...And also, we seem to be missing out the fact here that Obama, a supposed "progressive" is signing off on horrendous legislation such as the indefinited detention act and SOPA..... I would think that ANY opposition to these "Constitution-destroying" pieces of legislation should really be the most important issue here... Paul is opposed to both of these, so, I would say that in the interests of basic preservation of democratic rights, then he should be the guy Americans should vote for.. We can argue the toss about anything else later, but as soon as these pieces of legislation bite, then it's pretty much "goodnight Vienna", and it wont really matter who you vote for in the future.... -_-

Hmmm, well the Fed obviously has a very strange definition of "intervention" then.. Last time I looked, "intervention" didn't mean "rolling over and just letting people crap all over you"......

 

Yeah, I've heard that argument in favour of QE, and if it actually HAD any benefits for ordinary people, I might agree with you, unfortunately all QE has done is to print billions of fake money which the banks have sat on and haven't lent out to small businesses. At all... You'd've been just as well using the QE money and just given it to ordinary people in an equal share-out, instead of just letting the banks keep it on their (im)balance sheets...

 

So, if you're going to use Keynsianism, use it properly, as FDR did.... I dont even like Ron Paul that much, but really, at least he's making some of the right noises, unlike the other GOP candidates who are obsessed with relatively trivial issues like gay marriage and gays in the military and dont seem to be paying any attention to the real issues, which is the economy and unemployment. I suspect the likes of Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum dont even understand the economy or the issues concerned, which is why they seem to be avoiding tackling the whole issue... Ron Paul at least "gets" the fact the the economy and jobs are the heart of this whole thing... And, unlike O-bomber, he seems to actually want to do something about the which is standing in the way of America's recovery...

Fake money! :lol:

 

If Ron Paul had his way, there would be even less opportunity for intervention to occur. I wasn't suggesting that intervention hasn't been happening effectively (as I don't know the situation in detail). Like most of the other Republican candidates, he would engage in some quite disturbing levels of austerity and patiently wait for private sector to fill the gap. I suspect that this wouldn't be the case but I'd gladly be proved wrong. Due to their fear of budget deficits and wanting to abolish direct taxation and most indirect taxation completely, I fail to see how there wouldn't be cuts to education and welfare almost to complete abolishment. Even in America, this would surely cause a huge backlash. At least I hope.

 

The problem with QE is that we don't know what would've happened without it. We never knew how much QE was actually needed as it has rarely been used (except in Japan, I believe?), predicting its effects was based on theory rather than history. It's risky as it can lower confidence rather than raise it, and without confidence, there's no investment or lending, therefore it has the opposite effect.

 

I've been taught economics by quite wing teacher, so I am trying to see both sides of things. It's just the "golden hand" seem so fallicious to me.

Fake money! :lol:

 

If Ron Paul had his way, there would be even less opportunity for intervention to occur. I wasn't suggesting that intervention hasn't been happening effectively (as I don't know the situation in detail). Like most of the other Republican candidates, he would engage in some quite disturbing levels of austerity and patiently wait for private sector to fill the gap. I suspect that this wouldn't be the case but I'd gladly be proved wrong. Due to their fear of budget deficits and wanting to abolish direct taxation and most indirect taxation completely, I fail to see how there wouldn't be cuts to education and welfare almost to complete abolishment. Even in America, this would surely cause a huge backlash. At least I hope.

 

The problem with QE is that we don't know what would've happened without it. We never knew how much QE was actually needed as it has rarely been used (except in Japan, I believe?), predicting its effects was based on theory rather than history. It's risky as it can lower confidence rather than raise it, and without confidence, there's no investment or lending, therefore it has the opposite effect.

 

I've been taught economics by quite wing teacher, so I am trying to see both sides of things. It's just the "golden hand" seem so fallicious to me.

 

Of course it's fake money. It's not backed by anything of any worth or value. Gold/Silver has intrinsic value, paper/fiat is effectively worthless... Gold's value has gone up, whereas when you look at the shares of the big banks like Goldman Sachs, J P Morgan, Bank of America, etc, they've all tanked as have their investment "products" because they're basically junk being sold as something they're not... If anyone is being dishonest and crooked, it's the big banks, the banks have put us into the situtation we now find ourselves, now it's time to cut them loose and let them fail if that is what the markets decide... Ron Paul wants to let the banks stand or fall on their own without any Federal bail-outs, surely that is the definition of a "free market", not allowing banks that are "too big to fail".... So, it really all depends on what your economics tutor arguing for... Is he actually a "Free Enterprise" supporter (in which case he should not be in favour of bail-outs or the current form of QE at all), or, as I rather suspect, a "Crony Capitalist/Corpratist" who thinks that endless tax-payer bail-outs to help the rich while the poor are stuck with "austerity" is the road to go down...

 

I just want to make it clear that I'm not really being a cheer-leader for Ron Paul. But, surely there's something incredibly WRONG in the fact that some of what Ron Paul says is actually a bit more revolutionary and progressive than the shite that's coming out of the mouth of a supposed "progressive" like Barack Obama.. The fact also that the "liberal mafia" in Hollywood are being apologists for Obama is something else I find disgusting.. The things they criticised Bush for, Obama is presiding over worse things. The Indefinite Detention Act is WAY worse than the Patriot Act, SOPA is just a total sop for Hollywood and the Film Industry, billions of internet users over the world basically being f**ked to benefit the western Film and Music Industry, who make billions anyway. This is the kind of protectionism and rampant censor-shit that so-called "liberals" should surely be against..

 

Oh, and let's not forget, that some time this year, there is the very real possibility of a war against Iran.. For almost the same incredibly dubious reasons as the war against Iraq.... "Liberals" who make apologies for this Obama admin, where they were attacking Bush Jr, are just full of shit as far as I'm concerned.... There clearly needs to be a "Third Force" in US politics, hopefully something that will rise out of the "Occupy" movement and start off on a grass-roots state level, and grow....