Obama Voter Now Supports Ron Paul
This guy’s enhanced clarity resonates with me. I didn’t vote for him (I’m pretty sure I had decided by that point in my life that I was done with voting), but I remember really really hoping late on election night, 2000 that George W. Bush would beat Gore. You know why? I didn’t know (or care) much about foreign policy. No, the thing that worried me was…Al Gore would interfere with business!! So I was very relieved indeed when that free-market conservative George W. Bush ascended to the White House.
Anyway, here’s Anthony Anderson on Huffington Post:
I truly believe that I speak for so many young progressives that would be proponents for peace, clean food and water, and a government that actually helps and cares for its citizens.
After 8 years of GWB and the lies about WMDs, 9-11, Monsanto, Iraq…etc…anyone coming from the other party looked like a better choice. I was somehow still under the illusion that the Democratic Party would work for the people and not corporate/banking/defense industry interests.
I cried when Obama won. I really thought it was a new dawn for the US and the world as a whole. I was so ashamed of the Bush administration… all the violence and greed just made me ashamed to be from the US. Somehow though I still thought that there was a difference between the two parties.
I have to thank Mr. Obama for waking me up to this truth. When he showed support for Monsanto and big agribusiness, the continued (and escalated) warmongering, and even the continued selling-out of the American taxpayer to the Federal Reserve, the lightbulb went off in my head — they are all simply employees.
On the other hand, Dr. Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate that is talking about the big pink elephant in the room. The money wasted on war, the fact that our nation has been sold to international banks, and that the federal government is becoming a monster overtaking state autonomy.
I never would have thought that the day would come where I would actually consider voting for someone else than a democrat. I want the world to be clean and healthy paradise planet for the next generations and for those that are living here now. I want the freedom to be able to buy clean food and drink unfluoridated water. I feel that its not asking too much, but the current administration continues to take away these rights.
Ron Paul seems to be the only option, and the furthered bashing of him by the mainstream media shows that they see him as a threat. I seriously hope that his time will come in 2012.
Peace and Prosperity to the US and EVERY person on the planet! Here is to sanity in 2012.
I did care about foreign policy, which is one of the reasons I strongly preferred Governor Bush to Vice President Gore. Bush spoke out against “nation building” and called for a more “humble foreign policy”. Gore defended intervention all over the globe, including, of course, then-recent forays into what was once Yugoslavia. You might remember the likes of William Kristol all but abandoning GWB, in recognition of the fact that Gore’s stated views were far more in alignment with those of a neoconservative.
So I was very relieved when the non-interventionist conservative George W. Bush ascended to the White House!
Right. After the fact, I became aware of the “humble foreign policy” blah blah blah. But unfortunately I have to admit that I really didn’t follow that stuff too deeply back then. I think I recognized (through reading Rothbard) after the fact that Operation Desert Storm was not cool, but that didn’t burn my blood back then as much as the specter of Al Gore regulating carbon dioxide emissions or raising taxes.
(My priorities are different now. I’d much rather have a socialist who stopped bombing people in the White House.)
It’s not as if you could predict a politician’s actions from his words alone, anyway. Just look at Obama. From his speeches, one would predict that at the very least he would work to close Guantanamo, put an end to torture and political prisoners, and maybe end the wars. Instead he’s just as bad as Bush and in some ways even worse. Reagan is another prime example of this. The last president I can think of who was honest with his intentions for the most part was Carter.
I’ll continue to staunchly not vote.
As a fan of many of Paul’s ideas (surprised?) it frustrates me to no end his lack of understanding of the monetary system. His desire to return to the gold standard blinds him to the operational reality of fiat. The desire for a balanced budget amendment and failure to understand the sectoral balances in the global economy prevents him from becoming the ideal candidate. He needs a lesson in money and banking. But I would trade this ignorance for someone who stopped bombing people, so i agree completely with “I’d much rather have a socialist who stopped bombing people in the White House”
Since MMT does not apply without monopoly funny money, why maintain our present idiotic criminal system?
[Mises essay eviscerating Knapp’s state theory of money] is irrelevant since it was written in a period of time when the current monetary system did not exist. The rules changed in 70’s. The US left the gold standard.
http://tinyurl.com/4rf8pg9
Ron Paul, I believe, is in favor of competitive market currencies. He doesn’t want a return to the gold standard as most people think of it, but for government to have nothing to do with monetary operations at all. Since his ideal is also zero taxation, there would be no bias towards any particular taxable currency. He just believes that gold would emerge as the best monetary object in a free competitive market environment because of the qualities that it possesses (divisibility, durability, and so on).
it frustrates me to no end his lack of understanding of the monetary system. His desire to return to the gold standard blinds him to the operational reality of fiat.
No, it is the knowledge of the superiority of gold over fiat money that he favors gold. He knows full well the monetary system. MMTers are the ones who don’t understand how to connect accounting tautologies with economic principles.
You’ve been repeatedly exposed as someone who doesn’t understand the monetary system.
From inflation being required or else the economy will sink, to equivocating increasing cash balances on account of inflation with “net savings”, to all other confusions, MMTers really are the last people in the world to be lecturing anyone on our monetary system.
The desire for a balanced budget amendment and failure to understand the sectoral balances in the global economy prevents him from becoming the ideal candidate.
The sectoral balances are due to the inflationary fiat system that exists. You ignore the fall in prices that would take place in the absence of inflation, which will make domestic goods more attractive to foreign buyers, thus reversing any money outflow brought about by a net trade deficit.
He needs a lesson in money and banking.
Ron Paul needs to give you a lesson in money and banking. You aren’t able to correctly interpret the MMT accounting tautology.
The sectoral balances are due to the inflationary fiat system that exists
The sectoral balances have NOTHING to do with the fiat system. They hold true with ANY means of exchange.
Now go fetch the ball and stop your embarrassing nonsense.
1. If there is no government sector, there is no government sector. Hello!
2. Isn’t the MMT emphasis upon “accounting” strange ? Their policies perpetually impair economic calculation making accounting of resources virtually impossible.
3. In a “debate”, the MMTers have the advantage due to their meticulous refusal to familiarize themselves with basic Austrian concepts. Thus, they never know when they’ve been stomped.
1. Who said there was no government sector? Hellooooo! And even without a government sector the sectoral balances hold with G=T=0. Really, how dumb are you?
2. Your economic calculation is impaired. Remember, you are just an attorney. But don’t extrapolate to the rest of us
3. Nobody is debating Austrian dogmas. Only the fact Austrians don’t understand sectoral balances. No need to be familiar with Austrian dogmas to discuss sectoral balances. It’s just fun to stomp you every time.
If there is no government and no central bank, there is no government “sector”.
The End.
We agree. Can we also agree that you are so dumb that the existence of government was not what we were talking about? If you have nothing to add, as usual, try at least not to subtract.
Bob – the reason why i ignore you is because you continue to fail to recognize MMT is nothing more than a description of the monetary system. It offers no assumptions, no policy, no ideology. It’s 100% observable, fact base. You can go on and on about eliminating the government, eliminating fiat, etc, etc, but until the government is actually eliminated, and until fiat is eliminated, MMT applies.j No way around it. Sorry, but I know its hard to grasp a concept that turns your ideology upside down, but there is no way around it. It iste utter failure to recognize this description, and failure to grasp the realities that under a non convertible monetary system, many of Austrian economists, including Mr. Murphy’s, and Mr. Pauls, theories inflation, crowding out, the money multiplier, etc inapplicable.
Bob, you have been stalking me on the internet for over two years now…how dead right was I about interest rates? This alone should be a wake up call to so called Austrian economists screaming about bankrupcty for two years.
If all tax was paid in gold, and only gold, and if all government spending was paid in gold and only gold… how could there be a deficit?
The government could own a goldmine, or borrow gold.
Anyway it doesn’t matter, the sectoral balances always hold.
If the government owns a goldmine, it is a profitable enterprise and pays for itself… no different to owning a railway station.
If they borrow gold, then in effect they are fabricating IOU notes, and thus violating the “pay in gold and only gold” constraint.
The sectoral balance is forced to zero in the long term, although government can stockpile gold for a short while, eventually they will spend it again. More importantly, they can’t end up in the negatives.
They borrow gold and spend gold and only gold, no violation of the constrain.
In any case the sectoral balances always hold: the sum of the net saving of all sectors always equal 0, regardless whether the balance of one particular sector is 0 or not.
Moreover, due to the automatic stabilizers, the government balance is basically endogenous.
Seriously – I think you would have more Democrats talk like this about Paul if we weren’t in the middle of a depression, but Ron Paul is a non-starter right now. It would be a disaster.
As for the “I’d much rather have a socialist who stopped bombing people in the White House” sentiment, I have a harder time with this. A socialist would be as disastrous as a libertarian for the economy – for obvious reasons. Socialism might be easier to reverse, I suppose, but I’m not sure about that. I’d rather have someone that understand the insights of economics and who isn’t predisposed against military force but also uses it judiciously. Honestly the person who looks more appealing to me every single day is Romney.
Will you vote for Ron Paul?
(P) I won’t vote for anyone running for office.
(P) Ron Paul is running for office.
==> ?
Clearly Obama has lost his young euphoria voters by now, but I’m a little surprised to see them turning to Ron Paul. Does this fellow think Paul’s free market ideas will lead to cleaner air and water, or does he simply realize that no other candidate will actually stop things like our wars?
The latter, I’m sure. He said he’s shocked to be leaning for the first time toward voting for a non-democrat, which indicates that he believes that his desires for clean air, water, environment, etc. are most likely to come about through “progressive” policies; Paul obviously states that he would do everything in his power to end those policies.
Therefore, this former Obama supporter most likely is subordinating his more long-term environmental goals to the more pressing priority of ending US wars