Ron Paul’s Economic Theories Winning GOP Converts

[SnyderShrugged]

Hoover's policies resembled George Bush more than Ron Paul. Hoover was pretty much the opposite of Laissez-faire. Tariffs, Lots of government spending, higher taxes does not equal laissez-faire and never did.

I missed that you said this. You are exactly right!

[Predicto]

Careful now, don't want the sheeple's head to explode.

And you Paulites complain that other people call you names. :whoknows:

[GibbsFactor]

And you Paulites complain that other people call you names. :whoknows:

Nah, sticks and stones. I get irratated by people who just latch on to names and appear to be simple populists.

I know Madison isn't a simple populist but his statement sure was.

[ddub52]

Somebody explain in detail to me and the rest of us how you spend your way out of a recession while less jobs are being created and less items are being manufactured. And please point to an exact track record that shows how President Obama's economic strategy has worked in the past 100 years here in the U.S. That's right.....have a good snicker libs....have yourself a nice high-5 when the economy starts to improve in the short term, and be sure to blame somebody in the GOP when you all realize the road to economic recovery is completely doomed in the long run. Not a single economist in the nation thought the bailouts were a good idea. No, it couldn't be Obama's fault right? After all, he's your hero right? Can't blame him. And no, it couldn't be the fault of all of the Dems who blindly voted for all of the bailouts that will have the next 5 generations of Americans paying for it, right? Hmmmmmm.....I still cannot remember the last time I heard of a poor person hiring somebody for a job.......

They will get a good little snicker. They often point to FDR's spending during the depression and WWII as a similarity to what Obama is doing now. The problem with that is, back then we were producing weapons for other countries, and they owed us insane amounts of money for them. Instead, we currently owe China billions. We finished WWII with money in SAVINGS. Do any of you see us finishing the war in Afghanistan with money in savings?

[PeterMP]

Hoover's policies resembled George Bush more than Ron Paul. Hoover was pretty much the opposite of Laissez-faire. Tariffs, Lots of government spending, higher taxes does not equal laissez-faire and never did.

Smoot-Hawley didn't cause the Great Depression. It didn't help it, but it wasn't the cause either. The over valuation of the stock market, which happened well before Smoot-Hawley, and subsequent failures of the banks did.

Federal spending in 1925 was 3.6 billion. In 1929, it was 3.8 billion.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year1925_0.html

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year1929_0.html

Oh that rampant government spending (in the same time fram GDP had increased from 90 to 103 billion (given in the same links)).

[GibbsFactor]

Smoot-Hawley didn't cause the Great Depression. It didn't help it, but it wasn't the cause either. The over valuation of the stock market, which happened well before Smoot-Hawley, and subsequent failures of the banks did.

Federal spending in 1925 was 3.6 billion. In 1929, it was 3.8 billion.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year1925_0.html

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year1929_0.html

Oh that rampant government spending (in the same time fram GDP had increased from 90 to 103 billion (given in the same links)).

Speculation over the bill is what caused Black Friday.

[PeterMP]

Speculation over the bill is what caused Black Friday.

You have 3 days you could have picked and possibly could have been considered correct.

AT BEST, that's an over simplification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Crash_of_1929

"The crash followed a speculative boom that had taken hold in the late 1920s, which had led hundreds of thousands of Americans to invest heavily in the stock market, a significant number even borrowing money to buy more stock. By August 1929, brokers were routinely lending small investors more than 2/3 of the face value of the stocks they were buying. Over $8.5 billion was out on loan,[21] more than the entire amount of currency circulating in the U.S.[citation needed] The rising share prices encouraged more people to invest; people hoped the share prices would rise further. Speculation thus fueled further rises and created an economic bubble. The average P/E (price to earnings) ratio of S&P Composite stocks was 32.6 in September 1929,[22] clearly above historical norms. Most economists view this event as the most dramatic in modern economic history."

I generally find it hard to believe that a law passed by Congress and approved by the President caused the majority of the country to panic and take their money out of the market. If the majority of Americans were THAT against it, I find it hard to believe it would have passed, and it isn't like the financial elite at the time were driving the panic:

"At 1 p.m. on Friday, October 25, several leading Wall Street bankers met to find a solution to the panic and chaos on the trading floor. The meeting included Thomas W. Lamont, acting head of Morgan Bank; Albert Wiggin, head of the Chase National Bank; and Charles E. Mitchell, president of the National City Bank of New York. They chose Richard Whitney, vice president of the Exchange, to act on their behalf. With the bankers' financial resources behind him, Whitney placed a bid to purchase a large block of shares in U.S. Steel at a price well above the current market. As traders watched, Whitney then placed similar bids on other "blue chip" stocks. This tactic was similar to a tactic that ended the Panic of 1907, and succeeded in halting the slide that day. In this case, however, the respite was only temporary."

I have a feeling that the slow devaluation that occurred before the collapse and the fact that people were over invested in the market (which they realized as their returns decreased) caused it:

"After a six-year run when the world saw the Dow Jones Industrial Average increase in value fivefold, prices peaked at 381.17 on September 3, 1929.[13] The market then fell sharply for a month, losing 17% of its value on the initial leg down.

Prices then recovered more than half of the losses over the next week, only to turn back down immediately afterwards. The decline then accelerated into the so-called "Black Thursday", October 24, 1929. A record number of 12.9 million shares were traded on that day."

But heck if you want to post anything that resembles real intellectual work to back up your statement, I'll look read it.

[Larry]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C.S. Lewis

Amusing that you pick that quote to tell us why you prefer the GOP.

[SnyderShrugged]

actually, both Peter and Gibbsfactor have legitimate points on it. While the smoot-hawley act wasnt neccessarily a cause of the GD, (especially since it passed after the crash) many economic historians consider the political discussion leading up to the passing of the act a factor in causing the crash, the recession that began in late 1929, or both, and its eventual passage a factor in deepening the Great Depression

The reason why the market crashed well in advance of the tariff becoming law is because markets are forward-looking, and quickly capitalize any policy that will impact on future profits. The protectionism the act inspired in other nations definitely had a negative impact on at least the recovery.

[GibbsFactor]

You have 3 days you could have picked and possibly could have been considered correct.

AT BEST, that's an over simplification:.

I meant Black Tuesday. :doh:

I generally find it hard to believe that a law passed by Congress and approved by the President caused the majority of the country to panic and take their money out of the market. If the majority of Americans were THAT against it, I find it hard to believe it would have passed, and it isn't like the financial elite at the time were driving the panic:

Where were you last fall?

I have a feeling that the slow devaluation that occurred before the collapse and the fact that people were over invested in the market (which they realized as their returns decreased) caused it:

But why that day? Speculation over government intervention.

But heck if you want to post anything that resembles real intellectual work to back up your statement, I'll look read it.

From your own link?

In the days leading up to Black Tuesday, the market was severely unstable. Periods of selling and high volumes of trading were interspersed with brief periods of rising prices and recovery. Economist and author Jude Wanniski later correlated these swings with the prospects for passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which was then being debated in Congress.[9] After the crash, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) recovered early in 1930, only to reverse and crash again, reaching a low point of the great bear market in 1932. On July 8, 1932 the Dow reached its lowest level of the 20th century and did not return to pre-1929 levels until 23 November 1954.[10][11]

[PeterMP]

actually, both Peter and Gibbsfactor have legitimate points on it. While the smoot-hawley act wasnt neccessarily a cause of the GD, (especially since it passed after the crash) many economic historians consider the political discussion leading up to the passing of the act a factor in causing the crash, the recession that began in late 1929, or both, and its eventual passage a factor in deepening the Great Depression

The reason why the market crashed well in advance of the tariff becoming law is because markets are forward-looking, and quickly capitalize any policy that will impact on future profits. The protectionism the act inspired in other nations definitely had a negative impact on at least the recovery.

I really want to see where somebody actually puts forward an arguement that the drastic historical over valuation of the stock market and people's and (unregulated) banks investment therein didn't cause the Great Depression, but a law that was approved by Congress and the President well after said over valuation occurred did, especially in the context of a situation where the financial elite of the day were willing to buy stocks at ABOVE market value.

That's akin to arguing that some law passed in 2007 caused the current economic situation and ignoring the run up of the housing market in the 10+ years prior to that.

If nothing else, I should get a good laugh (I will agree, Smoot-Hawley may have made it worse and certainly negatively affected any recovery.).

Oh and if you want to apply the concept of prior knowledge in the stock market with respect the Smoot-Hawley act, you'll have to give me sort of reason to believe that people actually knew that Hoover wasn't going to veto it (especially if you want to talk a year + out) because it wasn't like he was a big supporter of it.

[GibbsFactor]

I really want to see where somebody actually puts forward an arguement that the drastic historical over valuation of the stock market and people's and (unregulated) banks investment therein didn't cause the Great Depression, but a law that was approved by Congress and the President well after said over valuation occurred did, especially in the context of a situation where the financial elite of the day were willing to buy stocks at ABOVE market value.

That's akin to arguing that some law passed in 2007 caused the current economic situation and ignoring the run up of the housing market in the 10+ years prior to that.

If nothing else, I should get a good laugh (I will agree, Smoot-Hawley may have made it worse and certainly negatively affected any recovery.).

Oh and if you want to apply the concept of prior knowledge in the stock market with respect the Smoot-Hawley act, you'll have to give me sort of reason to believe that people actually knew that Hoover wasn't going to veto it (especially if you want to talk a year + out) because it wasn't like he was a big supporter of it.

I don't think anyone is saying that the bill caused the great depression, but it certainly contributed.

I was saying that speculation over whether or not Congress would pass the bill is what caused the selling on Wall Street.

[Madison Redskin]

Your ignorance of history as well as of the subject at hand is laughable.

I think not. Get informed next time and you wont look so utterly silly.

What are you talking about? Hoover basically got kicked out of office because the federal government of the 1920s took a "hands-off" approach to the economy. Hoover didn't embrace those policies and he isn't to blame for the Great Depression (after all, he didn't take office until the eve of the collapse), but he certainly got screwed by them.

Also, don't take attacks of Ron Paul so personally. You get deeply offended whenever anyone calls him the nutjob that he is.

[SnyderShrugged]

I really want to see where somebody actually puts forward an arguement that the drastic historical over valuation of the stock market and people's and (unregulated) banks investment therein didn't cause the Great Depression, but a law that was approved by Congress and the President well after said over valuation occurred did, especially in the context of a situation where the financial elite of the day were willing to buy stocks at ABOVE market value.

That's akin to arguing that some law passed in 2007 caused the current economic situation and ignoring the run up of the housing market in the 10+ years prior to that.

If nothing else, I should get a good laugh (I will agree, Smoot-Hawley may have made it worse and certainly negatively affected any recovery.).

Oh and if you want to apply the concept of prior knowledge in the stock market with respect the Smoot-Hawley act, you'll have to give me sort of reason to believe that people actually knew that Hoover wasn't going to veto it (especially if you want to talk a year + out) because it wasn't like he was a big supporter of it.

I believe you are arguing with me on a point we are fairly close on. I don't believe that I said (nor did Gibbs for that matter) that smoot-hawley was the major cause of the GD.

You seem to be talking in circles a bit and I dont understand what your overall point is.

[SnyderShrugged]

What are you talking about? Hoover basically got kicked out of office because the federal government of the 1920s took a "hands-off" approach to the economy. Hoover didn't embrace those policies and he isn't to blame for the Great Depression (after all, he didn't take office until the eve of the collapse), but he certainly got screwed by them.

Also, don't take attacks of Ron Paul so personally. You get deeply offended whenever anyone calls him the nutjob that he is.

actually, I am not offended at all, only laughing a great deal at how you tried to compare his policies with those of Hovver, which is patently false.

Where does Paul ever propose Hooveresque policies such as propping up wages, crippling of international trade, or tax and spend policies

[Madison Redskin]

actually, I am not offended at all, only laughing a great deal at how you tried to compare his policies with those of Hovver, which is patently false.

You need to take a reading comp. course. If my first message was unclear, my second one (which you just quoted) wasn't.

[PeterMP]

Where were you last fall?

watching a market take a continual drive down and then the government finally forced to act to do something.

But why that day? Speculation over government intervention.

From your own link?

The behavior PRIOR to that day isn't connected to the behavior that DAY, necessiarly, especially if you consider who was likely driving that prior behavior and consider their action on the FRIDAY before Black Tuesday.

Maybe I should have been more clear. The financial elite of this country were against Smoot-Hawley. I'd not be surprised at all if their actions were affecting stock prices prior to that Friday based on what they thought about Smoot-Hawley passing. Once that Friday happens (and they buy back in big), you have a completely different situation though.

You asked me why that day. I don't claim to know. Complex systems frequently collapse at some point based on long-term applied pressure with no clear reason for that specific time being the collapse.

Let me turn it around on you. What happened on Black Tuesday with respect to Smoot-Hawley to finally drive the collapse?

It didn't pass the House until May of that year, the Senate until March of 1930, and Hoover's signing (which wasn't a sure thing) until June of 1930.

What spectacular event happened on March 29, 1929 with respect to Smoot-Hawley that caused the collapse?

[SnyderShrugged]

You need to take a reading comp. course. If my first message was unclear, my second one (which you just quoted) wasn't.

so you are backing off of comparing Paul's policies to Hovvers then, right?

otherwise, I understood you perfectly

[Madison Redskin]

so you are backing off of comparing Paul's policies to Hovvers then, right?

otherwise, I understood you perfectly

I'm not backing off of anything. I didn't say Hoover adopted them, I said Hoover got ****** by them.

[PeterMP]

I believe you are arguing with me on a point we are fairly close on. I don't believe that I said (nor did Gibbs for that matter) that smoot-hawley was the major cause of the GD.

You seem to be talking in circles a bit and I dont understand what your overall point is.

I'm sorry. My post said that Smoot-Hawley didn't cause the Great Depression, but that it didn't help it (which could take the form of making it worse and extending it).

Gibbs post was somewhat non-detailed, but the suggestion to me was that he was at least trying to shift the blame from market over-valuation to Smoot-Hawley.

[SnyderShrugged]

I'm not backing off of anything. I didn't say Hoover adopted them, I said Hoover got ****** by them.

you said...

"We should adopt Ron Paul's economic theories (i.e., laissez-faire). They served the Hoover administration so well in the 1920s."

It's very clear.

Hoover's policies were anything but Laissez-Faire. Therefore "laissez-Faire" was not a legitimate cause of the GD, and Paul's policies don't compare to Hoover's whatsoever.

[SnyderShrugged]

I'm sorry. My post said that Smoot-Hawley didn't cause the Great Depression, but that it didn't help it (which could take the form of making it worse and extending it).

Gibbs post was somewhat non-detailed, but the suggestion to me was that he was at least trying to shift the blame from market over-valuation to Smoot-Hawley.

sound's like our everyday miscommunication at the tailgate!

[Reaganaut]

Republicans listening to Ron Paul? That is very good news. Any chance a few Jane Fonda Democrats will join them?

[SnyderShrugged]

Back to the OP...

I think it's awesome that HR 1207 has 129 co-sponsors at this point and the list is still growing!

Not that long ago, a proposal to audit the Federal reserve would have been thrown in the generic trash and never even discussed.

Anyone who thinks that Paul hasnt had an impact should consider how enormous of an accomplishment getting that many co-sponsors really is.

[Larry]

Where does Paul ever propose Hooveresque policies such as propping up wages, crippling of international trade, or tax and spend policies

Uh, his point (I think) is that neither did Hoover.