I heard he also wants to get rid of indoor plumbing. An unnecessary and complicated burden of pipes crossing every which way... It's ridiculous. We should just **** in a hole we dig in our backyards like they did when America was great.
I don't think we need to be the world's policeman, but we do have to accept the mantle of leadership and use our power to further the national interest, which is increasingly becoming the world's interest if you look at war and peace, terrorism, the environment, economics, health care, etc. Oh, and one minor error in your post... you can leave the last Bush off that list.
That's not what I'm talking about. (Actually, it should be taken care of with state laws, but that's not the point.) I'm talking about trying to enforce laws in other countries.
The bill was legislating who the government (national and state) can do business with, not legislating who private companies can do business with. Hell, it's right in the Constitution: Section 8. The Congress shall have power ... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html
Yeah - I mean, leaving Afghanistan to just rot the last 20 years worked out oh-so-well. Create a breeding ground for problems and you're going to end up with a whole lot of problems.
And for all of its and our problems, the last 70 years have been extremely prosperous and both conditions within the US and throughout the world have improved by leaps and bounds.
If we hadn't armed the Taliban in the first place, we wouldn't have had the breeding ground for the problems. I think that you could argue that prosperity was increasing more rapidly in the 40 years before that in the United States (at least for those who weren't excluded from society).
Dominant military and economic power now, but for how long are we going to retain that title? From the looks of things we are heading towards a Soviet style meltdown. How many other countries economies are we going to take with us? Once the meltdown occurs, things might not look like 1880, probably more like 1930, so maybe Paul's ideas win by default. No big government because there is no money to pay for all those useless agencies and departments.
No Ron Paul will not be elected. I will vote for him. I know him and he is the best candidate we have seen in my lifetime. I have spent alot of time discussing issues with him, though I haven't talked to him lately I spent several hours recently discussing his campaign with his son. Most of what is posted here is not true, and the things he would try to eliminate would not just have the plug pulled. He is one of the most compassionate and honest men I know. He would not ever just pull the rug out from under the disadvantaged and the poor. He will provide workable solutions. I have given up on politics. But Dr. Paul is a breath of fresh air. I doubt most people here don't even know what money is. Or how the Fed works. Please read the book- Creature from Jekyll Island, you will then understand what money is. If you don't understand fiat currency and central banking then stop criticizing Ron Paul. If you don't understand how the fed works and the value of green ink on paper then don't criticize Ron Paul. This country is doomed by paper currency. It is just a matter of how long, not if, but when. We will not elect Ron Paul and we will suffer for it or our grandchildren will. Somebody has to pay. We are over 40 trillion in debt when you include derivitive instruments. How many of you really understand how many types and uses of derivitives are in the economy. If you understand it should scare you to action.
Some of us have actually taken basic economics classes and know that the ability to manage the money supply given by fiat money has greatly flattened the cycle of inflation and recession. To take away the ability to manage the money supply would most certainly be disastrous. I've heard all of the arguments before, and none of them are convincing. Banks do not control the fed, fiat money does not cause hyperinflation, and so on. Returning to the gold standard is a fringe belief supported only by the Mises school, which is incredibly disconnected from neoclassical economics.
Misleading graph. CPI increases every year, obviously, but the rate of CPI change has stayed about constant since the 80's.
There is reason why no developed country uses a fiat currency. Ron Paul has some good idea but he is loony. I can't believe the support he has gotten. Oops meant non-fiat currency
Steady but mild inflation will compound and make a graph look like that out of proportion to its actual effect. That is not hyperinflation, that is a logarithmic scale. The total of inflation relative to 200 years ago is huge, but if you have your assets in cash for 200 years, you deserve to be broke. Inflation relative to last year's values is not so big. Deflation is universally viewed as many times as dangerous as inflation. The last major period of deflation was the Great Depression. And you want to return to that?
You got it backwards. Most countries use fiat currency. Maybe a gold standard is extreme, but something needs to change in the money supply. The constant bubbles are killing us.
Yeah, this is pretty much why I'm in favor of federal control of the money supply. I'm of the opinion (as is mainstream neoclassical economics) that a small amount of inflation is desirable to increase investment and prevent the "hiding money under the bed" syndrome, while even the slightest amount of deflation is catastrophic due to the fact that prices are sticky downwards. I will gladly take constant inflation over cyclical inflation and deflation any day of the week.
