron Paul has a plan..

Can't say that for most other candidates because their opinion changes based on their current audience..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by kn0wh0w

 

At least Ron Paul has a plan..

Can't say that for most other candidates because their opinion changes based on their current audience..

i wholeheartly agree.

he even has the perfect example, wich is WWII.

as i've expressed in other threads, i seriously hope this man goes all the way.

i think he is America's last hope and the world's last hope.

if you come down, we all go down.

He may be right.

Know why?

because of the active efforts of Ron Paul and other Friedmanite lawmakers who have been actively working to destroy the US economy and replace it with a fully-privatized corporate fascist state.

it's sort of like if I smash your windshield, and then tell you "Oh, windshields Toyota installs are prone to breakage"

The answer is, of course, to tie a rope around Ron Paul's balls - and those of everyone else involved in this 21st century incarnation of the Business plot, drag them the hell out of office, and put in place legislators who are interested in the well-being of Americans over the profit margins of the transnationals they've invested their taxpayer-supplied paychecks into.

I agree with Ron Paul as usual.

Though you haven't heard? Its no longer Keynesian Economics anymore. They're changing the name up to Monetarism. Well thats what I heard when arguing with someone on another forum, that we've been practicing this instead of Keynesian. Its essentially the same exact thing, more micro-economics bull that has been getting us into this trouble.

So don't be surprised if they pull this card out to make Paul look like an Idiot, I think they might be doing what they did to global cooling. Repackage it with a new name, twist the meaning around a little and call anyone a racist if they don't believe in it.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


What a confusing post.

Obviously not a RP fan but a better explanation wouldn't hurt.

Originally posted by Mcupobob
Though you haven't heard? Its no longer Keynesian Economics anymore. They're changing the name up to Monetarism.

Whoever told you that, is someone who does not know their ass from their elbow. Monetarism - i.e., "the chicago school of economics" was devised as a complete opposite to Keynesian economic theory.

so, let's see, they cut the entire budget for education, and the states get no more money, ya, the states, ya know the ones that are about to be bankrupt!!
and well, so the states will be left to fund their own schools....ya, those bankrupted states....
and in the end, well....
I don't if the money will be given back to us, since they have spent themselves into a black hole and could probably eliminate just about every agency in the gov't and we'd still have to pay more to get us out of that black hole!!!

if you are indeed for state's rights and all that, hear me out!!!
the past decade or so, well, these states have been trimming and trimming their gov'ts because of the crappy economy that the federal gov't and their pals on wall street have created. many of them will not be able to handle much more loss of revenues from the states....
I know you think that by starving the federal from money will increase power to the states, but I am seeing a different outcome here....
if those states fail, then the federal gov't will be stepping in to fill in the gap. and in the end, the federal gov't will obtain much more power!!!

reply to post by backinblack


Well, there's really not a good way to "simplify" - we're talking "read a book, dagnabbit!" level stuff here. But as ffor my main point, it goes like this.

Several of our lawmakers frequently tell us, "government doesn't work." While in office, they enact legislation that, well, ensures that government does not work. For instance, the long-time dream of the republican party to crush public education? They tell us "Public education doesn't work, we have a plan to fix it" - and then give us No Child left behind, a Department of education that favors inane testing, and outright hostility towards the teachers. None of this has improved schools - in fact in most cases, it's made them worse. So these guys they go "See? We were totally right! We should privatize education, there's no fixing this mess!" And... that's what they're doing with this "charter school" stuff.

A bit tangential, but it's a nice-and-neat example of intentional sabotage by our elected "representatives."

Now, come to the case we have here. Ron Paul - along with every other Republican loyalist (and more than a few Democrats, it's not a straight party thing) are ardent opponents of the Keynesian economic model. They're adherents of the Chicago school of economics - basically, free market fundamentalism. While in office, they do everything they can to put the US down this rabbit hole of an economic religion, despite repeated demonstrable failures of monetarism in other corners of the globe (where it has been enforced by the IMF and world bank).

Of course he's going to say "Keynesian economics is failing" - one, it's his dogma, and two, he's been working to make it fail.

Thanks for posting OP.

"Doing more of what doesn't work won't make it work any better."

Happy someone understands this.

FTE

Originally posted by followtheevidence
Thanks for posting OP.

"Doing more of what doesn't work won't make it work any better."

Happy someone understands this.

FTE

Apparently Texas' 14th congressional district could stand to learn it.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by followtheevidence
Thanks for posting OP.

"Doing more of what doesn't work won't make it work any better."

Happy someone understands this.

FTE

Apparently Texas' 14th congressional district could stand to learn it.

Thanks for your opinion.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


I'm going to use your little analogy.

It's sort of like if I smash your windshield, and then tell you "You know if you buy are newer model those breakages wouldn't happen."

The Democrats have been trying to sabotage the free market, so they can turn around andddd blame the free market, then ask voter to hand the power off to them to protect us from capitalism. Then they use their power to socialist corporations and their losses.



However I won't deny the Republicans sabotage the good parts of the government either. Essentially were being attack by both sides. Neither is to a dogma to one belief or another, its a just to adjust the elites power accordingly to their needs.

During good economic times, they want lower taxes looser and looser rules. Then they can move money around, launder here and there and stash it way, after raping the free market. Stick a democrat in, bail them out, and insure increase bad regulations, have them raise taxes on the "rich" to kill any possible competition, they won't care because they already have their cash in a private swiss bank account.

As for the Keynesian/monetarism. I don't know much about monetarism, 'cept from a short wiki article. From the gist of it I would say the central bank, practices Monetarism and the government practices Keynesian. However I haven't looked into that much so you can correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally posted by dawnstar
so, let's see, they cut the entire budget for education, and the states get no more money, ya, the states, ya know the ones that are about to be bankrupt!!
and well, so the states will be left to fund their own schools....ya, those bankrupted states....
and in the end, well....
I don't if the money will be given back to us, since they have spent themselves into a black hole and could probably eliminate just about every agency in the gov't and we'd still have to pay more to get us out of that black hole!!!

if you are indeed for state's rights and all that, hear me out!!!
the past decade or so, well, these states have been trimming and trimming their gov'ts because of the crappy economy that the federal gov't and their pals on wall street have created. many of them will not be able to handle much more loss of revenues from the states....
I know you think that by starving the federal from money will increase power to the states, but I am seeing a different outcome here....
if those states fail, then the federal gov't will be stepping in to fill in the gap. and in the end, the federal gov't will obtain much more power!!!

Wait one second. From my understanding the states tax and then give it to the federal gov and then they get a percentage back. So if education was left to the states, and they did not give up money for this...than that would mean there would be more for education at a state level. Or am I wrong in my understanding?

reply to post by scoobdude

not sure, thought it was the fed taxed the citizens of the state, and then gave it out in block grants for education...
paul is just saying that if he eliminated the fed spending in these areas, the taxpayers would see a drop in their taxes, and the states could collect more, since the people are seeing the savings on the federal level...

I have less faith than paul does in our federal gov't...
ya, they'd cut the programs and save some money, but then faced with all this new found money, they would find something to spend it on, and the taxpayers wouldn't be saving squat!! so, the states and local communities wouldn't be able to gather additional revenues...
also, you have to consider, they blew the heck out of our economy and are deflating the dollar as they try to help their wall street buddies!!! so, the gas to run the school buses, the fuel to light and heat the schools, the school supplies, ect....well, more than likely, all that is gonna cost more!!!!

and I believe that when bush was in office, he cut the funds to the local school systems and well, that resulted in a near taxpayer revolt in many communities as they tried to make up for the funds....
what ended that was the astronomical increase in property tax caused by the housing bubble, which, well, we all know were that led to now, don't we???

Originally posted by Mcupobob
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

I'm going to use your little analogy.

It's sort of like if I smash your windshield, and then tell you "You know if you buy are newer model those breakages wouldn't happen."

Doesn't actually change the point of my analogy, you know - sincehte goal is to destroy what we have and sell us this new thing - Chicago fundamentalism.

The Democrats have been trying to sabotage the free market, so they can turn around andddd blame the free market, then ask voter to hand the power off to them to protect us from capitalism. Then they use their power to socialist corporations and their losses.

You just packed a lot of ignorance into a single post. I don't think you know what any of the following terms mean: Democrat, free market, capitalism, socialism, corporation. You're just sort of throwing them out there, little random buzzwords that you know must mean something but you're not exactly sure what.

To quote Wolfgang Pauli, "Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong!"

However I won't deny the Republicans sabotage the good parts of the government either. Essentially were being attack by both sides.

Nah. There's really only one side of the attack. Unfortunately you're stuck thinking that hte only people you need to worry about are the ones with a (D) next to their names. And you don't even know why you think that, apparently.

Neither is to a dogma to one belief or another, its a just to adjust the elites power accordingly to their needs.

I... that's... wait... uh... what?

During good economic times, they want lower taxes looser and looser rules. Then they can move money around, launder here and there and stash it way, after raping the free market. Stick a democrat in, bail them out, and insure increase bad regulations, have them raise taxes on the "rich" to kill any possible competition, they won't care because they already have their cash in a private swiss bank account.

There you go again. You've got the words, now you just need the meanings...

As for the Keynesian/monetarism. I don't know much about monetarism, 'cept from a short wiki article. From the gist of it I would say the central bank, practices Monetarism and the government practices Keynesian. However I haven't looked into that much so you can correct me if I'm wrong.

Correcting you where you're wrong in this post would be the keyboard equivalent of cleaning hte Augean stables. I'm sorry, but i am just not physically up to that sort of commitment to you tonight.

One thing though? Neither the wiki article on Monetarism or Keynesian economics is particularly "small."

reply to post by dawnstar


fair enough. Looks like i got some research to do then. In the mean time in regards to the revolts, we need a social change. People need to start thinking again and understanding the big picture. Like more money does not equal better value (and the opposite can be proven false as well).

reply to post by scoobdude


my question is this:

are they really trying to restore the state's rights,
or are they really trying to weaken the states so much that a need will be created for the gov't to step in and take over even more of the states responsibilities....
increasing the fed gov't even more!!!!

to tell ya the truth, I think it's the later, after all, there were plenty of states out there trying to enact laws that would have prevented much of the damage that the housing bust has caused, but well, they were told by the fed gov't (bush administration) to back off!!! and well, as a result, now, most of the pension plans for the states, local communities, as well as the companies are in trouble. so, well, no pension plans for the retirees...
guess they will have to rely on the good ole, federal social security program in their old age!!!!

white man speaks with forked tongue!!!!

reply to post by dawnstar


My experiencewith people who pound the pulpit for "state's rights?" They're generally only interested in the subject when states are claiming the right to oppress the people living there. From the Secession of South Carolina and their claim that it's their "state's right" to own slaves, all the way up to modern instances of states claiming hte right to control a woman's uterus or demand brown people show you their papers, nearly every time "state's rights" is invoked and supported, it's an effort to get people under the boot tread.

Remember these are generally the people who violently opposed Florida's right to have a recount system set to Florida standards, back in 2000.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


You seem to have drifted off the topic which is Ron Paul..

RP want's rights "given back" to the states where they belong according to the constitution..
Nothing more, nothing less...