And the Federal Reserve. OT, but he has a point in noting that it seems strange that a small group of private individuals can have a monopoly on the creation of 'money', and charge citizens the right to use it. It isn't like you can buy shares in the Federal Reserve or set up your own cenral bank.
If everyone was growing at the same rate (instead of complete stagnation in income per amount of work for the Middle class while the super-rich have become several times wealthier), I think very few people would be resentful of the billionaires.
Sound money is the main thing that will benefit the average Joe and benefit the long term future of manned and unmanned space exploration.
Ah, good old Austrian economics, the road to massive deflation and another depression! You do know that, in spite of tripling the money supply, there's been an average inflation rate over the last few years of less than 2%, right?
So ... what about Ron Paul's space policy?
Ron Paul sees space as a frontier, not as a government works program. Just like there was no Federal Program to Develop the West, he would prefer for the private sector to engage in development of space, with the government simply defending property up there (space stations and the like). For Ron Paul, the free enterprise system doesn't stop working 100 miles up.IMHO, if the Ron Paul space policy were implemented, thousands of people would be flying in space in the near future.
Ron Paul wishes a pretty big cut in Military, and most aerospace companies get a good percentage of their money from the DOD.Ron Paul would likely be open to a cut to the top line NASA budget, and likely very unfriendly to the idea of the SLS.Sounds like all a good chunk of the federal money that goes to the programs we like will get cut, but he will allow them to be taxed at a lower rate. As far as what I think most of us want (CCDEV/SLS) I think Paul would cut the budget for both in ways.Saying that I still plan on voting for him because I still can't figure out how Obama/Newt/Perry/Romney would differ much at all on must important things economically.
This thread and others like it would be better served if they focussed on those that actually have a shot at winning the primary and most importantly winning the next election. Ron Paul has a zero chance of either.
Quote from: rcoppola on 12/24/2011 03:27 pmThis thread and others like it would be better served if they focussed on those that actually have a shot at winning the primary and most importantly winning the next election. Ron Paul has a zero chance of either.Ron Paul's economic policies have become pretty popular on the right in the last few years (even though they were shown to be wrong by the complete lack of high inflation rates in spite of continued monetary expansion... this complete lack of high inflation was predicted by other, more Keynesian economics which said that this is the expected behavior in a liquidity trap... Ron Paul has been predicting hyperinflation "in the near future" since at least the early 1980s, but it hasn't materialized:"Congressman Ron Paul, Congressional Record, February 23, 1981: "I believe such a [gold] standard to be not only desirable and feasible, but absolutely necessary if we aim to avoid the very real possibility of hyperinflation in the near future, and economic collapse. ""This and other ideas like all government spending is bad unless for defense are very influential these days no matter who the candidate is.And I think you are misjudging the chances of Ron Paul, who has been increasing in popularity for quite a while, now.
an average inflation rate over the last few years of less than 2%, right?
But you can join a credit union (or start one), which uses a similar lender-of-last-resort system.
And by the way, the Federal Reserve determines the money supply.
Maybe the Fed should be completely socialized, but going without any sort of ability to regulate the money supply will make you look pretty foolish when a market failure occurs.
He said he wouldn't charge corporate income tax on space companies.
IMHO, if the Ron Paul space policy were implemented, thousands of people would be flying in space in the near future.
Anyway, most of what he says is not Austrian economics.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/24/2011 04:14 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 12/24/2011 03:27 pmThis thread and others like it would be better served if they focussed on those that actually have a shot at winning the primary and most importantly winning the next election. Ron Paul has a zero chance of either.Ron Paul's economic policies have become pretty popular on the right in the last few years (even though they were shown to be wrong by the complete lack of high inflation rates in spite of continued monetary expansion... this complete lack of high inflation was predicted by other, more Keynesian economics which said that this is the expected behavior in a liquidity trap... Ron Paul has been predicting hyperinflation "in the near future" since at least the early 1980s, but it hasn't materialized:"Congressman Ron Paul, Congressional Record, February 23, 1981: "I believe such a [gold] standard to be not only desirable and feasible, but absolutely necessary if we aim to avoid the very real possibility of hyperinflation in the near future, and economic collapse. ""This and other ideas like all government spending is bad unless for defense are very influential these days no matter who the candidate is.And I think you are misjudging the chances of Ron Paul, who has been increasing in popularity for quite a while, now.Sorry, no. I have misjudged nothing. And it's not a judgement of any kind. It is concrete political observation and fact. He wil not be the nominee. Other then the Iowa caucuses, which frankly are not binding and have no real predictive value, he will cease to be relevant. Again, this is not an opinion, judgment or personal desire, it is hard, cold political fact. If this is not so come March / April, I will publicly "on this forum" admit I was wrong. But trust me, I am not.
Ron Paul's economic policies have become pretty popular on the right in the last few years (even though they were shown to be wrong by the complete lack of high inflation rates in spite of continued monetary expansion... this complete lack of high inflation was predicted by other, more Keynesian economics which said that this is the expected behavior in a liquidity trap...
The fact that there is low inflation in the US doesn't prove Austrian economics false.
Quote from: Warren Platts on 12/24/2011 10:14 pmThe fact that there is low inflation in the US doesn't prove Austrian economics false. I welcome a new thread on Austrian economics, but we are here to discuss Ron Paul's space policy.