Ron Paul: "Successful Economic Policies? For Whom?"

Reasoning

Active Member
Apr 15, 2010
403
70
28
Ron Paul: "Successful Economic Policies? For Whom?"

REAL FULL ARTICLE HERE @
Successful Economic Policies? For Whom?

Last week, in the wake of another uptick in the official unemployment rate, the administration continued to claim that their economic policies were working, just not fast enough. This administration inherited an unemployment rate of 7.7% and promised a peak of no higher than 8% if their policies were followed. Not only does the administration have a funny way of ending a war, but now they claim their economic policies are successful. For whom, I wonder?

These policies are not working for the 9.6% of Americans who are out of work, nor for the over16% underemployed. They are not working for nearly 3 million Americans who have declared bankruptcy in the last two years, or the 40 million currently on food stamps. Nearly 1 in 6 Americans depend on those and other government anti-poverty programs such as Medicaid and unemployment benefits. As more Americans are added to the unemployment rolls, the tax base from which to hand out their benefits is shrinking. Still, businesses are being taxed and regulated out of the market, adding to the problem. What solutions are put forth? More government spending - even as each citizen’s portion of the public debt is over $43,000 and expected to increase by $250,000 over the next 40 years.

No, this economy is not working for these people. But current economic policy does “work” for some people. For example, it has worked out very well for certain bankers and large corporations, who took on too much risk and got themselves in hot water, and were declared “too big to fail” which is really a euphemism for “friends in high places”. It works well for large, well-connected military industrial corporations, who can always count on perpetual war and conflict to keep them in business. It also works for those on the government’s payroll, which is increasing as the tax base is decreasing.

So where does the government get all this money even as its most obvious stream of revenue dries up? How can it keep spending seemingly indefinitely? Once it steals as much from you as it can get away with through taxation, it steals even more from you through what central bankers like to call quantitative easing, which is more or less the same thing as counterfeiting. When the money is no longer based on a finite quantity of something of value, like a store of gold or silver, the amount of money in circulation is not limited by anything but the restraint of those in control of the printing presses, in our case the Fed and the US Treasury. When increasing pressure is put upon them by irresponsible politicians, it is predictable that out of thin air, more money will be created to satisfy the insatiable appetites of those on political spending sprees. As money becomes more plentiful, it becomes less valuable, and the average citizen suffers again as the value of their savings evaporates. It has happened over and over in history, and what usually follows is the total debasement of the currency, hyperinflation and chaos.

Sound economic policy would be to take our foot off the gas and apply the brakes to government spending as the economic cliff approaches. We must get back to where our economy produces actual wealth, rather than mere paper wealth. The road back to fiscal sanity and a strong economy is simple: Congress just needs to get back to following the Constitution.
 
Sound economic policy would be to take our foot off the gas and apply the brakes to government spending as the economic cliff approaches.
We can't save ourselves to a robust economic expansion.

We must get back to where our economy produces actual wealth, rather than mere paper wealth.
Huh?

The road back to fiscal sanity and a strong economy is simple: Congress just needs to get back to following the Constitution.
Huh?
 
George Soros. He's doing pretty well. Cant possibly be because his organizations are writing the policies, could it? Funny how that works...
 
He was the only one in 08 on the GOP side that I could enthusiastically vote for, thanks for the article, his economic perspectives makes more sense to me than either the demand or supply siders.
 
The only ones who have been successful and have benefited from this Socialist nightmare are the Corrupt Politicians & Corporate Fat Cats on Wall Street. There has been no success for the people. How sad.
 
The only ones who have been successful and have benefited from this Socialist nightmare are the Corrupt Politicians & Corporate Fat Cats on Wall Street. There has been no success for the people. How sad.

Yeah, you might have to run government for yourselfs to end corruption, but you can do it.
 
Talk about dogmatic nonsense, Paul takes the cake. What would have happened if Bush didn't do TARP and our largest financial institutions failed? Can you say depression cycle? It's amazing that he can sell this economic libertarian bullshit, and have people agreeing with him.
 
Talk about dogmatic nonsense, Paul takes the cake. What would have happened if Bush didn't do TARP and our largest financial institutions failed? Can you say depression cycle? It's amazing that he can sell this economic libertarian bullshit, and have people agreeing with him.

Their assets and accounts would be sold off to solvent institutions as was done back during the banking crisis of the 80's and S&L crisis of the 90's and life would continue on as before. Before you say I don't know what I'm talking about, I've spent the last 30 years in bank data processing and have run many projects where insolvent bank's assets were absorbed into solvent banks. It's simply business as usual. It is survival of the fitest. Let the weak and corrupt die instead of keeping them alive. It makes for a much more robust economy and industry in the long run.
 
As opposed to the Obama bullshit or Bush bullshit people eat up,lol.

Why play tit for tat? What's Paul's point about the Fed and Tarp? Does he want to become the first modern country to revert to the gold standard? Put down your little Ayn Rand Red Book, and tell us exactly why Bush should not have done TARP? Instead of listening to this dogmatic libertarian's feel good nonsense, I'd prefer using both common sense and listening to some of our best economists have to say about what would have happened had TARP not been passed.

So Bush told us that the fundamentals of our economic system was stable, just before the bottom fell out. Yeah, it was a lie. But compare that lie to the lie Paul is telling, ie the inference that we should have done nothing, and it's like comparing asking a two year old telling you they didn't eat that last cookie to Goebbels manufacturing the lies that led to the Final Solution.
 
How many small banks were allowed or forced to fail? It numbers in the thousands. How many large Wall Street Corporate Banks were allowed to fail? That number is zero. That sums up this Socialist nightmare perfectly. The Wall Street fat cats and corrupt politicians have seen success but most Americans have not.
 
As opposed to the Obama bullshit or Bush bullshit people eat up,lol.

Why play tit for tat? What's Paul's point about the Fed and Tarp? Does he want to become the first modern country to revert to the gold standard? Put down your little Ayn Rand Red Book, and tell us exactly why Bush should not have done TARP? Instead of listening to this dogmatic libertarian's feel good nonsense, I'd prefer using both common sense and listening to some of our best economists have to say about what would have happened had TARP not been passed.

So Bush told us that the fundamentals of our economic system was stable, just before the bottom fell out. Yeah, it was a lie. But compare that lie to the lie Paul is telling, ie the inference that we should have done nothing, and it's like comparing asking a two year old telling you they didn't eat that last cookie to Goebbels manufacturing the lies that led to the Final Solution.

You realize that most economists are academic theorists with absolutely no practical experience or running as much as a lemonade stand.......don't you?
 
As opposed to the Obama bullshit or Bush bullshit people eat up,lol.

Why play tit for tat? What's Paul's point about the Fed and Tarp? Does he want to become the first modern country to revert to the gold standard? Put down your little Ayn Rand Red Book, and tell us exactly why Bush should not have done TARP? Instead of listening to this dogmatic libertarian's feel good nonsense, I'd prefer using both common sense and listening to some of our best economists have to say about what would have happened had TARP not been passed.

So Bush told us that the fundamentals of our economic system was stable, just before the bottom fell out. Yeah, it was a lie. But compare that lie to the lie Paul is telling, ie the inference that we should have done nothing, and it's like comparing asking a two year old telling you they didn't eat that last cookie to Goebbels manufacturing the lies that led to the Final Solution.

Yeah, the ones who favored having artificially low interest rates and credit to all gets a pass yet the one who warned of this clusterfuck years ago gets called every name in the book, the Keynesian s and Monetarists owns this economy and all it's warts, not Austrians like Dr. Paul.


Bush and the others who contributed to the inflating bubbles as well as the Federal Reserve and those before Bush contributed , it was like taking chocolate yoo hoo's and peanut buttercups to a kindergarten class and then blaming the 5 year olds for having the sugar rush and then calling the nutritionist a dumbass for having warned the teacher not to do it in the first place!

The malinvestments needs to be allowed to burn off, trying to keep this crap inflated is a fool's game, like a kid trying to pump a flat tire with a gaping hole in it.
 
Last edited:
Talk about dogmatic nonsense, Paul takes the cake. What would have happened if Bush didn't do TARP and our largest financial institutions failed? Can you say depression cycle? It's amazing that he can sell this economic libertarian bullshit, and have people agreeing with him.

Their assets and accounts would be sold off to solvent institutions as was done back during the banking crisis of the 80's and S&L crisis of the 90's and life would continue on as before. Before you say I don't know what I'm talking about, I've spent the last 30 years in bank data processing and have run many projects where insolvent bank's assets were absorbed into solvent banks. It's simply business as usual. It is survival of the fitest. Let the weak and corrupt die instead of keeping them alive. It makes for a much more robust economy and industry in the long run.

How can you compare our largest banks to the S&Ls in '80s. We had a nice little recession back then, after the S&L went belly up. What would have been the outcome of letting the major banks fail in 2007? It's day and night, and we didn't have the luxury of time to set up another RTC. The S&L crisis was chump change compared to what was at risk in this case.

This is from someone who has very little good to say about Bush, on TARP, he had no choice. And, btw, he did allow some large financial institutions to be bought up by more solvent ones. Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns comes to mind.

Nope, had nothing been done, I'm virtually sure that the fall out would have resulted in a full fledged depression.
 
Talk about dogmatic nonsense, Paul takes the cake. What would have happened if Bush didn't do TARP and our largest financial institutions failed? Can you say depression cycle? It's amazing that he can sell this economic libertarian bullshit, and have people agreeing with him.

to answer your first question: Welcome to capitalism, jackass.
 
Just look at which corporations and especially banks,were bailed out. They were all Wall Street Corporate Fat Cats. No small banks were bailed out by the Government. They were allowed or forced to die. That should tell everyone what this Socialist nightmare is all about. It is very sad.
 
Last edited:
As opposed to the Obama bullshit or Bush bullshit people eat up,lol.

Why play tit for tat? What's Paul's point about the Fed and Tarp? Does he want to become the first modern country to revert to the gold standard? Put down your little Ayn Rand Red Book, and tell us exactly why Bush should not have done TARP? Instead of listening to this dogmatic libertarian's feel good nonsense, I'd prefer using both common sense and listening to some of our best economists have to say about what would have happened had TARP not been passed.

So Bush told us that the fundamentals of our economic system was stable, just before the bottom fell out. Yeah, it was a lie. But compare that lie to the lie Paul is telling, ie the inference that we should have done nothing, and it's like comparing asking a two year old telling you they didn't eat that last cookie to Goebbels manufacturing the lies that led to the Final Solution.

Yeah, the ones who favored having artificially low interest rates and credit to all gets a pass yet the one who warned of this clusterfuck years ago gets called every name in the book, the Keynesian s and Monetarists owns this economy and all it's warts, not Austrians like Dr. Paul.


Bush and the others who contributed to the inflating bubbles as well as the Federal Reserve and those before Bush contributed , it was like taking chocolate yoo hoo's and peanut buttercups to a kindergarten class and then blaming the 5 year olds for having the sugar rush and then calling the nutritionist a dumbass for having warned the teacher not to do it in the first place!

The malinvestments needs to be allowed to burn off, trying to keep this crap inflated is a fool's game, like a kid trying to pump a flat tire with a gaping hole in it.

I don't disagree that Bush played a significant roll in causing the bubble, but that's irrelevant to the issue of what would have happened had TARP not been passed, and the market left on its own. It would have resulted in a full scale economic collapse.
 
Just look at which corporations and banks especially,were bailed out. They were all Wall Street Corporate Fat Cats. No small banks were bailed out by the Government. They were allowed or forced to die. That should tell everyone what this Socialist nightmare is all about. It is very sad.

Who should Bush have bailed out?
 
Just look at which corporations and banks especially,were bailed out. They were all Wall Street Corporate Fat Cats. No small banks were bailed out by the Government. They were allowed or forced to die. That should tell everyone what this Socialist nightmare is all about. It is very sad.

Who should Bush have bailed out?

Nobody... as it is not the responsibility of government to take over personal or corporate responsibilities
 

Forum List

Back
Top