Rand Paul: Without change, GOP will "not win again in my lifetime"

[Skadi]

Historically, this has not been true as regards personal morals. Since religious (and some philosophical systems) beliefs are a competing basis for human thought and action to the mentally totalitarian aspect of communism, communist systems have tended to be quite libertarian when it came to personal morals. Soviet Russia, for example, embraced birth control, sexual libertinism and abortion long before the West did. Those were not the only ways in which communism has tended to be “libertarian”, but they were significant ones.

In other ways, of course, communism tended to be extraordinarily “libertarian” at first, inciting virtual “feeding frenzies” of personal opportunism. But they became iron-bound conservative once party power was established. Stalin was perhaps the most accomplished employer of this; alternately opening the field to enormous opportunistic license, then slamming it down and doing away with those who took advantage of it.

As a historian I can’t say enough how wrong you are. The Soviet Union engaged in the arresting of political enemies, the confiscation of most civilian firearms, the force able removal or repurposing of churches, extensive banning on media, and rigorously enforced drug laws. I don’t see how on issue, abortion, makes communism (its polar opposite on the scale) libertarian. The are diometricly opposed on most issues. Control over a social issue, such as banning drugs, censorship, ect. Is contrary to social liberalism.

 

[Skadi]

Abortion and contraception were legal from the beginning in the Soviet state. Divorce was made legal and easy. In 1936, Stalin banned abortion, being concerned about the number of workers and soldiers needed for the state. Abortion was legalized again in 1955.

The early Soviet Union’s focus was "revolutionary morality’ and it deliberately tried to suppress competing religious views of morality in many ways, including sexual mores as well as family authority structures.

The whole system of Cheka/NKVD/MVD/KGB terror, and particulary in the prisons and gulags, was a sewer of sexual predation and immorality on the part of both sexes. “Revolutionary morality” was focused on service to the state, and not much else.

I warned against this earlier, you missunderstand the meaning of social conservative. It does not mean Judeo-Christian, like we take it to in the west. Social conservatives regulate social actions (ie. banning activitys, drugs) while social liberals favors deregulating them. Just because Stalin brutally attacked Christianity with athiest zeal dosnt make him a social liberal, imposing athiesm is just as socially conservative as imposing Christianity.

I may have chosen poorly when I made my graph, a more accurate description is Totalitarian vs Anarchist

 

[Skadi]

This is precisely one of the scratched records the Reps are going to have to change.

I admire and agree with much of what Ron Paul says, but the moment he mentions socialism or Keynesian economics, he loses me. It’s not the socialists or Keynesians who are responsible for the mess we are in today (there are far too few of them for a start) but the mainstream following the path of least resistance. Calling people such names doesn’t address the problem but is just intellectual laziness.

As a huge Ron Paul guy I have to disagree, Keynesian economics is the problem because its all about the path of least resistance.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

As a huge Ron Paul guy I have to disagree, Keynesian economics is the problem because its all about the path of least resistance.

I think your mistaken about Keynesian economics. It has nothing to do with the path of least resistance as you stated.

 

[Skadi]

I think your mistaken about Keynesian economics. It has nothing to do with the path of least resistance as you stated.

By injecting public funds into the economy and exorcising government control Keynesian economics attempts to lessen or prevent economic downturns and depressions. The trade off is down the road the economy is weaker than it would be if the recession or depresion was ridden out. Sounds like path of least resistance to me. It’s near sightednes and places the burden of problemsolving on the government.

 

[Ridgerunner]

As a historian I can’t say enough how wrong you are. The Soviet Union engaged in the arresting of political enemies, the confiscation of most civilian firearms, the force able removal or repurposing of churches, extensive banning on media, and rigorously enforced drug laws. I don’t see how on issue, abortion, makes communism (its polar opposite on the scale) libertarian. The are diometricly opposed on most issues. Control over a social issue, such as banning drugs, censorship, ect. Is contrary to social liberalism.

I never said Soviet communism was libertarian in every way, just in some ways, and it was.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I warned against this earlier, you missunderstand the meaning of social conservative. It does not mean Judeo-Christian, like we take it to in the west. Social conservatives regulate social actions (ie. banning activitys, drugs) while social liberals favors deregulating them. Just because Stalin brutally attacked Christianity with athiest zeal dosnt make him a social liberal, imposing athiesm is just as socially conservative as imposing Christianity.

I may have chosen poorly when I made my graph, a more accurate description is Totalitarian vs Anarchist

You “warned”???

Social conservativism may mean different things to different people, but fundamentally it means retaining historic and cultural social values. In some societies that means adherence to the social mores of Islam. In some it means adherence to the social mores of Christianity. From that standpoint, then, Stalin was anything but a social conservative. It’s true that after many decades and millions of deaths he truly converted some to his way of thinking and, in that sense, he acted as a “social conservative” in a limited way. But as to the bulk of the population, he was not a social conservative, ever.

 

[Skadi]

I never said Soviet communism was libertarian in every way, just in some ways, and it was.

The only way I can see is legalization on abortion, which some libertarians don’t even support directly but see as a state issue. Stalinism has more on common with either major party in the US today than libertarianism.

And as for your other post yes I apologize I used social conservative/liberal in lee of the normal Totalitarian/Anarchist scale as not to offend Republians who fall into the Fiscal conservative/ Totalitarian quadrant.

 

[SMGS127]

As a huge Ron Paul guy I have to disagree, Keynesian economics is the problem because its all about the path of least resistance.

Keynesian economics, as truly practiced, is one of the best capitalist economic systems that can ever be put into place by a government. However, Keynesian economics is not what our government has devolved into, which is some ridiculous notion of “when stable, spend more and tax less, and when in a recession, spend even more and maybe hold tax lines steady.” That’s doomed to failure, as we can see. But a TRUE Keynesian model of high taxes and low spending in times of stability and low taxes and high spending in times of crisis works brilliantly.

 

[TEPO]

As a huge Ron Paul guy I have to disagree, Keynesian economics is the problem because its all about the path of least resistance.

Did you know that Ron Paul was the “most German” of all the 2012 Rep. Presidential candidates? Just sayin, cause I know you’re Germanic.

hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/the-ancestry-of-ron-paul-the-german-candidate/

…I’m just into this kind of stuff, sorry.

 

[Skadi]

Did you know that Ron Paul was the “most German” of all the 2012 Rep. Presidential candidates? Just sayin, cause I know you’re Germanic.

hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/the-ancestry-of-ron-paul-the-german-candidate/

…I’m just into this kind of stuff, sorry.

Lol I didn’t know this. I’m certainly not racist but I love cultural and ethnic heritage. It alwase astounds me even today how Anglo-Saxon most presidents are despite being a reletively small part of the US population.

 

[Skadi]

Keynesian economics, as truly practiced, is one of the best capitalist economic systems that can ever be put into place by a government. However, Keynesian economics is not what our government has devolved into, which is some ridiculous notion of “when stable, spend more and tax less, and when in a recession, spend even more and maybe hold tax lines steady.” That’s doomed to failure, as we can see. But a TRUE Keynesian model of high taxes and low spending in times of stability and low taxes and high spending in times of crisis works brilliantly.

What your describing seems rather strange, a government taxing high with low public spending then reversing in depresion, I know that’s the Keynsian ideal but could you give me an example of this “true Keynsianism” in use historically? That’s the question i get all the time about Austrian economics.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

By injecting public funds into the economy and exorcising government control Keynesian economics attempts to lessen or prevent economic downturns and depressions. The trade off is down the road the economy is weaker than it would be if the recession or depresion was ridden out. Sounds like path of least resistance to me. It’s near sightednes and places the burden of problemsolving on the government.

Keynesian economics is much more complex than that.

If you are going to pick and chose the principles that suit you while ignoring others, you’re not a Keynesian.

Governments love the idea that you can use money to re-start the ceonomy in times of crisis, but they conventiently forget Keynes’ other idea that you don’t borrow that money but you accumulate it during the good years and put it into a special fund. Those funds have to be ring-fenced from the normal budget and only accessed under special conditions, requiring say, a two-thirds majority. Your grandmother could have told you this makes sense, but our leaders fail to see it.

If somebody accidentally picks a policy that it slightly similar to something Keynes said, that doesn’t make him a Keynesian, any more than being nice to people doesn’t make anybody a Christian.

Maybe Keynes was wrong on many points, but that doesn’t make everybody who is wrong a Keynesian. The whole think smacks of intellectual laziness.

Ron Paul says many things that make sense, but the way he bandies the word Keynesian does him no favours.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

What your describing seems rather strange, a government taxing high with low public spending then reversing in depresion, I know that’s the Keynsian ideal but could you give me an example of this “true Keynsianism” in use historically? That’s the question i get all the time about Austrian economics.

Keynesian economics were very popular during the immediate post war period. Germany rebuilt its economy from ruins with a combination of Marshall aid and Keynesian discipline, and had by the mid 1950s advanced to one of the world’s leading industrial powerhouses. Japan also applied Keynesian economics during that period with similar success. Later generations messed it all up because they found it easier to borrow than to save.

It’s always popular to lower taxes, but what they often don’t tell you is that the shortfall is bridged by debt.

 

[SMGS127]

Keynesian economics were very popular during the immediate post war period. Germany rebuilt its economy from ruins with a combination of Marshall aid and Keynesian discipline, and had by the mid 1950s advanced to one of the world’s leading industrial powerhouses. Japan also applied Keynesian economics during that period with similar success. Later generations messed it all up because they found it easier to borrow than to save.

It’s always popular to lower taxes, but what they often don’t tell you is that the shortfall is bridged by debt.

Yep. You save during times of economic strength with economic surpluses created by the mix of high taxes and low spending, and you help out the whole country with the savings during times of dire economic need through a mix of targeted spending infusions and tax cuts. The problem always is that people get the spending infusions and tax cuts, and then the citizenry will beat down anyone who will reverse either, even in good economic times. So in the US, you have Republicans absolutely refusing to put any income tax raises on the table for any person ever, and you have Democrats (and a large minority of Republicans) not understanding what a reduction in spending is (as opposed to a reduction in an increase in spending).

The best way for Keynesian economics to go into effect is with a force mechanism, e.g. a system where the % scale of income taxes would be dependent on economic figures and unchangeable except via Constitutional amendment, and the spending must be mandated by a certain supermajority (55%? 60%?) and can only go into effect for 2 years at a time. This is not the only way to do it and probably not the best way to do it (I leave that to more knowledgeable Keynesian economists), but Keynesian economics is probably the closest economic system to “perfect” we can get to. It introduces a market stability not found in laissez faire capitalism.

 

[Skadi]

Keynesian economics were very popular during the immediate post war period. Germany rebuilt its economy from ruins with a combination of Marshall aid and Keynesian discipline, and had by the mid 1950s advanced to one of the world’s leading industrial powerhouses. Japan also applied Keynesian economics during that period with similar success. Later generations messed it all up because they found it easier to borrow than to save.

It’s always popular to lower taxes, but what they often don’t tell you is that the shortfall is bridged by debt.

It’s easy to do that stuff when the worlds leading industrial naion is pumping money into your economy like as in the Marshal plan.

Keynsian economics also failed to alleviate the great depresion. The claim that the depresion was the result of Laze Fair economics is a urban myth, and only WWII managed to lift the US out of the depresion.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

It’s easy to do that stuff when the worlds leading industrial naion is pumping money into your economy like as in the Marshal plan.

Only that the growth not only continued but even accelerated after the Marshall plan was terminated. So whereas the marshall plan provided the seed money, Keynesian discipline provided the growth that built on it.

A lot of money has been poured into places like Iraq too, but in the absence of a proper economic plan it’s not providing an economic miracle by any measure.

Keynsian economics also failed to alleviate the great depresion. The claim that the depresion was the result of Laze Fair economics is a urban myth, and only WWII managed to lift the US out of the depresion.

What evidence do you have that anybody even tried to alleviate the Great Depression with Keynesian methods? In fact American political opinion was extremely hostile towards Keynes throughout the 1930s.

I repeat: Unfettered spending is not the same as Keynesian stimulus. No matter how often Ron Paul tries to hammer that one in.

 

[Skadi]

Only that the growth not only continued but even accelerated after the Marshall plan was terminated. So whereas the marshall plan provided the seed money, Keynesian discipline provided the growth that built on it.

A lot of money has been poured into places like Iraq too, but in the absence of a proper economic plan it’s not providing an economic miracle by any measure.

What evidence do you have that anybody even tried to alleviate the Great Depression with Keynesian methods? In fact American political opinion was extremely hostile towards Keynes throughout the 1930s.

I repeat: Unfettered spending is not the same as Keynesian stimulus. No matter how often Ron Paul tries to hammer that one in.

I understand but as a student of Austrian Economics I don’t believe stimulus is ever necisary.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

I understand but as a student of Austrian Economics I don’t believe stimulus is ever necisary.

Ok, fair enough. But my original premise was not that Keynesian economics is right, it was that the Paul’s are doing themselves a dis-service by applying the Keynesian label to things that aren’t. Disagreeing with Keynes is an insufficient reason to call your opponents Keynesians. It’s still intellectual laziness.

 

[Skadi]

Ok, fair enough. But my original premise was not that Keynesian economics is right, it was that the Paul’s are doing themselves a dis-service by applying the Keynesian label to things that aren’t. Disagreeing with Keynes is an insufficient reason to call your opponents Keynesians. It’s still intellectual laziness.

fair enough, if not Keynesian then what are these folks running our government? Besides corporatists.