http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58792.h…
For you Libertarians out there, Ron Paul says he will not be running for reelection of his seat in the House.
Does this seal his fate in politics? I would love to see a Paul v Obama match up, but I pigs will fly before that happens.
| +50 | Interviews Are So Fake | 33 | 4h | |
| +33 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 21 | 1d | |
| +29 | ADHD ! | 13 | 2h | |
| +28 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 2d | |
| +27 | Non-Competes Banned | 32 | 2s | |
| How do I become Sigma | 15 | 22h | ||
| +19 | Moelis has the cutest Analysts? | 4 | 2d | |
| +18 | Best NYC neighborhood for single 30M | 12 | 3d | |
| +16 | Underage intern, drinking? | 7 | 2d | |
| +13 | Secretive vs Universal Prestige? | 7 | 2d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
He's getting pretty old, he probably figures go for the gold and leave it all out on the field. I look forward to voting for him, whether or not I have to write him in.
I have never voted before, but I will be voting for Ron Paul.
-International policy of non-intervention. -Legalization of certain drugs. -Vetoing over-complicated legislation. -Withdrawal from NATO, etc. -Austrian school of economics. -States can recognize same-sex marriages. -Increased free-markets, lower taxes, and deficit cutting.
Will he win? Not likely. But if enough people vote for him it sends a very strong message that people are tired of the status quo and want true change.
I have never voted as well, mainly due to the fact that all candidates were complete jagoffs. However, I will certainly be voting this next fall and my vote will be cast for Paul. I truly believe he has a strong will to get the USA back on the right fiscal and monetary path. His reputation is impeccable. His proposals are sound in rationale, and most of all, he is a realist and he tells it how it is, in contrast with these other cocksucking deceitful meat puppets. I do still have hair of hope for this country, however it lies in Paul's policies, which, unfortunately will not be implemented. TPTB will not allow him to be elected. Look at the MSM, he is hardly ever mentioned. That dumb cunt Bachmann and ass clown Romney are front runners. Excuse me, but are you fucking kidding me? The country is in the worst shape in its history of existence and you are going to allow these bumbling bafoons to be center stage? They want to be on TV in the spotlight, that is it, period. Paul wants to be a true, unswayed public servant, unlike all other candidates from all parties. Believe what you want to believe, be a sheep, because the true hard fact of reality is that Paul is the US's last hope for prosperity. These other meat puppets will do as they're told and run the nation literally into the ground. Haven't we learned anything over the past 11 years Vote at your own risk, but just don't complain as this country spirals down the drain.
watch this->
if the electorate had any sense at all ron paul would have won it in '08. if you look back on the record of his 30-year career, he has nailed it 100% on foreign policy, economics and public finance.
if the founders were alive today, who would they pick out of this sorry ass field of GOP candidates?
michele bachmann isn't bright enough to run an applebee's, and somehow she made it to the top echelon of candidates?
what a joke.
Ron Paul....A American's American... I know where my vote will be on election day
If history is any lesson, the Dems will supported his campaign much the same way that the GOP funded Ralph Nader in 2004 in order to help dilute the opposition base at the polls.
He will send a message and I'm willing to be he gets at least 5% of the vote, maybe higher.
But yeah, no chance in hell for him or his son this elections cycle, but 2016 looks more likely: I hope he runs then.
but he wants to defund government supported UFO research...
Seriously, I hope he at least gets a cabinet position the next time the GOP is in.
I'll be voting for him even if it's a write in.
I'm changing to Republican just to vote for the man in the primary.
Ron Paul will never win, he has great economic ideas, but he is way to conservative. He wants to withdraw from the U.N, NAFTA, WTO, which majority Americans are for, he is also agaisnt birth right citizenship (this alone IMO can cause him the election). Hes also agaisnt obortion and is for religion being practiced in public schools.
Those are the only things that urk me. Though I do support him in his belif to get rid of the fed, end the war on drugs, decrease gov't spending, repel the patriot act...
Maybe I shouldn't focus on what hes agaisnt but what hes for. Since the things hes agaisnt would require congressional approval?
You're wrong. First, he is against abortion in his personal life, but he believes in a woman's right to make her own decision. Second, he maintains that it's not the federal governments job to determine whether or not prayer can be said in school, it's up to the states to make their own laws in that regard.
Your right, but lets be serious those two things should be handled at the federal level. It was just create mass confusion, one state has aborition and one state doesn't. Women trying get obrition goes to the state that allows it but her home state then con prosecute her. This is while aboriton is legal on a federal level, if I remeber correctly their were cases like this in the 70's until one case went to the supreme court.
Hes also agaisnt this too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Lab…
[quote=TheKid1]Hes also agaisnt this too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Lab…] I actually agree with this. If someone is bleeding to death HELP THEM, how miserly can you be? For everything else, yeah, too bad.
When's the last time you went to the emergency room? The reason I ask is because last time I went, bout 6 years ago, there weren't too many emergencies. Looked like a bunch of illegals with headaches.
The problem is, many uninsured people and illegals use it as their medical care at the people who pay for insurance's expense.
Excellent post mfoste!!
Only way for Paul to win is get mass media coverage. Problem is, the media is largely liberal and puts puppets like Romney on who are no different than a liberal.
I'll rephrase, my above post is his only chance. He won't though...too many bleeding heart government check cashers.
Not only that but i feel like the media has put fear into people that without certain laws and being part of certain organizations like U.N would be bad for the U.S economy. I remember my first econ class our professor said, a country without a central bank is a country that will not be able to sustain growth. So if you talk to any econ majors in my school they will never vote for Ron Paul.
Since were on the topic, can the U.S run without the Fed?
It's funny that you would take a bunch of wet behind the ears college kids learning IS-LM curves for the first time to be the arbiter of which candidate has the best economic sense.
I went to a saltwater econ school so I was instructed in the same dogmas of the central bank. It took a lot of years and reading to shake it out of me but it is worth it. I hope for your sake one day you wake up too.
America did not have a central bank from 1832-1912. America in that time surpassed the UK as the global industrial superpower. I would say America did plenty of growing in that time. That example alone should prove to you that your professor is a numbskull.
Don't grant economics and economists more authority than they deserve, which is none. They are the second-rate and third-rate minds that couldn't hack it in a real science.
youre first econ professor was a dumb cunt. too bad that idiot taught you the wrong stuff. hope you didnt pay for it....
why dont you do some research of your own and find out the real history behind the fed
It could happen.
Most of you are too young to remember the Perot insurgency but I remind you that he was leading both Bush and Clinton in the polls into summer '92. I could never forgive him for dropping out.
In a head to head debate Paul would annihilate the teleprompter jockey-in-chief.
I just loved Ron Paul's back-and-forth with Bernanke.
"Mr. Chairman, is gold real money?"
"Uhhh, no."
"Then how come central banks keep it in reserve?"
"Tradition."
Why am I reminded of the Flat Earth Society?
http://www.zug.com/pranks/printer/prank2.html
I am definitely voting for him even if it's a write-in. I don't believe he's the perfect candidate, but I think he is the best candidate for the situation we are in right now.
^ I'm pretty sure the dollar existed before the Fed was created...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_jackson#Opposition_to_the_National_…
Why do people insist on continuing to revisit this?
A couple thoughts:
1.) From 1913 to the 1930s, the federal reserve was really just a finite lender of last resort- a loose consortium of banks plus perhaps some potential help from congress if things got bad.
2.) The federal reserve didn't really become the federal reserve with respect to banking policy as we know today until the 1930s when the US eliminated gold currency and replaced it with printed paper and what would eventually become the Bretton Woods system- where the government promised you that $1 was worth 1/35th ounce of gold, but that gold had to stay locked in a vault, and would print money whenever a bank needed to be bailed out or rescued. This worked until we had issued so much currency by the late '60s that Bretton Woods collapsed.
3.) The fact was that the 1920s were when the world economy ran out precious metals relative to consumer demand for goods. The system was able to keep currency moving for a while by increasing the velocity of money, but that all crashed on Black Tuesday. Continuing the economy on gold would have been unsustainable and also made jewelry prohibitively expensive.
Bottom line is that there is a trade-off between stable economies and stable currencies. There are also limitations to how large of an economy gold can actually support. So unless we want to carry $100 worth of gasoline and wood and copper around as our currency, we probably need to have paper.
hahah so epic:
Using your own logic, the US became the world's sole superpower after having a monetary cartel take a stranglehold of its currency.
If it surpassed Britain without a central bank, according to you, then the next 80 years with a central bank (1913-1993) left it the supreme economic and military power on the face of the Earth.
You seem to operate under the misguided illusion that ending the Fed will immediately eliminate the banking system's control of the monetary system. Fractional reserve banking still puts money creation in the hands of too few and with little ability to coordinate policy and creates awful moral hazards given the money creator's ability to profit.
If your knowledge of banking history is so thorough, please explain to the rest of us what steps you would have taken to ensure that events such as the panic of 1907 not continue to occur.
You should review your own deep reflections on causation vs. correlations, genius.
The 1907 panic was exploited as the impetus for the founding of the Fed. It was supposed to stop financial panics of that type. How's that working out? Woodrow Wilson only regretted signing into existence the Fed, whose enabling legislation was sneaked through during a Christmas congressional session.
We became top dog by smashing to shit our main competitors in Europe and Asia. That's Germany and Japan. I hate to have to spell things out, but you seem like the kind of guy who needs things spelled out. And while we were playing johnny come lately in the WWI and WWII we were busy draining the gold reserve of the British Empire which we were glad to dismantle to our benefit and profit. There. That's how we became the superpower we are today. All of this was done despite the monetary parasitism of the Fed, not because of it.
The reason the financial class wants a central bank is so they can speculate with no downside. Heads they win, tails they present the bill to the Fed. And the Fed pays the bill by robbing the savings of suckers like you by debauching the currency. If you held a single dollar from 1913 to the present it would have lost 95% of its purchasing power.
You are very hung up on this fractional reserve banking. Blaming that independently of the Fed just speaks to your profound ignorance.
Lastly, the solution to the 1907 panic is to let it happen, and let the speculators get wiped out like they should. Malinvestments should be punished in a free market.
I can tolerate your ignorance, but not your fatuity. Now run along and play with your toys while the adults talk. I'm done wasting time on you.
LOL
http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch9en/meth9en/usinflation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_recessions
The Fed reduced volatility of the dollar and volatility of the economy at the cost of inflation. Booms and busts happened before the Fed (with greater frequency, severity, and duration I might add) and they have happened with the Fed.
The fact of the matter is that the politics of US monetary policy pre- and post-Fed have had almost nothing to do with America's rise to prominence. You seem oblivious to that, arguing that a lack of a central bank boosted the US in the 19th century and that the creation of the Fed strangled it in the 20th. No one can prove a counterfactual in either case, so there's no point debating it anyway.
Letting malinvestments unwind during the Panic of 1907 would have wiped out depositors (pre-FDIC) and caused a severe monetary contraction similar to the contraction that many attribute to worsening the Great Depression when the Fed stood idly by and watched as institutions collapsed. You're free to have your ideology, but I prefer pragmatism.
Fractional reserve banking is what enabled the Panic of 1907. If the markets were confident that banks were sufficiently capitalized there wouldn't be bank runs. Full-reserve banking brings with it confidence in banks. That confidence comes at the cost of no more cheap, plentiful credit, which is a trade-off I find unpalatable. If you want cheap plentiful credit and confidence in the banking system you need fractional reserve banking and a lender of last resort to provide liquidity in emergencies and/or a regulator that steers the system away from emergencies. That is one of the Fed's main founding purposes. If you want to argue against other actions of the Fed since then including mission creep, poor judgment, and lack of transparency, go ahead, but spare us the "end the fed, central banks are unconstitutional" bullshit.
And at the end of the day RP is going to wash out in the primaries, like always, because he is a crackpot.
Such an intelligent post, yet at the same time so misguided in some key respects...what a shame.
The "cost" was devaluing the dollar 95%+ in purchasing power from 1913 to today. If you want to rob savers to pay off the bad bets of financial speculators and commercial investors whose bets went sour with money printing -- and stop kidding yourself, that's EXACTLY what the Fed's been doing since its inception. If I had the power to pick the pockets of hundreds of millions of savers by diluting their currency holdings to "smooth out" crashes, I can dampen business cycles, but only as I am setting up moral hazards that will set up the next crash. Please spare us your bullshit.
Our country is way too dumb to elect Ron Paul at the present time. They aren't ready for such a radical figure with smart ideas.
It's amazing.. there really is no other man in politics who sticks to his guns & preaches logical ideas with passion without sugar coating anything. And America shuns him because he is TOO straight forward. Everyone complains about our government double-talking too much & being inconsistent; however when a candidate like Paul comes along, most Americans sell him off as someone who has 'crazy' ideas. Keep in mind, most of these people who think his ideas are crazy, know NOTHING about the topics he may be talking about (the fed, foreign affairs, healthcare, etc).
Like I said, America is way too stupid to elect someone like Ron Paul. We will yet again elect someone who looks good on television & knows how to smooth talk (obama? romney?)
Unfortunately Paul is getting old and this is probably his last run. What he's done for the young base is groundbreaking. When the baby-boomer generation dies off, there will be a generation of 'Paul voters' (or so I hope) who will hopefully pick up the slack and realize that radical changes are needed to take our country out of dire straits.
Personally I'm looking forward to seeing an Obama/Paul debate. I believe Obama as well is a wonderful debater even if some of his ideas may be flawed.
Mr. Paul comes off as the crazy old man....lol....
If, by crazy old man, you mean logical old man. I guess being logical does equate with being crazy in politics.
Occaecati fugit vel est. Ipsa tenetur velit unde.
Ratione quia eaque corrupti nulla. Facere qui maiores dignissimos alias est iure velit. Quisquam eum quis suscipit modi in. Magnam minus tempore omnis a. Explicabo ut molestias rem sapiente dolor. Similique voluptas vero est recusandae.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Voluptatibus sit et dolore quos qui voluptas. Consectetur labore laboriosam non fugit doloribus. Ipsa corrupti sed rem delectus. Impedit maiores molestiae illum dolorem voluptatem quia. Soluta atque vero et maiores enim. Quo consequuntur provident laudantium. Maiores illum est rem.
Consectetur dicta autem quia est aut. Nesciunt commodi autem et autem aut praesentium delectus. Vero ad totam a est doloremque necessitatibus nostrum. Ipsa nam vel culpa voluptates qui facere. Id aliquam assumenda voluptatem illum iste modi.