I understand what Ron Paul is trying to say. It's just that I believe he is wrong. Ron Paul is wrong. Supply-side economics is wrong. Austrian School is wrong. The best economic system is Keynesianism. The proof is right under our noses -- when the United States embraced Keynesian thought post-WWII it resulted in decades of strong economic growth, and the U.S. was the strongest economic engine on the face of the planet. The whole reason we are in a pickle today is that we have strayed from Keynesian thought. Tax cuts for the wealthy and unregulated free-market mortgage lending are supply-side ideas. Look at the damage they have wrought: a shrinking middle class, runaway foreclosures, a sinking dollar, and ballooning deficits. The vast oceans of debt we see are the result of supply-side Bushonomics. Forget about abstract free-market theories that don't work in the real world. Stick with what works -- when the U.S. is run as a mixed economy that's part capitalist and part socialist, with some regulation to keep the excesses of private business in check, we get the best results in terms of reasonable corporate profits, balanced government budgets, and a strong middle class. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_Theory_of_Employment,_Interest,_and_Money
All this Ron Paul talk is well...... an F&&%*^ waste of time !! Get ur heads out of your ass!! He is NOT goiing to be the next(or at any time this century) president.
you never know, ron does have pretty substantial and growing support. as he jokes himself, there is a risk he could win. just observing within our own community here, he seems to unite a lot of people who are usually against each other along the political spectrum
ahhhhhhhhhhhh haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaa...i'm sorry, but that was too funny. When you wrote this line: "Keynesian economics is the best system" I had to start laughing, stop reading your post, and as I clear the tears away from my eyes, write: HAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAA. I don't know what to say to that other than...you have so little clue what you are talking about that I don't want to waste my time explaining it to you. I'll give you a hint so you can get on the path to "clearer" learning ---stop looking at "aggregate demand." CONSUMPTION is NOT where economic strength or growth comes from. Consumption is the reward of PRODUCTION. As Baptist-Say, one of the great economists of all time, once said, production = consumption. You cannot consume without producing. Production is where economic strength comes from --production is where CONUMPTION comes from. My next little hint would be the simple process itself which you clearly do not understand: production - conumption = savings. You must PRODUCE, then consume LESS than you PRODUCE, then use the SAVINGS which is the result in order to increase production. This is the most basic of the basic and yet keynesians can't even understand this. Go back to the drawing board man.
Yes, he may not have a chance to win. The establishment would never allow such a thing. The funny thing is that most people have it backwards ---most people believe that big government rewards the poor/stupid/lazy. The truth of the matter is semi-opposite ---in that the poor/stupid/lazy do get some scraps for free. But this is not where the MAJOR redistribution of wealth/power happens. The major redistribution is from the working middle and upper middle class, and even the semi-rich class ----they get RAPED and the ultra-elite and super rich are the benefactors. Look throughout history ---if you want to consolidate power and wealth, then get big government. Regulation and taxation/spending benefits the establishment, the elite. Why? They have all the lawyers, all the lobbyists, all the connections and all the bribe money. Is it a wonder why during the 19th century USA you saw peasants in a third world country turn into the middle class of the most powerful rich country on the planet? During a time when the government was non-existent, basically. Total government spending as a proportion of income was 2%-5% (except during wars) --thats local/state/federal. Now the level is at 55%. When government was non-existent you saw a third world nation turn into a major historical power and farmers/peasants turn into the largest middle/upper middle/rich class in history. The USA had growth rates of 20% per annum during some years ---it was the highest growth century in the history of mankind. But socialism has replaced capitalism and with socialism you get power/wealth redistributed to the elite...that's just the way it goes.
I think it will be the same with Bernanke as it was with Greenspan after he left FED. Look what he recently said about FIAT monetary system and gold standard! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKFbOiBh_C8 Nice FLIP-FLOP!
As I have said many times, a ron paul victory would be very bad economically. A strong dollar policy would eat into profits.
Heh heh... you are joking, right? What a quaint idea ... right out of the 1770's. That's the problem with free market / Austrian economics, it is far too simplistic for a modern world. Maybe these ideas worked when farmers hauled turnips by the ox cart. Keynes wrote: "Our criticism of the accepted classical theory of economics has consisted... in pointing out that its tacit assumptions are seldom or never satisfied, with the result that it cannot solve the economic problems of the actual world." Amen. The free market will never have an answer for employees or children without health care, for example. Keynes' key idea is that government intervention is necessary to mitigate imbalances inherent in free markets. During recessions when unemployment is high, aggregate demand is low because people aren't working, production slows as businesses try to prevent excess inventory. Government spending programs boost employment and demand, restoring growth in production. Best of all, empirically Keynesian systems work. See the GDP expansions of 1933 to 1940 in the U.S. and the GDP expansion of Germany in her postwar years.
Facts are it equals less spending power. If Chinese were in turn buying Ford F250s to drive around in China it would be a whole new ball game. Problem is they don't buy anything here because everything is over-valued. The dollar needs to be de-evaluated so people will by our US made exports. Realistically the US has no raw resouces either so it's not like we call sell crude oil as trade and have an economic benifit. Buying Chinese products woudln't be so bad if it weren't for the above mentioned.