warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Every once in a while they just can't help it but whip this guy out of storage, can they?
Ron Paul full "In Depth" interview on C-SPAN 8/3/14
- Thread starter Cryptic_Snow
- Start date
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
I predict that the 3 hours will amount to "hurray for libertarianism!" which I can formulate in 3 words, thereby saving 2.99 hours.
If by "extreme" you mean extremely different from the status quo, then yes. But if you mean extremely different from the way things should be, then no. He wants pretty basic stuff: abolish the Fed, a better monetary standard, repeal the Patriot Act, flat tax, government accountability, balance the budget.
Those certainly are fairly simple changes in a manner of speaking, which is part of the problem - it doesn't seem he understands the economic implications of abolishing the Fed, imposing a commodity standard, imposing a flat tax, and balancing the budget. I'm not sure why those changes would bring us closer to the way "things should be"; in fact, as I understand it, they would be a recipe for a terrible and really bizarre economic collapse.
But I really don't mind listening to him, even if I think most of his ideas make no sense. 3 hours is too long, though. Are there any good segments of this interview, or is somebody able to summarize it (in something of a length between 3 words and 3 hours), or could a shorter (preferably < 20 min) Paul clip be substituted for this one?
Failing that, nothing but Paul-bashing is going to happen in this thread.
But I really don't mind listening to him, even if I think most of his ideas make no sense. 3 hours is too long, though. Are there any good segments of this interview, or is somebody able to summarize it (in something of a length between 3 words and 3 hours), or could a shorter (preferably < 20 min) Paul clip be substituted for this one?
Failing that, nothing but Paul-bashing is going to happen in this thread.
The thing is, Ron Paul is not exactly in line with other, current generation, conservatives in the US on a number of issues. But much of what he wants is extreme reactionary conservatism. End the Fed, a better monetary standard, flat tax, balance the budget, states rights, these are reactionary conservatism at their most extreme. And are in no sense related to liberty at all.
These things have no existence outside of the deliberate attempt to strip as much liberty from the American people as possible.
There are other issue where he does distance himself from hardcore authoritarians. But those are almost all in foreign policy.
Now, to give the devil his due, he was right on Iraq. And had the guts to say so, while most other people were either for the war, or at least so afraid of opposing it that they backed it by default.
But isolationism is not, in and of itself, a pro-liberty position. In fact, it harkens back to an even older brand of conservatism than the paleo-conservatives can lay claim to.
CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
I'm probably the biggest Ron Paul fan here, I'll probably watch the video.
@Cutlass, I highly recommend reading End the Fed for you.
@Cutlass, I highly recommend reading End the Fed for you.
Why? The most moronic idea in the world doesn't get any less moronic because someone got a book published on the subject.
CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
I challenge you to read it. And I fail to see how getting rid of something we only got so we could fund an Empire is moronic at all.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
I'm fine getting rid of the Fed so long as we replace it with another organization independent from the executive and legislative branches with the mandate of regulating the money supply and implementing monetary policies.
The Fed exists today to regulate the money supply and complement federal fiscal policy. Getting rid of any way to regulate the US dollar -which for all intents and purposes is the single most important currency in the world- would be so bad of a decision that it would be the goal to which bad decisions aspire to be when they are learning how to be bad decisions.
The Fed exists today to regulate the money supply and complement federal fiscal policy. Getting rid of any way to regulate the US dollar -which for all intents and purposes is the single most important currency in the world- would be so bad of a decision that it would be the goal to which bad decisions aspire to be when they are learning how to be bad decisions.
The reason we have the Fed is because the markets are chaotic and periodically wreck the economy. And no private entity could prevent that. It has nothing to do with any 'empire'.
CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
All that the Fed has done is destroy the value of the dollar. It should be replaced by a commodity standard, so our currency is actually backed up by something, and therefore actually worth something.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Our currency isn't worth something?
The government prints little green paper rectangles that incentivize me to do janitorial work over the summer so I can use those little green paper rectangles to buy stuff. I'd say those little green paper rectangles are worth something.
In all seriousness, complaining about how the Fed 'destroys the value of the dollar' when the US dollar is still one of the most stable and valuable widely used currencies is laughable. Until you've had fun in Belarus or Ukraine with their crappy currencies (which I have done) lets not talk about how the value of the US dollar has been destroyed by the Fed.
(Fun Fact: The smallest currency denomination printed in Belarus is the 10 ruble note. For a price point comparison, when I was in Belarus, 1USD was equal to about 8,000ru. Since then, their currency has weakened falling to around 10,000ru per USD. And this was after they got their inflation vaguely under control.)
KMRblue1027
Deity
I'm sorry you fail to understand how the concept of FIAT currency works but that doesn't change the fact that eliminating the Federal Revere is literally the stupidest economic choice possible.
Edit: Grammar cleanup
madviking
north american scum
Like I said, if by "extreme" you mean strong departure from the status quo, then yes, he is extreme. The Fed should never have existed in the first place. In fact...if it didn't, the national debt would be about one-millionth of what it is today. Just because Washington gets loonier and more corrupt every year, that doesn't make the people who still see the straight & narrow more extremist. But that depends on how you define extremist.
Ron left Washington and Rand showed up in Washington. I would argue that Washington got slightly less loony after that exchange.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Quite sure that Ron Paul and Rand Paul are actually the same person, trying to infiltrate Washington and then hold it hostage with their lizard overlords or something.
Zack
99% hot gas
Paul's never been president. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and say "I would do x, y, and z and that would fix anything" when you never have to try and actually do x, y, and z. People had a much better view of Obama before he was president.
I challenge you to read an economics textbook.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Similar threads
