Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (465178)	1/15/2012 8:58:27 AM
From: skinowski	11 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793958

The value of Ron Paul's ideas is that he is helping promote the ideas of von Mises and other "Austrians". What is shocking is that the still reigning economic fallacies are so persistent. Why is that so? Because Keynesian pro-spending theories are intrinsically pro-government. They justify high taxes and high spending by the government -- and money is power. The governments love them and need them. Did you read about the old "Broken Window" fallacy? I'm sure you know about it. That's the one about a boy who breaks a window. The shopkeeper then calls the glazier who replaces the window. This event triggers an avalanche of economic activity -- the glazier uses the money to pay the shoemaker, the later will pay the grocer, and so on. In other words, the braking of the window was supposed to be good for the economy. Bastiat indicated that this line of thinking misses the other, less visible side -- that the shopkeeper, because of the broken window expense, may have lost an opportunity to expand his business and to hire more workers. Or, he could have lent his savings to someone else who could have started a new business, etc., etc. There is no difference between the broken window story and the theories about "pipe priming" and "stimulatory" spending by governments, even at the cost of huge borrowing -- which is exactly what is dragging the world into a depression at this time. The fact that Ron Paul is the only major candidate who sees this clearly is... very bad. Hopefully his success is a sign that the public is beginning to suspect that the boyz and girls in Washington are self serving and clueless.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (465178)	1/15/2012 9:09:40 AM
From: miraje	7 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793958

though I disagree with all of them in many ways, including Ron Paul on the need for a gold standard I think that most who post here would agree with and support Paul's views on reducing the size and scope of the federal government and that many, including myself, support his libertarian stance on social issues. It's his views on foreign policy that I and many others see as being naive at best. I personally have no problem with the US having a leaner (and more flexible) military. I'm all for closing bases in places like Europe, relics of WWII and the Cold War, and letting them fund their own defenses to the level that they deem necessary. Also, I don't think that our entanglement in that primitive rat hole, Afghanistan, is worth the life of even one American soldier. Where I differ from Paul is that I have no illusions about the nature of the various rat holes around the world. He seems unable to accept that some regimes and cultures are truly evil, and viewing them through rose colored glasses won't alter that reality. There's a difference between downsizing involvement in foreign affairs and appeasing those who hate and detest our country and way of life. That fat clown in Venezuela and the loonies in Tehran will never "like us", but playing kissy face with outfits like that will only earn us their contempt. Plus, on top of a truly naive FP, Paul's age is an issue that can't be ignored. I do hope that the GOP doesn't push him and his supporters aside, though, as the next election might depend upon how they end up voting..