and naive on foreign policy
---
not naive ... realistic
intervention is a failed policy that must be eliminated
On Nov 5, 9:21 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> PlainOl wrote:
>
> "*Paul is the only presidential candidate proposing policies that address
> the country's fundamental economic problems*"
>
> ======
>
> Not exactly true. Paul's "de-stimulus" is pretty much a carbon copy of
> Newt Gingrich's "American Solutions"; formulated years before Paul's 2011
> campaign announcement.
>
> In general, I agree with both Mr. Gingrich, and if Paul wasn't so far out
> and naive on foreign policy, and would remove his cuts in defense, I
> could go along with Dr. Paul's plan.
>
> 2011/11/4 plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Paul is the only presidential candidate proposing policies that
> > address the country's fundamental economic problems
> > ---
> > a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for America and our citizens
>
> > On Nov 4, 11:14 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > "Now, readers can be forgiven for not being familiar with the depression
> > of 1946, because there actually wasn't one. But many Keynesian economists
> > were predicting in 1945 the onset of economic depression as a consequence
> > of peacetime demobilization. However, the exact opposite occurred, because
> > the end of the war brought an enormous peace dividend in the form of a
> > two-thirds reduction in government spending as well as the removal of most
> > of the wartime economic regulations."Ron Paul's De-Stimulus Planby Tim
> > Kelly, November 4, 2011
> > > Congressman Ron Paul has put forth an economic plan that calls for
> > serious cuts in the size, budget, and power of the federal government. He
> > has also proposed policies that would end the Fed-driven inflation
> > responsible for the global economic meltdown. This is truly a de-stimulus
> > plan.
> > > Paul's plan would immediately cut $1 trillion from the federal budget by
> > closing down five cabinet departments, slashing regulations, and
> > withdrawing troops from overseas. During a Paul presidency, the U.S.
> > government would cease being the world's policeman, and the empire would be
> > liquidated in the interests of the both the economy and the Constitution.
> > > Such a radical and necessary shift in foreign policy would be difficult
> > for those Americans dependent on the war economy and accustomed to seeing
> > their government as a colossus bestriding the world. But now is the time
> > for Americans to face reality and admit that our country's exalted global
> > position has been a corrupting experience, and it is simply no longer
> > affordable.
> > > Such a sharp reduction in the federal budget, coupled with much tighter
> > monetary policy would stop the flow of so-called stimulus spending from the
> > economy. This would be the beginning of a painful readjustment period, as
> > people necessarily reduced their consumption, and the economy liquidated
> > years of inflation and debt-financed malinvestment. Unemployment would
> > likely go up in the short term as zombie firms deprived of their periodic
> > fix of easy money went bankrupt, and government payrolls were thinned.
> > > But it would also be the beginning of genuine economic recovery, because
> > the private sector, relieved of the burdens of a metastasized state, would
> > begin to accumulate real capital and invest in viable enterprises. Real
> > jobs, not government jobs, would be created, and Americans would soon find
> > themselves earning more, because their currency, no longer devalued by the
> > Fed's printing presses, would actually gain purchasing power.
> > > No doubt Keynesians would still be out there preaching the necessity of
> > countercyclical fiscal and monetary policies and warning of the dire
> > consequences of deflation. There would also be no shortage of hack
> > politicians and rent-seeking special-interest groups willing to spread the
> > Keynesian message of more government spending. And it would be naïve to
> > expect the financial elite to sit quietly as their privileges were taken
> > away. A few select firms on Wall Street reap enormous profits from the bond
> > market, and under the current system they are free to engage in essentially
> > risk-free speculation due to their "too-big-to-fail" status.
> > > Paul has defended his de-stimulus program to inquisitors by correctly
> > pointing out that similar "austerity measures" have been very successful in
> > the past in spurring economic recovery and therefore should be used as
> > roadmaps for recovery today. During a recent appearance on NBC'sMeet the
> > Press, Paul tutored host David Gregory on "the depression of 1946."
> > > Now, readers can be forgiven for not being familiar with the depression
> > of 1946, because there actually wasn't one. But many Keynesian economists
> > were predicting in 1945 the onset of economic depression as a consequence
> > of peacetime demobilization. However, the exact opposite occurred, because
> > the end of the war brought an enormous peace dividend in the form of a
> > two-thirds reduction in government spending as well as the removal of most
> > of the wartime economic regulations.
> > > Jason E. Taylor and Richard K. Vedder explain in greater detail in their
> > article"Stimulus by Spending Cuts: Lessons from 1946":Historically minded
> > readers may be saying, &147;There was a Depression in 1946? I never heard
> > about that." You never heard of it because it never happened. However, the
> > &147;Depression of 1946" may be one of the most widely predicted events
> > that never happened in American history. As the war was winding down,
> > leading Keynesian economists of the day argued, as Alvin Hansen did, that
> > &147;the government cannot just disband the Army, close down munitions
> > factories, stop building ships, and remove all economic controls." After
> > all, the belief was that the only thing that finally ended the Great
> > Depression of the 1930s was the dramatic increase in government involvement
> > in the economy. In fact, Hansen's advice went unheeded. Government canceled
> > war contracts, and its spending fell from $84 billion in 1945 to under $30
> > billion in 1946. By 1947, the government was paying back its massive
> > wartime debts by running a budget surplus of close to 6 percent of GDP. The
> > military released around 10 million Americans back into civilian life. Most
> > economic controls were lifted, and all were gone less than a year after V-J
> > Day. In short, the economy underwent what the historian Jack Stokes Ballard
> > refers to as the &147;shock of peace." From the economy's perspective, it
> > was the &147;shock of de-stimulus."Another historical precedent Paul can
> > point to is the depression of 1920. Very few people have heard of this
> > "economic crisis." This is most likely due to its short duration and the
> > fact that Warren G. Harding, a president not held in high esteem by
> > mainstream historians, was able to reverse it with laissez-faire policies
> > that are anathema to Keynesian orthodoxy.
> > > Historian Thomas E. Woods Jr. provides this synopsis of Harding's
> > successful de-stimulus program:The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By
> > that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and
> > GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce
> > Herbert Hoover falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire
> > economics urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to
> > turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.Instead of "fiscal stimulus,"
> > Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922.
> > The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were
> > slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third.
> > The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one
> > economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the
> > Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and
> > fight the contraction." By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were
> > already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7
> > percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923.Paul's de-stimulus plan has
> > been given the cold shoulder in Washington, DC, but that's to be expected.
> > After all, politicians are in the business of dividing plunder, and
> > proposing to take an axe to the federal budget is no way to win friends and
> > influence people inside the Beltway. But most Americans are now skeptical
> > of stimulus programs, because the plans have clearly failed to reverse the
> > country's economic downturn. Indeed, more people are coming to realize that
> > the orgy in government spending since 2008 has only accelerated the
> > decline. Moreover, there is serious concern regarding the federal
> > government's unprecedented budget deficits and their potential for sparking
> > hyperinflation.
> > > Perhaps enough voters will come to realize that Paul is the only
> > presidential candidate proposing policies that address the country's
> > fundamental economic problems, and perhaps they will reward him
> > appropriately for his insight and statesmanship.
> >http://www.fff.org/comment/com1111c.asp
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment