Ron Paul Feels Like A Canary In A Coal Mine

[sailingaway]

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas., said Thursday that there's a reason why his presidential campaign lacks media attention: he's speaking truth to power.

“I think I'm attacking the status quo like never before,” Paul said on MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe.' “They're not going to give me a boost because I'm challenging the whole banking system, the military industrial complex, the welfare state, our foreign policy.”

“I think there's a lot more support out there for what I'm talking about than they realize,” Paul said.

Paul pointed to a recent straw poll win in California and enthusiastic crowds at the University of Iowa as evidence that his libertarian ideas have gained traction. Paul is notorious for attracting enthusiastic crowds of college students.


http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/ron-paul-feels-like-a-canary-in-a-coal-mine-20111103#.TrKmWV49ZRM.twitter

http://petcaretips.net/canary_coal_mine.gif

[Matthew5]

“I don’t talk in terms of austerity and sacrifice,” Paul said. “The people who sacrifice are the people who have been living off the government.”

This is exactly what needs to be said to charm seniors and older neoconservatives (thinking of my grandfather).

[1stAmendguy]

Paul is notorious for attracting enthusiastic crowds of college students.


Really? Yeah like that's bad or something.

[freeforall]

Can someone help me understand this more clearly?

If the whole world is bankrupt, who has the wealth? Where did it go? Isn't someone benefiting from the misfortune of everyone else? How can the whole world be bankrupt at the same time?

My husband's response is that the wealth has been redistributd to the masses and they are not paying it back. Meaning it has been spread out so much that it disappeared.

I'm not sure we are really understanding this for what it is. Can someone explain it me in very simple terms?

[specsaregood]

If the whole world is bankrupt, who has the wealth? Where did it go? Isn't someone benefiting from the misfortune of everyone else? How can the whole world be bankrupt at the same time?


It's all imaginary, digits in computers and notes in ledgers.

[sailingaway]

Really? Yeah like that's bad or something.

I picked up on that too. Criminals and scandals are notorious, Ron is famous for galvanizing young people.

[Original_Intent]

Can someone help me understand this more clearly?

If the whole world is bankrupt, who has the wealth? Where did it go? Isn't someone benefiting from the misfortune of everyone else? How can the whole world be bankrupt at the same time?

My husband's response is that the wealth has been redistributd to the masses and they are not paying it back. Meaning it has been spread out so much that it disappeared.

I'm not sure we are really understanding this for what it is. Can someone explain it me in very simple terms?

Your husband has it backwards. And don;t get me wrong, I am a free market capitalist, but where the wealth has gone is to the CRONY capitalists, the Masters of the Universe, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, The Soros', etc.

There are only two possible outcomes: The world financial system collapses, or global economic slavery - not the 99% to the 1%, the 99.9999% to the .00001%.

Of course, the .00001% have convinced the 1% that they will be taken care of (thru corporate welfare) and roughly 50% of the 99% have been convinced that government will take care of them (thru general welfare). And it won't be until everyone realizes how they are being robbed that anything will change, and we had better hope that realization comes before we are disarmed or are otherwise completely subjugated.

[Badger Paul]

"Paul is notorious for attracting enthusiastic crowds of college students. "

This is "notorious"? Why? Does the writer understand the negative connentation of the word?

How 'bout "famous" or "well known" or "usually".

[KingNothing]

"Isn't someone benefiting from the misfortune of everyone else? "


...sort of. Wealth has been accumulating at the top, while everyone else has been suffering. But that isn't really the proper way to view things. What has happened is that artificially low interest rates and reckless fiscal policies have created an excess supply of credit and an incentive for that credit to be used unproductively. This is why we've seen so many huge bubbles in the past couple decades, most notably in housing. When these bubbles form in one sector of the economy, investments and jobs move there. When the bubble begins to deflate, when the investors begin to find that their returns are decreasing and their initial investments vanishing because the market has become so distorted that no Rational person would invest where they have, a panic occurs and the bubble rapidly deflates. This means that the jobs and the credit in that sector of the economy disappear.

The cure to the problem is not pleasant. The bad investments and bad debt must be liquidated so credit can flow to worthwhile opportunities. Jobs must be lost and the workers retrained so that human capital can be put to more productive uses. It's a process that takes time to unwind, but unwind it must.

Globalization also must be considered. As the rest of the world sees increases in productivity, it can better compete with American workers. On the whole, this is good for ALL of humanity, including Americans. But there are bumps along the road. Workers in America will temporarily be displaced when jobs go overseas to people who can perform the same task at a cheaper rate, which lowers the final cost of the product for the consumer. This balances out over time though, and American workers have more capital at their disposal which -among other things- increases the productive value of their labor. This means that jobs will be found in America. ...we just need the right regulatory environment, the right fiscal policies, and the right monetary regime to make it happen.

[kylejack]

Can someone help me understand this more clearly?

If the whole world is bankrupt, who has the wealth? Where did it go? Isn't someone benefiting from the misfortune of everyone else? How can the whole world be bankrupt at the same time?

My husband's response is that the wealth has been redistributd to the masses and they are not paying it back. Meaning it has been spread out so much that it disappeared.

I'm not sure we are really understanding this for what it is. Can someone explain it me in very simple terms?
The whole world is not bankrupt. Systems of power and privilege are shifting the wealth into the wealthiest people. Income inequality is out of control because the rich can buy special privileges.

[Travlyr]

The whole world is not bankrupt. Systems of power and privilege are shifting the wealth into the wealthiest people. Income inequality is out of control because the rich can buy special privileges.

I agree. The amount of the world's wealth doesn't change. What changes is who controls it. Right now the top 1% control the wealth. When this all shakes out the distribution of wealth will be much more equitable among the masses.

[harikaried]

This is exactly what needs to be said to charm seniors and older neoconservatives (thinking of my grandfather).Just to be clear, Ron Paul is talking about lobbyists and corporate executives that have been getting so much more money than seniors. Think bailouts and the Fed's secret loans.

Just look at the next quote down:

"We need to take care of our people at home.”

[sailingaway]

Just to be clear, Ron Paul is talking about lobbyists and corporate executives that have been getting so much more money than seniors. Think bailouts and the Fed's secret loans.

Just look at the next quote down:

"We need to take care of our people at home.”

Yeah. Ron said that when he went to Congress he expected to find all this money going to health care and welfare and found that wasn't where the money was going at all, but to special interests of all stripes.

[FreeMind&Market]

They didn't give the full quotes:

“I don’t talk in terms of austerity and sacrifice,” Paul said. “Its not a sacrifice to for you to get your freedom back, to get the market back, and get to keep your money and let you spend your money. The people who have to sacrifice are the people who have been living off the government and living of the tax-payers.”

"In September '03, he [Paul] predicted exactly what was going to happen with Fannie and Freedie and the banks... its going to create a housing bubble... its going spread a virus through-out he entire economy ... and when it pops,were in big trouble"

Where did the wealth go? It was pseudo-wealth created through inflation (and the resulting speculation). There is still wealth out there, some earned legitimately through hard work and sound investment, but stolen others illegitimately through manipulation of the system. Part of the game is that the politically powerful use inflation (and other tricks) to take wealth from the productive: Producers, moochers and looters in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. I've seen this on a small scale in local politics where business people can be grouped into two groups: the ones that are generally opposed to government interference and the ones that favor government interference because they try to use it to their business advantage. Not all financially successful people are politically powerful. The pols love to blame "the rich" in their class warfare, when in reality its the politically powerful that are stealing from the rest.

[Travlyr]

Good comment: Occupy the White House. Vote Ron Paul.

[FreeMind&Market]

I agree. The amount of the world's wealth doesn't change. What changes is who controls it. Right now the top 1% control the wealth. When this all shakes out the distribution of wealth will be much more equitable among the masses.

People do create (and destroy) value, so wealth does change. This is not a zero-sum game. Think of total wealth as a pie: Free-markets by their natural will grow the size of the pie; inflation created by increasing the money supply simply chops the pie into smaller pieces.

[mczerone]

Can someone help me understand this more clearly?

If the whole world is bankrupt, who has the wealth? Where did it go? Isn't someone benefiting from the misfortune of everyone else? How can the whole world be bankrupt at the same time?

My husband's response is that the wealth has been redistributd to the masses and they are not paying it back. Meaning it has been spread out so much that it disappeared.

I'm not sure we are really understanding this for what it is. Can someone explain it me in very simple terms?

Government accounts are bankrupt. Government employees, leaders, and lobbyists are insulated from these accounts. Obama will live comfortably off his personal wealth, while he sells the government agencies and taxpayers up the river. The same can be said for the whole of the apparatus - they don't face liability for their spending, they just increase taxes.

The private sector covers all govt debt. Those within the public sector only can shuffle it around or create more - they can't pay it off.

[Eric21ND]

Can someone help me understand this more clearly?

If the whole world is bankrupt, who has the wealth? Where did it go? Isn't someone benefiting from the misfortune of everyone else? How can the whole world be bankrupt at the same time?

My husband's response is that the wealth has been redistributed to the masses and they are not paying it back. Meaning it has been spread out so much that it disappeared.

I'm not sure we are really understanding this for what it is. Can someone explain it me in very simple terms?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRjUVmMZv-g

[Travlyr]

People do create (and destroy) value, so wealth does change. This is not a zero-sum game. Think of total wealth as a pie: Free-markets by their natural will grow the size of the pie; inflation created by increasing the money supply simply chops the pie into smaller pieces.
I think we are saying the same thing. The world has abundant, yet finite, resources, mostly untapped. The amount of resources (wealth) is not dependent on who owns it. What changes is who gets to benefit from them. Laissez-faire free-markets puts the resources to productive use for the most amount of people while central planners hoard resources and waste what is exploited by building destructive products (war machines, etc.).

[harikaried]

If the whole world is bankrupt, who has the wealth? Where did it go?The whole world but China? To where are US Dollars going?

[ZanZibar]

"Paul is notorious for attracting enthusiastic crowds of college students. "

This is "notorious"? Why? Does the writer understand the negative connentation of the word? A lot of people don't know the meaning of that word. Some people think it means notoriety or noteworthy. However the author in this case very well may have meant to add a negative connotation, considering the source.

[McDermit]

A lot of people don't know the meaning of that word. Some people think it means notoriety or noteworthy. However the author in this case very well may have meant to add a negative connotation, considering the source.It does mean noteworthy, famous, well-known, etc.

It can be used negatively, but isn't necessarily negative.

Some of ya'll are crazy.

[Original_Intent]

It does mean noteworthy, famous, well-known, etc.

It can be used negatively, but isn't necessarily negative.

Some of ya'll are crazy.

no·to·ri·ous (n -tôr - s, -t r -). adj. Known widely and usually unfavorably; infamous: a notorious gangster; a district notorious for vice. ...

[mczerone]

It does mean noteworthy, famous, well-known, etc.

It can be used negatively, but isn't necessarily negative.

Some of ya'll are crazy.

The technical definition is with negative connotation, but colloquial use allows it to be a neutral term for "famous". Assuming the colloquial use here, some people will still see it with negative connotation. Assuming the proper use, it's a despicable attempt to get a negative impression across while masking it from certain people.

Either way, a professional writer should know of both uses, and should be able to Clearly say what they mean. If they wanted to say "well known for" or "note-worthy", they could have. They chose "notorious," either stupidly or evilly.

[wgadget]

Just to be clear, Ron Paul is talking about lobbyists and corporate executives that have been getting so much more money than seniors. Think bailouts and the Fed's secret loans.

Just look at the next quote down:

"We need to take care of our people at home.”

Say...Wasn't Herman Cain a lobbyist AND a corporate executive? AND a Fed chairman?

[Original_Intent]

Say...Wasn't Herman Cain a lobbyist AND a corporate executive? AND a Fed chairman?

Wow. Someone needs to say that in a debate..."If we all agree that our problems originate from the Fed, and lobbyists, and corporate cronyism, do we really want a nominee who was a Fed chairman, was a lobbyist, and was a corporate executive...?"


Great point!

[heavenlyboy34]

Say...Wasn't Herman Cain a lobbyist AND a corporate executive? AND a Fed chairman?
Yep. ;) But don't expect the MSM to talk about it much. :P