Will Ron Paul-onomics Beat Obama?

inlet13

Another great article. I really think these articles show RP's cause is going mainstream.


From msn.money
http://money.msn.com/investing/will-ron-paul-onomics-beat-obama-mirhaydari.aspx

whygohome

A great article, yes. But, my concern is the feasibility of RP's ideas.
Many of his ideas seem, uh, anti-Greenspanian, and that is something that I can dig (as well as anyone with some knowledge of economics, I would assume). But if we look beyond the process to get where RP wants us to be, and look at the endgame, what would the country look like?
Would be it some type of cannibal capitalism free-for-all?
Will the inequality gap grow?
Can we rely on private investments to fund infrastructure projects and education?
Who will serve as watchdog to the oil companies and the hedge funds?
What type of environment will there be on Wall St.?

I ask questions because I simply do not know the answers to these questions. This is what I do when I lack the necessary knowledge to have an informed, intelligent opinion (I know, so un-American ). So, enlighten me, please.

inlet13

whygohome wrote:

A great article, yes. But, my concern is the feasibility of RP's ideas.
Many of his ideas seem, uh, anti-Greenspanian, and that is something that I can dig (as well as anyone with some knowledge of economics, I would assume). But if we look beyond the process to get where RP wants us to be, and look at the endgame, what would the country look like?

I think the simple answer to this question is life in America pre-1970 (pre-Nixon). We were on the Gold Standard then, or a form of it. I don't see us rushing back to the full Gold Standard, so I think it would be reasonable to say if his policies were implemented it would look like US pre-1970 Monetary Policy, at least at it's origins.

As for your other questions...

whygohome wrote:

Would be it some type of cannibal capitalism free-for-all?

No more or less than it is now. I think he'd try to reign in corporate hegemony with government. But, then again, he's very much open to free-markets. Regardless, he's one man, and even as President, I don't see our entire society changing under his admin. But, I like him because unlike the former guy who promised "change"... I think he would deliver to the point he could.

whygohome wrote:

Will the inequality gap grow?

I don't know for sure.

But, this is a good question. It's important to highlight something, inequality grows when everyone in a society makes 10% more in a given year. Think about it. If person A makes $1 million a year and person B makes $10,000/year (gap between them is 990,000).. if each make 10% more, now person A makes 1.1 million a year and person B makes 11,000 (gap grow to 1,080,000). Both are better off, yet the gap between them grew. Moreover, inequality gaps shrink (or improve if you like an equal society) if everyone makes 10% less a year (you can do the math there), which makes everyone worse off.

So, to try to answer, I do think his policies would be pro-growth. So, if inequality increased, it would be in the way I just mentioned. Not the rich get richer and poor get poorer.

whygohome wrote:

Can we rely on private investments to fund infrastructure projects and education?

Personally, I believe the answer is yes. But, that's my opinion and I think there's no way (even under a Ron Paul) we would rely soley on private infrastructure or education... I mean can one man (even a President) change our current system from being mostly public (in these areas)? Nope. He'd probably make a bit less public and a bit more private over 4 years... but, that's about it.

whygohome wrote:

Who will serve as watchdog to the oil companies and the hedge funds?

Who does now and how's that working out for you?

whygohome wrote:

What type of environment will there be on Wall St.?

Joy, lots of joy. ... just joking. I don't know. They probably would like some of his policies, and dislike others. For example, I bet Wall Street would not like his anti-inflation policies.

whygohome wrote:

I ask questions because I simply do not know the answers to these questions. This is what I do when I lack the necessary knowledge to have an informed, intelligent opinion (I know, so un-American ). So, enlighten me, please.

It's tough to answer all of these questions exactly like he would. What I would say is the more traction he gains, the more thorough your answers to these questions and others like it will become. Right now, he's not really being asked all of this.

CH156378

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=162410&hilit=farewell

inmytree

CH156378 wrote:

http://community.pearljam.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=162410&hilit=farewell

whygohome

inlet13 wrote:

whygohome wrote:

A great article, yes. But, my concern is the feasibility of RP's ideas.
Many of his ideas seem, uh, anti-Greenspanian, and that is something that I can dig (as well as anyone with some knowledge of economics, I would assume). But if we look beyond the process to get where RP wants us to be, and look at the endgame, what would the country look like?

I think the simple answer to this question is life in America pre-1970 (pre-Nixon). We were on the Gold Standard then, or a form of it. I don't see us rushing back to the full Gold Standard, so I think it would be reasonable to say if his policies were implemented it would look like US pre-1970 Monetary Policy, at least at it's origins.
For a paper I wrote a few years ago, I did some research on Bretton-Woods and I remember feeling that it its end put the U.S. in a, what's the word?, precarious situation. The idea that our currency would be backed by our word, in a sense, seemed that it not only devalued the true worth of the dollar (monopoly money), but also the flexibility of the global currency market, which, it was not intended to do. This was my interpretation

As for your other questions...

whygohome wrote:

Would be it some type of cannibal capitalism free-for-all?

No more or less than it is now. I think he'd try to reign in corporate hegemony with government. But, then again, he's very much open to free-markets. Regardless, he's one man, and even as President, I don't see our entire society changing under his admin. But, I like him because unlike the former guy who promised "change"... I think he would deliver to the point he could.

It won't change. it will only get worse. Only the American consumer can change the culture of cannibal capitalism. And the majority of Americans are lazy consumers, so, no hope for that.

whygohome wrote:

Will the inequality gap grow?

I don't know for sure.

But, this is a good question. It's important to highlight something, inequality grows when everyone in a society makes 10% more in a given year. Think about it. If person A makes $1 million a year and person B makes $10,000/year (gap between them is 990,000).. if each make 10% more, now person A makes 1.1 million a year and person B makes 11,000 (gap grow to 1,080,000). Both are better off, yet the gap between them grew. Moreover, inequality gaps shrink (or improve if you like an equal society) if everyone makes 10% less a year (you can do the math there), which makes everyone worse off.

So, to try to answer, I do think his policies would be pro-growth. So, if inequality increased, it would be in the way I just mentioned. Not the rich get richer and poor get poorer.

But as prices on goods go up, which can happen for a variety of reasons, the poor still get left in the cold as they always do. And, I simply do not feel that the stagnation of middle-class wages will ever correct itself.

whygohome wrote:

Can we rely on private investments to fund infrastructure projects and education?

Personally, I believe the answer is yes. But, that's my opinion and I think there's no way (even under a Ron Paul) we would rely soley on private infrastructure or education... I mean can one man (even a President) change our current system from being mostly public (in these areas)? Nope. He'd probably make a bit less public and a bit more private over 4 years... but, that's about it.

I get the feeling that he would simply streamline public funds to infrastructure projects. less waste in other areas, especially if he eliminates the federal departments he says he would, means more money for infrastructure. Also, if his policies were to be in effect, the rich will get richer AND they will like and trust him, as opposed to their disdain of Obama (for the most part), so if RP decided to enact a 1 or 2
% surtax on millionaires, which is not a radical idea, they would be more open to it.

whygohome wrote:

Who will serve as watchdog to the oil companies and the hedge funds?

Who does now and how's that working out for you?

Good point, but things would get worse with no watchdogs.

whygohome wrote:

What type of environment will there be on Wall St.?

Joy, lots of joy. ... just joking. I don't know. They probably would like some of his policies, and dislike others. For example, I bet Wall Street would not like his anti-inflation policies.

Overall, they would like him. Not sure if that is a good or bad thing. My friends who work on Wall St. hate it....but they love the $$$$$$

whygohome wrote:

I ask questions because I simply do not know the answers to these questions. This is what I do when I lack the necessary knowledge to have an informed, intelligent opinion (I know, so un-American ). So, enlighten me, please.

It's tough to answer all of these questions exactly like he would. What I would say is the more traction he gains, the more thorough your answers to these questions and others like it will become. Right now, he's not really being asked all of this.

unsung

The simple joy knowing he won't bail out big banks makes me almost weep with pride.