Sunday 8 January 2012

Ron Paul: The other Republican hopeful who isn't completely insane

My latest blogpost: Ron Paul: The other Republican hopeful who isn't completely insaneTweet this! Posted by Mark Wadsworth at 15:22

Labels: , , , ,

16 comments:

Lola said...

The only major piece of insanity that I can detect is that he is so frightingly sane that to everyone else he appears insane.

Apropos all that, the other day I was looking up the Quakers and I came across this:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A34-37&version=KJV

8 January 2012 at 16:19
chefdave said...

He seems like a decent chap, but I suspect he's a faux-lib to the core.

8 January 2012 at 16:34
Bayard said...

L, is that from the Epistle to the Laconians?

8 January 2012 at 16:42
Mark Wadsworth said...

L, probably. Can you explain the link?

CD, his campaign website says he'd prefer "Flat Tax or Fair Tax" to the current system ... but [waffle].

Flat [income] tax is fair enough but their idea of a Fair Tax is a swingeing VAT on productive activity and complete exemptions for monopoly income.

So yes, he's more Faux Lib than proper lib, but he's still better than the rest.

B, I await his answer.

8 January 2012 at 17:14
Derek said...

Agree with chefdave. Ron Paul's saving grace is that he is the one Republican candidate with firm principles who has not been tainted by any hint of corruption. If elected Prez I have no doubt that he will try to do exactly what he says he wants to do. Can't say that I believe that of any of the others.

Unfortunately the fact that he isn't lying only counts for so much since some of his principles would put the US economy even further into the tank than it already is. Mind you that's pretty much true of all the other contenders. And of the Democrats, if truth be told. Glad I don't have to choose between them all.

8 January 2012 at 17:37
Lola said...

MW The Link: This is the Bible's bit about taking oaths. Most oaths are asked for by the state on the basis that if you swear them you will tell the truth, or behave in a manner that the state considers proper. The implication is that before you made the oath your behaviour was suspect, so by swearing the oath you are admitting to dual standards. This is what is behind the Quaker's 'my yes is my yes and my no is my no' doctrine. It is also well explained in Catch 22 in the passage on the Great Big Loyalty Oath Campaign (a skit on McCarthyism).

In the real world, as a blokey running a financial advice business the FSA require us to sign a similar missive setting out standards they think we should adhere to. I refuse to sign it on the forgoing basis, as it implies a dual standard of honesty or behaviour. They don't like this...

Ron Paul's fairly true libertarianism would not countenance swearing of such oaths demanded by state bureaucrats and functionaries.

PS I do not require my staff to sign the FSA's Great Big Loyalty Oath either...Our Contract of Employment makes very clear the standards and duties we expect from employees, and needs no reinforcement. In truth you could appoint someone on the basis of one short letter containing the Ten Commandments, underlining the six that refer to the Affairs of Men. The balance of the typical 4 to 10 page employment contract is there largely to accommodate the whims of capricious functionaries and the power grabbing of politicians: and to give opportunity to lawyers to charge lots of fees...

8 January 2012 at 17:39
Mark Wadsworth said...

D, I suppose I ought to read his website properly. Which of his proposals do you think would make things worse (Fair Tax aside)?

L, I like that about the Quakers. Apparently they don't wear wedding rings either.

8 January 2012 at 17:49
Lola said...

MW. In my rather underdeveloped personal philosophy I had come to the same point as the Quakers without knowing it. If you are committed to telling the truth then why should you be queried? You may be surprised to learn that I really worked on this when I did a spell of direct sales (door to door) and the only way you could possibly be,, if you wanted to be successful, was (apart from a committment to very hard work) absolute honesty - since all the other reps and competitors were mostly lazy and with often questionable morality.

8 January 2012 at 18:44
Anonymous said...

Great sketch. Really captures his character and personal aura. :)

8 January 2012 at 22:33
Mark Wadsworth said...

L, that's the dilemma in situations where everybody else lies and exaggerates (high pressure selling, CVs and so on). The potential customer/employer instinctively knocks off a third from what you claim, so if you are honest, you struggle to close the sale/get the job.

AC, thanks. I haven't really seen or heard enough about him to decide what he's really like, so I had to guess.

8 January 2012 at 23:53
Anonymous said...

He's more insane than all the others put together.

AC1

9 January 2012 at 00:44
diogenes said...

the really weird thing is that the media ignores him...so my 3 rules might not apply strictly to Paul. The question is, if he campaigns for a year without any of the media muck-throwing scandal stuff attaching to him (because they all ignore him), does this mean he is the saintliest man in America, and thus qualifies for the the presidency? in which case, he is insane.

this is a co nundrum.

9 January 2012 at 01:53
Derek said...

RP has reached the point where the media are finding him increasingly difficult to ignore, so he is beginning to receive some grudging comment. Mostly belittling of course. But the "ignore Ron Paul" policy was becoming so obvious that even the US public was noticing, so Something Had To Be Done to maintain the "unbiased media" myth.

9 January 2012 at 05:25
Derek said...

Mark, I like his policies on the war on drugs and withdrawal from foreign adventuring. I'm not keen on his gold standard policy and though I like his "reduce Government spending" policy in principle, I think that government spending has to be replaced by a citizens dividend of equivalent value in order to avoid massive short term deflation and unemployment. RP doesn't advocate that, as far as I can see. Hence his cuts to the military budget, etc. while laudable in principle would have major undesirable short term economic effects.

Basically I look at the taxation/spending balance from an MMT point of view. And from that point of view Ron Paul's economic policies scare me.

The strange thing is that Georgists would advocate many of the same policies as RP, yet because of our LVT/CI single tax policies we can avoid the deflation trap and make unemployment economically meaningless. Sadly the only potential candidate who would support anything remotely Georgist would be the Democrat, Ralph Nader, and he doesn't have a hope in hell.

9 January 2012 at 05:52
Lola said...

MW @ 23.53 (Why weren't you in the land of nod?) Quite. This was 'high pressure selling', but what this really means is high pressure on the seller, not the buyer. the reps feel very under pressure. Best thing is not to let it get to you, and then be truthful. Plus hard work. FYI My cold call contcat over a three year period averaged 199 per WEEK. This gave me more opportunity so my presentation rate at about 7 point something was higher than average, which again let me makew bigger orders. And I was as straight as I knew how. Actually there's a lot more to this...I might do a post...

9 January 2012 at 11:41
DBC Reed said...

Derek is right: the gold standard in this day and age is ludicrous.
The (first ) Depression started to lift when we came off the Gold Standard and interest rates dropped from 5% in Feb 1932 to 2% in April.House building went mad:3 million between 1933 and 1939.
Why would you want to restrict the amount of money by some arbitary standard?The present system seeks to balance the volume of money with a commensurate value in production.(The velocity proponents now get short shrift)But the present balance makes more sense and avoids the Cross of Gold situation.

9 January 2012 at 19:42

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)