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

reply to post by dawnstar


I was not aware (nor was I as interested in that time)about these changes. More research to do now But I do have optimism


Fox:
Your comment seems to be only one sided. I don't think everyone who wants states rights are 100% how you described. I think if government were to become smaller again and the people start to realize they have the power of change, humanity will come back to more of a selfless existence.....well I would hope so anyway.

Wow, he sounded like a rambling dottering old man in that clip. The guy would ask him a question and he would ramble on till he got back to his talking points and completely ignored the real question asked. It's got to be frustrating to be a reporter trying to deal with an obviously senile old man who should just retire and live in a nursing home somewhere.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Love how smug you are. Did I say I hate those with (D) next to their name? And no I wasn't throwing out "buzz words". Obama (R) socialized on the losses of corporation with his bailout, well they keep 100% profits through tax breaks, started by bush(D) granted. I assumed you knew what I was talking about. Though instead of answering the points that were made in the video and the points I made you just call me ignorant and call it day.

Though what can I expect? Most of those of left leaning learning just hide behind a faux intelligence with no substance in thinking.

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

Perhaps for you I guess? The monetarism on is about ten minute read at most, the Keynesian one maybe 15.

EDIT: Oh and its not like Liberals or the (Ds) themselves don't follow their own talking points or dogma. I.E need more government and Taxes!

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

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.

Well... to be fair.... monetarism is trying to do the same thing as keynsinanism. It was friedman who put "We are all keynsians now" into Nixons mouth.

The chicago boys propose anticyclical policies just like the keynsians, they just try a different method (and it has been shown that it doesn't work): Interest rates.

Of course if they are at 0, there is nowhere lower to go, you can only pump up inflation.
The argument in their favor (and that one is realy hard to argue) is that it is faster, and that it is easier to rise interest rates, than to cut government spending, when economies start to overheat.

But then of course, there is this one republican candidate who said that bernanke would be treated badly in texas, if he tried that, so they don't want keynes nor friedman. guess there are some people you just can't please.

(Disclaimer: Inflation isn't bad. It encourages spending now as opposed to later, stimulating demand and investment)

We are witnessing the failure of a Keynesian Economic Model...

...says a proponent of the Austrian School of Economics, which was illustrated to be bunk over a century ago.

Originally posted by madhatr137
We are witnessing the failure of a Keynesian Economic Model...

...says a proponent of the Austrian School of Economics, which was illustrated to be bunk over a century ago.

Good point.
Erm... did I mention that Hayek spent the last years he had in Kreiskys austria?

Originally posted by madhatr137
We are witnessing the failure of a Keynesian Economic Model...

...says a proponent of the Austrian School of Economics, which was illustrated to be bunk over a century ago.

Why, what school of economics do you advocate?

reply to post by kn0wh0w


When Ron Paul gets the chance to demonstrate the free market successfully then he may have a point.

Not sure which countries he can draw upon today to prove his point. He could go back to the 19th century and prior I guess.... or refer to lawless third world nations. Not sure how he's going to make his argument.

Speaking of the freemarket, what did Ron Paul say about privatizing medicare during his administration? hmm...

reply to post by RSF77


Clearly nothing libertarian, lassies fare or Austrian.

I'd consider myself some kind of neo-Keynesian with a dash of classical, understanding that while Keynesian Economics is not perfect, it has demonstrated itself to be the most successful economic ideology for creating stability and a vibrant middle class in the industrialised, democratic world; as opposed to the varying forms of lassies fare capitalism, which are great at creating rapid but unpredictable boom and bust cycles.

My perspective is that the economy is a means to an end, as opposed to an end in and of itself. It should be well regulated, while not completely controlled, and used as a method of promoting the general welfare of it's citizens.

You could say I believe in certain aspects of neo-Marxist ideology and it would not be completely inaccurate; because Marx understood more about the way the economy, and people, work than Milton Friedman ever will.

I used to despise Joseph Schumpeter, but now, reluctantly, show him a little respect.

Originally posted by madhatr137
reply to post by RSF77

 

It should be well regulated, while not completely controlled, and used as a method of promoting the general welfare of it's citizens.

That is a fantasy world. There is always someone who will be in charge of "promoting the general welfare of citizens" and their kids who inherit and profit from it will always # it up.

This country was founded on the idea that the citizens control the flow of government, not the other way around. Perhaps we should take that piece of advice that our ancestors tried to tell us and actually implement it for once in a hundred years.

Is that what you call a free market? Well its not working for us because the Chinese are cheaper, that is not working because the government, via its dollar influences, is not "promoting the general welfare of its citizens".

People talk about not getting any more money for college, houses, etc like its not some kind of crutch on our economy that allows more money to eventually funnel back into the pockets of people who are already rich. Guess who that money initially comes from? Me, a tax payer.

Gee... I wonder why all these blue collar, tax paying Americans are getting so upset about their financial welfare and job security? I wonder why all these Ron Paul supporters are preaching constitutionalism and a truly free market?

reply to post by RSF77


This country was founded on self-determination and opposition to dogmatic traditionalism.
This country was founded in opposition to Aristocracy.
This country was founded by men who understood that the consolidation of wealth and power corrupts and that a strong citizen body of governance was required to counter those corrupting influences.

The Gilded Era was a resurgence of all that the Founders fought against, the foundation of a distinctly American Aristocracy.

Libertarianism/Lassez fare Capitalism like Paul's brand would bring us right back into a new Gilded Era, if enacted.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
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.

Why Fox, you're singing my tune.

Down with the Corporate Oligarchy.

Originally posted by madhatr137
reply to post by RSF77

 

This country was founded on self-determination and opposition to dogmatic traditionalism.
This country was founded in opposition to Aristocracy.
This country was founded by men who understood that the consolidation of wealth and power corrupts and that a strong citizen body of governance was required to counter those corrupting influences.

The Gilded Era was a resurgence of all that the Founders fought against, the foundation of a distinctly American Aristocracy.

Libertarianism/Lassez fare Capitalism like Paul's brand would bring us right back into a new Gilded Era, if enacted.

Everything about your post fits except that last sentence, which is completely backward.

reply to post by Mcupobob

If all the government is going to do is sabotage itself then maybe getting rid of it is not a bad idea. You gave the example of republicans sabotaging democrats and democrats doing it unto them. So, effectively, government is unable to get anything done because of this divide.

We have police to patrol our streets. THAT IS GOVERNMENT. Why not have 'police' patrol our businesses to ensure that they're not polluting our rivers? How is it any different?

Can we not police our rivers and air and forests AND police our streets too?

WHEN does government fail? What are we doing wrong?

Can we NOT afford to police everything and must choose only SOME things to police?

If we don't police our air, what happens in 100 or 200 years? What about the future?

Presently, we're policing Afghanistan and we were in Iraq even though they did not present a existential threat to our country. Things do not have to threaten our very lives to be policed. If you'll note, OBL was never 100% linked to the 9/11 attacks. We went into Afghanistan because there were terrorists there. But Afghanistan ITSELF never attacked the US. Terrorists are a loose network spread throughout the world. And it's a stretch of the truth to say that terrorists represent an existential threat to the US. In fact, there're many things that represent a greater threat to the US than terrorism. And many of them have nothing to do with war or bombs. Terrorism may be one of the more despicable and fearful things, but it's not the worst.

To put things into perspective... Between 1995 and 2005, about 200,000 people died from coal power pollution in the US - all by itself. Think about that. How many fathers died? What did their children do without their father? Who payed the bills? What of the psychological trauma?

So coal power committed an act of terrorism by killing 200,000 people between 1995 and 2005?

Between 2001-2004, about 170,000 people died from car accidents. Who replaced the damaged vehicles? The lives lost? Who paid the emergency responders? The highway shutdowns?

We readily respond to terrorism, but many other things kind of just 'happen'. We accept it. Much of the costs for 9/11 happened as a result of the choices we made afterwards. Global markets were in shock and it crossed the globe. Much of it was fear of what MIGHT HAPPEN NEXT. But when Jo crashes his Ford pickup into the oncoming semi-truck and loses his life, we pass by, gaping at the crushed metal and tears, quick to get to work, shaking our head at the carnage.

Is policing our air and land simply not as important as policing Afghanistan? So 100's of thousands, if not millions of lives, are not as important as what terrorists MIGHT do in the future? Last I looked, much of the deaht and carnage is in Iraq and Afghanistan. We're waging our bets that if we had NOT done this then the costs of inaction would have been greater. But is that true.

Who knows? Ask the guy that died from too much arsenic in his water (source: coal power). You see, the difference is THAT guy is DEAD. But the terrorists haven't posed the kind of threat they tell us they could, not yet. Sure, they COULD, but we're gambling lives by placing this bet.

NEVER forget that guy that's dead from drinking the arsenic poisoned water. Because you're gambling that his life has less value than what the terrorists MIGHT do at some future time.