Ron Paul, Crazy Person

[Turner Coates]

http://prospect.org/article/ron-paul-crazy-person

Last night, Ron Paul was on The Daily Show, and under the gentlest of questioning from Jon Stewart, he said some truly insane things. After alleging that people who don't support him "don't understand what freedom is all about," Paul made his usual case that government is bad because it makes decisions for everyone, whereas "when you make a bad decision, it only hurts you."

Stewart tried to bring up cases in which private actors harm people, like industrial pollution, but each time Paul protested that no, no, that wasn't actually the market, that was corporations acting "in collusion with the government." His argument seemed to be that corporations are only capable of harming people when they're corrupted by government's influence. When Stewart asked whether the fact that government regulations can sometimes be ineffective means there should be no regulation at all, Paul made this truly amazing statement:

"The regulations are much tougher in a free market, because you cannot commit fraud, you cannot steal, you cannot hurt people, and the failure has come that government wouldn't enforce this. In the Industrial Revolution there was a collusion and you could pollute and they got away with it. But in a true free market in a libertarian society you can't do that. You have to be responsible. So the regulations would be tougher."

I trust I don't have to bother explaining just how nuts this is, but here's my question: Does Ron Paul really believe this? Does he really think that if there were no government, then no one would ever steal, cheat, or hurt anyone, just because they'd understand that the market would eventually make such behavior unprofitable? Is he really that stupid?

I guess he is. Paul is generally treated like the eccentric but cute uncle in the presidential race, and liberals favorably inclined toward Paul's views on defense and foreign policy are less likely to criticize him than they are some other Republican candidates. But we don't say often enough that his views about economics are every bit as bizarre and extreme as Michele Bachmann's views on the Rapture or Rick Perry's views on Social Security.

[Moggio]

Looks like someone didn't read the comments section AGAIN.


Anyway, regarding a truly free market, Ron Paul is correct, as usual. And the PROOF in that statement, is that if the financial institutions/corporations were to benefit more financially from a truly free market, then they would be funding Ron Paul's campaign to the gills right now. But they aren't touching him with a 10 foot poll. And also, the financial institutions/corporations would NOT risk taking part in Fractional Reserve Banking (or least to the extent that they have been) or selling faulty mortgages, etc., in a truly free market because they would NOT get a Government bailout. And hence, the current economic crisis would NOT have happened.

RP knows world financial systems, the US dollar and foreign currency more than ANY other politician you can name. And he has accurately predicted MANY world events, including the current economic crisis. Watch and learn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

[Turner Coates]

Looks like someone didn't read the comments section AGAIN.

You're speculating, as usual.
Those comments are opinions, not facts.
Being unable to tell the difference is one of your fatal flaws.

[Moggio]

Looks like someone didn't read the comments section AGAIN.

You're speculating, as usual.
Those comments are opinions, not facts.
Being unable to tell the difference is one of your fatal flaws.

Where did I say they were FACTS, moron?

[Turner Coates]

"Paging Dr. Freud!"

[demolition23]

Looks like someone didn't read the comments section AGAIN.

You're speculating, as usual.
Those comments are opinions, not facts.
Being unable to tell the difference is one of your fatal flaws.

Where did I say they were FACTS, moron?

Well, you were using them as a rebuttal of the stuff originally posted.
A smart person would use facts in a rebuttal, so it was assumed you considered them facts...
That was wheresthestagemanager?'s mistake though, because by now we all know you're not very smart.

[DEATH ROW JOE]

Anyway, regarding a truly free market, Ron Paul is correct, as usual. And the PROOF in that statement, is that if the financial institutions/corporations were to benefit more financially from a truly free market, then they would be funding Ron Paul's campaign to the gills right now.

They don't fund Ron Paul because he has no chance of winning. Wall Street banks would love a strong dollar policy and no regulations. They don't waste their money on someone who can't win. They have other ways of convincing dumb asses to vote against the laws that keep them from getting ripped off and to convince the average working stiff that inflation is theft.

But they aren't touching him with a 10 foot poll.

You are mistaken about that. There is plenty of support for the Austrian school of Economics on Wall Street. They are not going to waste money on a candidate who can not win an election. They support who can win. They have plenty of people who can sell deregulation and strong dollar policies to schmucks. Goldman would love to replace the Fed and play lender of last resort like JP Morgan did in 1913.

And also, the financial institutions/corporations would NOT risk taking part in Fractional Reserve Banking (or least to the extent that they have been) or selling faulty mortgages, etc., in a truly free market because they would NOT get a Government bailout. And hence, the current economic crisis would NOT have happened.

Wrong. Lehman and Bear Sterns were not bailed out. Thousands of banks failed and did not get bailed out.

Risk taking takes place because senior management gets the upside and very little of the down side. Dick Fuld from Lehman walked away with 500 million after running Lehman into the ground. James Cayne walked away from Bear Stearns with 61 million. The head of AIG's financial services dvision split with over 1 billion in late 2007. The firm tanked in Sept 2008 and he never gave up a dime.

Banking regulations prevent corporations from being run for the benefit of senior management rather than shareholders. When the banking regulations are not enforced, management takes too much risk, makes a lot of profit, and runs the bank into the ground. Same thing happened during the S&L crisis. Same thing happened in the 1920s.

RP knows world financial systems, the US dollar and foreign currency more than ANY other politician you can name. And he has accurately predicted MANY world events, including the current economic crisis. Watch and learn

Ron Paul does not have a fucking clue about the dollar. He did not "predict" the financial crisis. He made some general statements that were correct but he has always said those things (as does everyone who subscribes to the Austrian school of economics). He was correct in the way a broken clock is correct twice a day. Listen to him today and he is still predicting "Keynesian bubbles."

When the Fed cut the fed funds rate to .25% in Sept 2008, Ron Paul said the dollar would collapse and hyperinflation was imminent.

The dollar instead got stronger against other currencies, then returned to it's original level. The exchange rate is virtually unchanged over 4 years.

The annual rate of inflation since Aug 2008 is 1.26%/year. Annual rate of inflation from Aug 2011 to Aug 2012 is 1.7%/year (yes, that includes food and energy).

Ron Paul has been dead wrong about the dollar for 4 straight years. Yet he continues to predict a collapsed dollar and hyperinflation. He's a joke.

Price-adjusted Broad Dollar Index -- Monthly Index
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/ ... exbc_m.htm
Sept 2008: 88.8069
March 2009: 96.8846
Sept 2009: 88.9863
Aug 2012: 84.9225

CPI - All Items (yes, it includes food and energy)
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SA0
Aug 2008: 219.086
Aug 2012: 230.379

(230.379/219.086) ^1/4 = 1.0126446338

[demolition23]

Anyway, regarding a truly free market, Ron Paul is correct, as usual. And the PROOF in that statement, is that if the financial institutions/corporations were to benefit more financially from a truly free market, then they would be funding Ron Paul's campaign to the gills right now.

They don't fund Ron Paul because he has no chance of winning. Wall Street banks would love a strong dollar policy and no regulations. They don't waste their money on someone who can't win. They have other ways of convincing dumb asses to vote against the laws that keep them from getting ripped off and to convince the average working stiff that inflation is theft.

But they aren't touching him with a 10 foot poll.

You are mistaken about that. There is plenty of support for the Austrian school of Economics on Wall Street. They are not going to waste money on a candidate who can not win an election. They support who can win. They have plenty of people who can sell deregulation and strong dollar policies to schmucks. Goldman would love to replace the Fed and play lender of last resort like JP Morgan did in 1913.

And also, the financial institutions/corporations would NOT risk taking part in Fractional Reserve Banking (or least to the extent that they have been) or selling faulty mortgages, etc., in a truly free market because they would NOT get a Government bailout. And hence, the current economic crisis would NOT have happened.

Wrong. Lehman and Bear Sterns were not bailed out. Thousands of banks failed and did not get bailed out.

Risk taking takes place because senior management gets the upside and very little of the down side. Dick Fuld from Lehman walked away with 500 million after running Lehman into the ground. James Cayne walked away from Bear Stearns with 61 million. The head of AIG's financial services dvision split with over 1 billion in late 2007. The firm tanked in Sept 2008 and he never gave up a dime.

Banking regulations prevent corporations from being run for the benefit of senior management rather than shareholders. When the banking regulations are not enforced, management takes too much risk, makes a lot of profit, and runs the bank into the ground. Same thing happened during the S&L crisis. Same thing happened in the 1920s.

RP knows world financial systems, the US dollar and foreign currency more than ANY other politician you can name. And he has accurately predicted MANY world events, including the current economic crisis. Watch and learn

Ron Paul does not have a fucking clue about the dollar. He did not "predict" the financial crisis. He made some general statements that were correct but he has always said those things (as does everyone who subscribes to the Austrian school of economics). He was correct in the way a broken clock is correct twice a day. Listen to him today and he is still predicting "Keynesian bubbles."

When the Fed cut the fed funds rate to .25% in Sept 2008, Ron Paul said the dollar would collapse and hyperinflation was imminent.

The dollar instead got stronger against other currencies, then returned to it's original level. The exchange rate is virtually unchanged over 4 years.

The annual rate of inflation since Aug 2008 is 1.26%/year. Annual rate of inflation from Aug 2011 to Aug 2012 is 1.7%/year (yes, that includes food and energy).

Ron Paul has been dead wrong about the dollar for 4 straight years. Yet he continues to predict a collapsed dollar and hyperinflation. He's a joke.

Price-adjusted Broad Dollar Index -- Monthly Index
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/ ... exbc_m.htm
Sept 2008: 88.8069
March 2009: 96.8846
Sept 2009: 88.9863
Aug 2012: 84.9225

CPI - All Items (yes, it includes food and energy)
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SA0
Aug 2008: 219.086
Aug 2012: 230.379

(230.379/219.086) ^1/4 = 1.0126446338

You're wasting your time.
Moggio can't even apply inflation to historic concert takings, let alone understand Ron Paul's view of economics. He just likes the soundbites.

[Moggio]

Anyway, regarding a truly free market, Ron Paul is correct, as usual. And the PROOF in that statement, is that if the financial institutions/corporations were to benefit more financially from a truly free market, then they would be funding Ron Paul's campaign to the gills right now.

They don't fund Ron Paul because he has no chance of winning. Wall Street banks would love a strong dollar policy and no regulations. They don't waste their money on someone who can't win. They have other ways of convincing dumb asses to vote against the laws that keep them from getting ripped off and to convince the average working stiff that inflation is theft.

Wrong...

ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

Ron Paul does NOT have a cult following, you stupid shit. He had over 2 MILLION votes in the Republican Primaries this year and has SEVERAL MILLION supporters throughout the US and worldwide.

Ron Paul DID deserve the nomination. It WAS a conspiracy, dumb-shit. The below links PROVE it.


SON. ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

Here's the REAL story...

RNC Pulling Out All Stops To Keep Ron Paul's Name Out Of Nomination

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQvszfnOSY8

Maine and Oklahoma Delegates UNSEATED and RNC Rule Change

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZXQZQvSN48

GOP Changes Their Rules For Ron Paul 2016

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqc_WaJ2HK4

Doug Wead: Romney Threatened Ron Paul with PR A-Bomb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbrUPtwIKuk

RNC Completely Scripted To Ignore The Voices Of Ron Paul Delegates!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo9EDIqfvJE

GOP Stealing Paul's Delegates, Using Police to Detain his Delegates and More

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcxSRKxl6J4


Ron Paul had 7 plurality states won. Now that the RNC changed has their own rules to suit their own needs and made the criteria 8 plurality states won instead of 5 plurality states won in order to be accepted to the Republican Convention, this definitely shows, without a doubt, democracy is almost over in the US. Extremely fraudulent activity by Romney, the GOP and RNC has clearly occurred, yet the mainstream media does NOT accurately report what happened. And what also is FAILING here is your manipulative BS, DEATH ROW BLOW JOB.

Ron Paul's delegates were nominated LEGALLY. NOTHING they did was illegal. They were completely within the boundaries of what the rules stated at that point in time. Ron Paul deserved to have his name put up for nomination.

What part of THE GOP/RNC CHEATED AND CHANGED THE FUCKING RULES TO SUIT THEIR OWN NEEDS, don't you understand?

YOU are the one who doesn't understand SHIT.

The GOP/RNC want to create the ILLUSION that the Republican Party is unified...but it is NOT. Ron Paul had nearly 20% of the Republican Delegates. And under the now previous rules, not all delegates were bound to vote for a candidate, only most of them were. This means RP's delegates would've been able to convince MANY delegates supporting other candidates to change their vote and to possibly support Ron Paul and hence a brokered convention could EASILY have been forced, increasing RP's chances. The ONLY reason why the GOP/RNC changed the rules, was because Ron Paul DID have a chance at the nomination, otherwise the GOP/RNC wouldn't have changed the rules last week, right before the RNC this week.


What a bunch of CUNTS!

Your country is FINISHED...

But they aren't touching him with a 10 foot poll.

You are mistaken about that. There is plenty of support for the Austrian school of Economics on Wall Street. They are not going to waste money on a candidate who can not win an election. They support who can win. They have plenty of people who can sell deregulation and strong dollar policies to schmucks. Goldman would love to replace the Fed and play lender of last resort like JP Morgan did in 1913.

RTOF!

The Austrian School Of Economics HARDLY competes with the financial institutions like JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, AIG, etc.

ROTF!

ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

Ron Paul does NOT have a cult following, you stupid shit. He had over 2 MILLION votes in the Republican Primaries this year and has SEVERAL MILLION supporters throughout the US and worldwide.

Ron Paul DID deserve the nomination. It WAS a conspiracy, dumb-shit. The below links PROVE it.


SON. ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

Here's the REAL story...

RNC Pulling Out All Stops To Keep Ron Paul's Name Out Of Nomination

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQvszfnOSY8

Maine and Oklahoma Delegates UNSEATED and RNC Rule Change

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZXQZQvSN48

GOP Changes Their Rules For Ron Paul 2016

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqc_WaJ2HK4

Doug Wead: Romney Threatened Ron Paul with PR A-Bomb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbrUPtwIKuk

RNC Completely Scripted To Ignore The Voices Of Ron Paul Delegates!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo9EDIqfvJE

GOP Stealing Paul's Delegates, Using Police to Detain his Delegates and More

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcxSRKxl6J4


Ron Paul had 7 plurality states won. Now that the RNC changed has their own rules to suit their own needs and made the criteria 8 plurality states won instead of 5 plurality states won in order to be accepted to the Republican Convention, this definitely shows, without a doubt, democracy is almost over in the US. Extremely fraudulent activity by Romney, the GOP and RNC has clearly occurred, yet the mainstream media does NOT accurately report what happened. And what also is FAILING here is your manipulative BS, DEATH ROW BLOW JOB.

Ron Paul's delegates were nominated LEGALLY. NOTHING they did was illegal. They were completely within the boundaries of what the rules stated at that point in time. Ron Paul deserved to have his name put up for nomination.

What part of THE GOP/RNC CHEATED AND CHANGED THE FUCKING RULES TO SUIT THEIR OWN NEEDS, don't you understand?

YOU are the one who doesn't understand SHIT.

The GOP/RNC want to create the ILLUSION that the Republican Party is unified...but it is NOT. Ron Paul had nearly 20% of the Republican Delegates. And under the now previous rules, not all delegates were bound to vote for a candidate, only most of them were. This means RP's delegates would've been able to convince MANY delegates supporting other candidates to change their vote and to possibly support Ron Paul and hence a brokered convention could EASILY have been forced, increasing RP's chances. The ONLY reason why the GOP/RNC changed the rules, was because Ron Paul DID have a chance at the nomination, otherwise the GOP/RNC wouldn't have changed the rules last week, right before the RNC this week.


What a bunch of CUNTS!

Your country is FINISHED...

And also, the financial institutions/corporations would NOT risk taking part in Fractional Reserve Banking (or least to the extent that they have been) or selling faulty mortgages, etc., in a truly free market because they would NOT get a Government bailout. And hence, the current economic crisis would NOT have happened.

Wrong. Lehman and Bear Sterns were not bailed out. Thousands of banks failed and did not get bailed out.

Risk taking takes place because senior management gets the upside and very little of the down side. Dick Fuld from Lehman walked away with 500 million after running Lehman into the ground. James Cayne walked away from Bear Stearns with 61 million. The head of AIG's financial services dvision split with over 1 billion in late 2007. The firm tanked in Sept 2008 and he never gave up a dime.

Banking regulations prevent corporations from being run for the benefit of senior management rather than shareholders. When the banking regulations are not enforced, management takes too much risk, makes a lot of profit, and runs the bank into the ground. Same thing happened during the S&L crisis. Same thing happened in the 1920s.

EARTH TO MORON:

I NEVER said the majority of the financial institutions were bailed out. And of course not ALL the banks got bailouts. The US Government wouldn't be able to afford to give them ALL a bailout, you fucking idiot. Though, the wealthiest ones were bailed out. You know, the ones with the majority of the...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

And, again, the financial crisis of 2008 would NOT have happened in a truly free market.

RP knows world financial systems, the US dollar and foreign currency more than ANY other politician you can name. And he has accurately predicted MANY world events, including the current economic crisis. Watch and learn

Ron Paul does not have a fucking clue about the dollar. He did not "predict" the financial crisis. He made some general statements that were correct but he has always said those things (as does everyone who subscribes to the Austrian school of economics). He was correct in the way a broken clock is correct twice a day. Listen to him today and he is still predicting "Keynesian bubbles."

You're full of shit, as usual. Watch and learn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

And here's more PROOF:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826q7RqT ... re=related

When the Fed cut the fed funds rate to .25% in Sept 2008, Ron Paul said the dollar would collapse and hyperinflation was imminent.

The dollar instead got stronger against other currencies, then returned to it's original level. The exchange rate is virtually unchanged over 4 years.

The annual rate of inflation since Aug 2008 is 1.26%/year. Annual rate of inflation from Aug 2011 to Aug 2012 is 1.7%/year (yes, that includes food and energy).

Ron Paul has been dead wrong about the dollar for 4 straight years. Yet he continues to predict a collapsed dollar and hyperinflation. He's a joke.

Price-adjusted Broad Dollar Index -- Monthly Index
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/ ... exbc_m.htm
Sept 2008: 88.8069
March 2009: 96.8846
Sept 2009: 88.9863
Aug 2012: 84.9225

CPI - All Items (yes, it includes food and energy)
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SA0
Aug 2008: 219.086
Aug 2012: 230.379

(230.379/219.086) ^1/4 = 1.0126446338

The Price-adjusted Broad Dollar Index -- Monthly Index, shows a decrease over the past few years, does it not? And btw, Ron Paul did NOT state a particular time table for when the dollar would crash, genius. You're acting as though he did. You DO know that, right?

Well, you were using them as a rebuttal of the stuff originally posted.
A smart person would use facts in a rebuttal, so it was assumed you considered them facts...
That was wheresthestagemanager?'s mistake though, because by now we all know you're not very smart.

Smart people also use compelling evidence. But since you don't know what that is, the rest is lost on you...

You're wasting your time.
Moggio can't even apply inflation to historic concert takings, let alone understand Ron Paul's view of economics. He just likes the soundbites.

This coming from someone who can't even read text properly.

Get back on the sidelines, moron...

[demolition23]

Well, you were using them as a rebuttal of the stuff originally posted.
A smart person would use facts in a rebuttal, so it was assumed you considered them facts...
That was wheresthestagemanager?'s mistake though, because by now we all know you're not very smart.

Smart people also use compelling evidence.

I completely agree. So why would you fall back on the opinions of people commenting under a story? That's not very compelling... Guess you're not very smart.

[Moggio]

Well, you were using them as a rebuttal of the stuff originally posted.
A smart person would use facts in a rebuttal, so it was assumed you considered them facts...
That was wheresthestagemanager?'s mistake though, because by now we all know you're not very smart.

Smart people also use compelling evidence.

I completely agree. So why would you fall back on the opinions of people commenting under a story? That's not very compelling... Guess you're not very smart.

Where did I say I, "fall back on the opinions of people commenting under a story?" Regardless, those opinions provide "compelling evidence." And I wasn't just referring to the opinions of people in the comment section, dipshit.

[Turner Coates]

bumpity bump