Moonlight Graham Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) Found this video today on another forum site. Yesterday on these forums i said this: What I find ridiculous is after the dotcom bubble burst around 2000, interest rates were lowered and borrowing increased, which was a major cause of the housing crisis/bubble and other debt problems that led to the current recession, and in response to this we have lowered interest rates again to encourage more borrowing/debt and likely causing another bubble in the near future. This video of Ron Paul is impressive in his foresight/predictions on many matters, and he echoes what i says above...only 9 years ago! Edited June 16, 2011 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 Yes, even guys like Peter Schiff predicted the burst as well, they all called him a loon. Now the news outlets have him on regularly, and I've even seen many apologize to him after the fact. The one thing I like most about Ron Paul is his consistency. He keeps saying the same things, like no one is listening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 Yes, even guys like Peter Schiff predicted the burst as well, they all called him a loon. Now the news outlets have him on regularly, and I've even seen many apologize to him after the fact. The one thing I like most about Ron Paul is his consistency. He keeps saying the same things, like no one is listening. Even Karl Marx correctly diagnosed problems. Both of their proposed solutions are wanting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 Even Karl Marx correctly diagnosed problems. Both of their proposed solutions are wanting. Schiff also has solutions. As does Ron Paul. And their solutions are different compared to everyone else. And it's the stuff that everyone else is doing seems to be bringing everything down and down and down.... something has to change, it's going to hurt either way, but if the system is not corrected soon, then it will hurt a lot more later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 Even Karl Marx correctly diagnosed problems. Both of their proposed solutions are wanting. I think this sums it up quite well. I think Paul commands a lot of respect (well, not among everybody); but he's simply not going to fly. For a lefty comparison, think of Kucinich. Even those who consider him a naive joke tend to respect his sincerity and his (at least apparent) honesty. But he's reached the pinnacle of his political career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 For a lefty comparison, think of Kucinich. Even those who consider him a naive joke tend to respect his sincerity and his (at least apparent) honesty. But he's reached the pinnacle of his political career. He's certainly quite capable of attempting to run for higher office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 He's certainly quite capable of attempting to run for higher office. Yes, of course. I only express doubts that a Kucinich or a Paul would receive the nomination, much less suceed in attaining higher office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 I think this sums it up quite well. I think Paul commands a lot of respect (well, not among everybody); but he's simply not going to fly. For a lefty comparison, think of Kucinich. Even those who consider him a naive joke tend to respect his sincerity and his (at least apparent) honesty. But he's reached the pinnacle of his political career. Im not so sure. Americans are starting to realize how bad the governmence they are getting from the dem and repub establishments really is. I think this will help candidates that position themselves as alternatives to the status quo. He may not win, but its a little early to say hes reached his pinnacle IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 Im not so sure. Americans are starting to realize how bad the governmence they are getting from the dem and repub establishments really is. I think this will help candidates that position themselves as alternatives to the status quo. He may not win, but its a little early to say hes reached his pinnacle IMO. They are coming around to those facts. For me Ron Paul stands out among all the others, he makes the most sense to me personally. All the other windbags during the GOP debates were ... lacking. Well from what I watched anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) They are coming around to those facts. For me Ron Paul stands out among all the others, he makes the most sense to me personally. All the other windbags during the GOP debates were ... lacking. Well from what I watched anyways. I think his biggest problem, is foreign policy, which is also where hes the strongest. His belief that the US should stop running up a gigantic tab policing the world with borrowed chinese money makes a lot of sense. But for lots of Americans including the new breed of neo-conservative this projection of influence and military power is one of the things that makes them most proud to be American. Pauls views put him on a collision course not only with all of these people, but also with the whole arms industry, the aerospace industry, the FF industry and other powerfull private sector components as well. The trillions of dollars that gets spent on this ends up in the pockets of americans and american companies, and they arent gonna want that revenue to dry up. Seems like he wants to dismantle the military and most of the social safety net as well. Those are pick fights to pick with big powerfull groups. Edited June 17, 2011 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 I think his biggest problem, is foreign policy, which is also where hes the strongest. His belief that the US should stop running up a gigantic tab policing the world with borrowed chinese money makes a lot of sense. But for lots of Americans including the new breed of neo-conservative this projection of influence and military power is one of the things that makes them most proud to be American. Pauls views put him on a collision course not only with all of these people, but also with the whole arms industry, the aerospace industry, the FF industry and other powerfull private sector components as well. The trillions of dollars that gets spent on this ends up in the pockets of americans and american companies, and they arent gonna want that revenue to dry up. Seems like he wants to dismantle the military and most of the social safety net as well. Those are pick fights to pick with big powerfull groups. This is all sort of part of my point. When you get Paul stating that the US shouldn't be an imperial nation, I get the impression that he and those who admire him are under the delusion that imperial America is some sort of deviation from it natural course. It isn't. It's intrinsic to its history, going all the way back to Washington's remark: "The foundation of a Great Empire is laid." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 This is all sort of part of my point. When you get Paul stating that the US shouldn't be an imperial nation, I get the impression that he and those who admire him are under the delusion that imperial America is some sort of deviation from it natural course. It isn't. It's intrinsic to its history, going all the way back to Washington's remark: "The foundation of a Great Empire is laid." It's quite possible that,like me,Paul sees that empire coming to an end very soon if the financial house is not put back in order... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 I really wish Ron Paul ran as an independent with Ventura as his running mate, I think he would have a greater chance of winning if he did. This is all sort of part of my point.When you get Paul stating that the US shouldn't be an imperial nation, I get the impression that he and those who admire him are under the delusion that imperial America is some sort of deviation from it natural course. It isn't. It's intrinsic to its history, going all the way back to Washington's remark: "The foundation of a Great Empire is laid." Yes, but even if you think America should be an empire eventually they will be brought down economically because they can't afford it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 I really wish Ron Paul ran as an independent with Ventura as his running mate, I think he would have a greater chance of winning if he did. If you mean Ron Paul would have virtually no chance instead of absolutely no chance, you would be right. Ron Paul has already failed twice at this endeavor, and will most certainly fail again. He has not even begun to approach the numbers of Ross Perot, let alone a major party candidate. Yes, but even if you think America should be an empire eventually they will be brought down economically because they can't afford it. But this is exactly how America became an "empire"....it can only change by the very same criteria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 I really wish Ron Paul ran as an independent with Ventura as his running mate, I think he would have a greater chance of winning if he did. Yes, but even if you think America should be an empire eventually they will be brought down economically because they can't afford it. Yeah but "eventually" could still be quite a ways off. A few decades... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 Yeah but "eventually" could still be quite a ways off. A few decades... Sadly,I don't know about that... I was watching an economist (Niall Ferguson,I believe) say that the models that show the Chinese economy passing the US economy are wrong.He feels that the recession (that's still going on) has skewed any previous models.He felt that because the recession basically was a blip on the Chinese economy but was (and still is) a huge weight on any economic growth of the US economy.Because of this,he thinks that people should throw out the model that says the Chinese economy surpassing the US economy in the mid 2020's...He feels it's probably going to happen within the next 5 to 10 years... Once the economic torch is passed,the military torch will surely follow... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) Sadly,I don't know about that... I was watching an economist (Niall Ferguson,I believe) say that the models that show the Chinese economy passing the US economy are wrong.He feels that the recession (that's still going on) has skewed any previous models.He felt that because the recession basically was a blip on the Chinese economy but was (and still is) a huge weight on any economic growth of the US economy.Because of this,he thinks that people should throw out the model that says the Chinese economy surpassing the US economy in the mid 2020's...He feels it's probably going to happen within the next 5 to 10 years... Once the economic torch is passed,the military torch will surely follow... Yeah but a lot of Chinese growth is still coming from selling products to American consumers. China and other pacific rim and oil exporting nations have an interest in propping up the US dollar so that it keeps importing goods. These countries wont abandon the US until theres enough consumption going on in other markets, and its going to take a lot longer than 5-10 years for that to happen I think. And as long as countries that run large trade surpluses with the US are willing to keep buying bonds not much will change. Look at these numbers... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_consumer_markets Edited June 18, 2011 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 If you mean Ron Paul would have virtually no chance instead of absolutely no chance, you would be right. Ron Paul has already failed twice at this endeavor, and will most certainly fail again. He has not even begun to approach the numbers of Ross Perot, let alone a major party candidate. Well, that one thing you can't pin on Canadians, if you Americans are dumb enough to keep voting in the guys that are going to stick it to you. But this is exactly how America became an "empire"....it can only change by the very same criteria. Time and time agian, empires fail. And this one is now failing. Buckle up, it's gonna get REAL bumpy!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvTDCWO_1H8 mah man Celente!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted June 18, 2011 Report Share Posted June 18, 2011 Yeah but "eventually" could still be quite a ways off. A few decades... It could also be this year or maybe next year, either way it is an unsustainable model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 18, 2011 Report Share Posted June 18, 2011 It could also be this year or maybe next year, either way it is an unsustainable model. Name one "model" that is sustainable. Please cite examples with commensurate economic output. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted June 18, 2011 Report Share Posted June 18, 2011 Name one "model" that is sustainable. Please cite examples with commensurate economic output. That we have tried, I can't. There has not been any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 18, 2011 Report Share Posted June 18, 2011 That we have tried, I can't. There has not been any. OK...then name one that "we" haven't tried, projected "sustainability", and the expected economic performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted June 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2011 (edited) Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel, the only candidates i saw running for Pres last election who had any sort of real honest conviction (and weren't complete idiots). It's nice to know there are still some decent politicians out there. The problem with Ron Paul is he isn't "Republican' enough for the con voters. he needs to want to blow stuff up, hate homos, that sort of deal. Edited June 18, 2011 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted June 18, 2011 Report Share Posted June 18, 2011 (edited) Yes, but even if you think America should be an empire eventually they will be brought down economically because they can't afford it. Should or should not is almost irrelevant, really. As for the heralded and/or lamented "fall of the American Empire"...well, I don't think it's going to happen soon. I do think it will "fall"--that is, not be the dominant power--but that's only my assumption based on the "empires always fall" thesis, itself sometimes a slight simplification. My suspicion is that the United States will remain the dominant power for the foreseeable future. The economic issues alone won't crash it, especially since these issues are shared globally, and aren't just America's. (We're not talking something analogous to the Soviets' disastrous finances, after all.) There are many factors that bring down an empire, and I personally don't see them aligning as of yet. For one thing, America remains quite popular, the ubiquitous criticisms aside. In fact, I think people want to adore America, as we saw briefly in late 2008. I don't know if this is a unique attribute in the history of empires, but I suspect it in some ways is. Further (and here's where I disagree with Chomsky) I see their foreign policy as quite adaptable. The days of the situation with the Phillipines are simply not tenable anymore, and American power has no appetite for that sort of behaviour anyway. I think a lot of the criticisms are valid (though institutional factors are frequently ignored, as if Obama & co are chortling over sinister machinations); but in a way they're beside the point I'm trying to make in my patented convoluted way: that they're in it for the long haul, and are institutionally adaptable to changing circumstances. Edited June 18, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.