Wow! Ron Paul Gives Blue Print to Peace Prosperity and Liberty!

reply to post by longlostbrother



Ron Paul, Rothbard, Hyack, Friedman et al all have track records of their accuracy. You see I don't care about labels I care about results facts and evidence something very foreign to you. So it seems your over here where you get less static then on the Daily Paul where you know you would get readily trounced in your ignorance by those Ron Paul supporters you claim are so clueless! Care to share your handle you use over there?...

I digress I am curious though please tell us your feelings on Marx?

When Mr. Paul retires many people in this country will not be represented anymore. What happens when people no longer have a voice and an outlet ? We have fallen so far that only a hand full of men and women actually tell the hard truths.



When his voice is gone into the history books for the progressives to twist and change, liberty in this country will be gone and I believe never to return. The founding fathers have failed, the people have failed. The progressives using a simple thing like fear have undone so much it is staggering in depth.




We should all be ashamed and the world has every right to laugh at us.

If more people listened to Ron then we wouldn't be in the situation we are in. Debt would go to zero so quickly the elites wouldn't be able to stop the world from waking up.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Ron Paul, Rothbard, Hyack, Friedman et al all have track records of their accuracy. You see I don't care about labels I care about results facts and evidence something very foreign to you. So it seems your over here where you get less static then on the Daily Paul where you know you would get readily trounced in your ignorance by those Ron Paul supporters you claim are so clueless! Care to share your handle you use over there?...

I digress I am curious though please tell us your feelings on Marx?

I think Marx is rightly seen as having understood economics - I disagree with any sort of utopian solutions however...

I suppose you think Hayek's believe in a socialized stipend for the poor, and a socialised national health system fall into the accurate predictions you are talking about?

That's why he's such a great Libertarian?

Or maybe it was Hayek's insistence that pure laissez faire capitalism was actually a really bad thing?

Is that why Libertarians love him?

And Friendman, you know he FAVORED QE? Yes?

And who said this:

"The surest road to a healthy economic recovery is to increase the rate of monetary growth, to shift from tight money to easier money…. Defenders of the Bank of Japan will say, ‘How? The Bank has already cut its discount rate to 0.5 percent. What more can it do to increase the quantity of money?’ The answer is straightforward: The Bank of Japan can buy government bonds on the open market, paying for them with either currency or deposits at the Bank of Japan, what economists call high-powered money.”

I do seem to remember all the US Libertarians trashing laissez faire capitalism and dismissing Adam Smith... you do seem to know an awful lot about this huh?

longlostbrother writes:

I think Marx is rightly seen as having understood economics

Well there you have it folks some people stil think Marxs philosphy (who got his ideas on the division of labor among other things from Adam Smith by the way) is sound despite its repeated failure through out history...

Perhaps you could quote Hayek for us on those claims and then perhaps we can discuss it in context?

As for the Friedman quote did you look that up on the internet? LOL! No one has been 100% right about anything and I never said I agreed with everything any of them said. But of course that is is typical tactic for those who wish to avoid facts evidence and meaningful discussion. You still have not told us what you think was right about Adam Smith. I guess it would be too much trouble to pull something from his 5 volumes even though it is full of contradictions ;like how in book 1 he celebrates the division of labor as the purvayor of societal wealth and in book 5 he condemns it... He fails to acknowldge his mentors such as Turgot and Hutchinson and stole much from Cantillon.

Smith claimed to invent the concept of laissez-faire, ignoring earlier expressions of the concept by his own teachers and others such as Grotius, Pufendorf, and Boisguilbert among other French laissez-faire purveyors of thought in the seventeenth century...

Also why did Smith contradict his earlier celebrations of individual freedoms and laissez-fair capitalism with advocation of a progressive income tax/theft incidently which is one of the planks of the communist manifesto?

"The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expence of the rich; and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." Adam Smith book 5 Wealth of Nations..

Since you refuse to give any specifics of why you exalt Adam Smith above all others I suspect it is this sort of communistic thinking that endears you to him.

Originally posted by hawkiye
longlostbrother writes:

I think Marx is rightly seen as having understood economics

Well there you have it folks some people stil think Marxs philosphy (who got his ideas on the division of labor among other things from Adam Smith by the way) is sound despite its repeated failure through out history...

Perhaps you could quote Hayek for us on those claims and then perhaps we can discuss it in context?

As for the Friedman quote did you look that up on the internet? LOL! No one has been 100% right about anything and I never said I agreed with everything any of them said. But of course that is is typical tactic for those who wish to avoid facts evidence and meaningful discussion. You still have not told us what you think was right about Adam Smith. I guess it would be too much trouble to pull something from his 5 volumes even though it is full of contradictions ;like how in book 1 he celebrates the division of labor as the purvayor of societal wealth and in book 5 he condemns it... He fails to acknowldge his mentors such as Turgot and Hutchinson and stole much from Cantillon.

Smith claimed to invent the concept of laissez-faire, ignoring earlier expressions of the concept by his own teachers and others such as Grotius, Pufendorf, and Boisguilbert among other French laissez-faire purveyors of thought in the seventeenth century...

Also why did Smith contradict his earlier celebrations of individual freedoms and laissez-fair capitalism with advocation of a progressive income tax/theft incidently which is one of the planks of the communist manifesto?

"The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expence of the rich; and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." Adam Smith book 5 Wealth of Nations..

Since you refuse to give any specifics of why you exalt Adam Smith above all others I suspect it is this sort of communistic thinking that endears you to him.

edit on 24-11-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

I see you are basically illiterate.

I never said his political philosophy was right, in fact I said his utopian solutions were wrong.

What I SAID was that he is seen to understand economic theory... and hey, I'm not the only one that says that:

www.theatlantic.com...

I also am not a huge fan of Adam Smith, as he's portrayed by the right, unlike most Libertarians, who misquote his invisible hand line ad nauseum.

I assume you think Marx's belief in:

"A progressive tax system which places primary reliance on the personal income tax"

Is socialism as well...?

As for your desire for me to quote Hayek, so you can discuss him with me... are you familiar with him or not??

As he is one of the economists you claim is always on the right side of history, like Ron Paul - or - let me guess - you just pasted his name from the Ron Paul forum, where other people like yourself simply parrot this BS and pretend your all super clever to one another...?

Tell me this, do Libertarians believe the government should feed, house and clothe the poor?

Oh and hey, Adam Smith, the guy you dislike...

www.libertarianism.org...

His work lived on, and he became a guiding light whose love of liberty helped make the 19th century the most peaceful period in modern history. Now some two hundred years after Smith’s death, economists have identified technical errors in his work, yet his reputation towers over seductive challengers like Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. Nobel Laureate George Stigler dubbed Smith “the patron saint of free enterprise.” H.L. Mencken declared: “There is no more engrossing book in the English language than Adam Smith’s ‘The Wealth of Nations.’” He’s a major presence as liberty is being reborn at the dawn of the 21st century.

But sure, what would the biggest Libertarian website know about what Libertarians believe?

en.wikipedia.org...

Oh right.

poor ron, giving all hes got but never gettin anythin back, ignored by the media and so on.. sad

Originally posted by Sannhet
poor ron, giving all hes got but never gettin anythin back, ignored by the media and so on.. sad

I think he has gotten a lot back. He has woken up millions and sparked a movement toward liberty. For most of his 40 years trying to do that he got almost nothing back but that all changed starting about 5 years ago.

It may take another 5 or 10 years but the seeds he planted for liberty will eventually bear fruit!

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by Sannhet
poor ron, giving all hes got but never gettin anythin back, ignored by the media and so on.. sad

I think he has gotten a lot back. He has woken up millions and sparked a movement toward liberty. For most of his 40 years trying to do that he got almost nothing back but that all changed starting about 5 years ago.

It may take another 5 or 10 years but the seeds he planted for liberty will eventually bear fruit!

I'm guessing that the fact of your non-response to my questions means you DON'T actually know anything about those economists after all... as I suspected.

Very typical Ron Paul supporter.... smartest guy in the room as long as no one asks you any follow up questions...

this is a great example of why no one takes you Paul supporters, or your candidate, seriously - his ideology doesn't bear scrutiny.

reply to post by longlostbrother

I'm guessing

I see no point in continuin responding to non-sense. You seem to think quite highly of yourself rest assured no one else here does.. The quote above pretty much sums up your entire body of knowledge with this regard. I have exposed all your feeble attempts at arguments for the tripe they are.

Ron Paul has already solidified his legacy as a champion of liberty despite pathetic attempts like yours to try and smear him. have a nice day...

***ATTENTION PLEASE***

The topic of this thread is

Wow! Ron Paul Gives Blue Print to Peace Prosperity and Liberty!

Please refrain from personal attacks and stay on topic

Thank you,

DaveSpanners
ATS Moderator

Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.
ATS Terms & Conditions
YOU are responsible for your own posts.
ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.
Go after the ball not the player.
How Not To Be Banned From ATS...Or, A Word About Politeness.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

I'm guessing

I see no point in continuin responding to non-sense. You seem to think quite highly of yourself rest assured no one else here does.. The quote above pretty much sums up your entire body of knowledge with this regard. I have exposed all your feeble attempts at arguments for the tripe they are.

Ron Paul has already solidified his legacy as a champion of liberty despite pathetic attempts like yours to try and smear him. have a nice day...

LOL.

So can you show me proof that, "one else here" "thinks highly" of me?

Or were you just guessing?

And if you were guessing than that means, using your logic, that everything you've said is a complete lie...?

Yes?

This little move by you is obviously an attempt to ignore the questions I asked you, because you can't answer them, because you don't in fact know anything much about the economists you claimed were so "on the right side of history"...

You can't explain why they are pro-central bank, pro-gold stand, pro-QE, pro-welfare and housing for the poor, etc., etc.

Sigh. This always happens with the Paul folks - when you look just a little below the surface, they don't have a clue about what they claim to be experts on... and then, when it's pointed out to them them simply refuse to engage.

Sad sad sad.