Ron Paul's Predictions
 

Here are some predictions that Ron Paul made in 2002. Though I'm not a Paul fan, I found it amazing how accurate he was.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electio...All+Stories%29

All he had to do is look at some trend lines since 1980 and make an assumption that things would continue.

Although, I'm not seeing the inflation....

Good point. Just like tomorrow's weather will be likely similar to today's. You and your economist nose needs to stick around. Yep, "amazing" was the wrong word.

I'm seeing it in food, fuel, and insurance...the things I need. Things I don't need, like a lousy teevee set, seem to be dropping.

Now whether this is a result of inflation, supply and demand, or a weak dollar is a moot point in my estimation.

Chas

Perhaps it's not that Paul is so smart, it's that everyone else is so stupid.

Chas

+1.

Dave

“Agitation for more class warfare will succeed in dividing us domestically.” Although Paul has been sympathetic to the Occupy Wall St. protestors, one could argue they are doing this trick in spades.

So long as there is greed and envy in this world, which there always has been and always will be----------Class Warfare will exist.

Anyone who thinks the struggle between the haves and have nots is a twentieth century invention is a damn fool.

Dave

The rest of it seems pretty accurate.

Dave

I think most any sentient being could predict most of those (this leaves out the likes of Palin, Perry, Bachmann ...), but few, if any, politicians have the temerity to say it. These things don't sit well with the "exceptionalism" crowd.

Ain't no money in telling people they're shit outta luck. The real money is in selling people "dreams".

People will pay most anything for a dream. At least enough of them to make you stinking rich, if you package it right.

Chas

Kinda like, "Hope" and "Change".......:rolleyes:

Seems to have made one guy very rich.

I have to admit that overall, Obama hasn't done as much as I would have liked, but my level of hope is significantly higher with him then the last guy.

If that was all it would take to forecast his predictions, why hasn't everyone else done the same?

Any time that the Federal Reserve prints Trillions of dollars, and bumps them on the economy, (Stimulus Spending), inflation has to increase, and the value of our money decreases.

As for the rest, I'm surprised that he is so knowledgeable.

Bill

I explained why everyone has not done the same. As Chas said, politicians prefer to sell a dream rather than telling the unvarnished truth.

Inflation is still at a very manageable level.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/i...tinflation.asp

Paul is the only guy who tells it like it is. The last honest man in Washington?

Well, that's the rub. Inflation will only occur if that money is based on a commodity. But it's not, it's based on prices and prices won't rise until demand increases.

In the last 10 years, there hasn't been any sort of economic boom occurring that would drive up prices. The primary reason we are seeing any inflation is that China is experiencing significant inflation and cost push inflation is at work in driving up some of the prices on their products over here. The type of inflation to worry about is demand pull inflation and but until we reach full employment, that's not a concern at this point.

This could very well be the case, my concern is that although honesty is an excellent attribute, it doesn't do us much good if his ideas won't help and I feel strongly that his desire to go back to a gold standard would set us back 80 years, in a very bad way. It would also make all of the unjustified concern about spending a reality.

Yes,

Inflation has been kept low the due to continued printing of dollars by the Federal Reserve Bank. But the affects of this have already driven up the prices of food, gas, utilities, etc.

Due to the continued overspending and borrowing by our Government over say the last 60 years, we are in debt clear up to our eyes.

And yes I know that we have had a balanced budget under Clinton, but we also had a 4 Trillion dollar Debt to pay off...

So if Ron Paul can save our sorry asses ? I don't know, but if we keep up as we have, you better have lots of gold and silver, because the dollar won't be worth the paper that it is printed on.

IN GOD WE TRUST, ALL OTHER MUST PAY IN SILVER OR GOLD !

Bill

Which is it? These are polar opposite opinions.

Up to our eyeballs in debt that simply represents the total private sector and foreign savings in the Federal Reserve that we can continue to issue and payoff on a daily basis as we have since 1971 and can continue to do without issue forever. I've used this example before, but if you ran a bank, would you worry about allowing people to deposit too much money into a savings account? Honestly, I'd like an answer to that.

Not getting what you are referring to regarding the federal reserve and savings. Wanna pretend I'm an idiot and give me some learning?

Only if you're worried about paying out the interest. The only way to lower interest obligations would be to reduce the principal. Which by default would reduce working capital? Is that what you're saying?

Dave

Sure. In a Reserve bank, a reserve account is the operational equivalent of a checking account whereas treasuries are the functional equivalent of a savings account or a CD.

The national debt is the total savings in the Federal Reserve (to the penny).

People invest in Treasuries because despite the S&P grandstanding and dropping of the US credit rating, our treasuries are still the safest investment in the world. As one analyst said "If the US has a AA+ credit rating, the rest of the world is lower than that". The evidence of that is since August, interest rates have dropped.

One other thing of note, countries cannot buy treasuries in their own currency, they can only use the US Dollars they have in their reserve account from selling us things. If they want to do business with us, and all of them most certainly would like to (who would really want to not deal with one of the biggest markets in the world, really?), they get a Reserve account at the Federal Reserve in exchange for the goods they produce. They can't demand payment in Gold or anything else, they only have three choices once that money exists in that account. They can buy our goods, leave it in the reserve account, or they can buy treasuries. Since they don't seem to be ready to really buy our goods, that leaves them with one real alternative, getting a little extra interest by moving the money to their savings (treasuries).

No bank would ever try to reduce their savings account balances. Having money allows them to lend money, which is how they make money. If you walked into your bank and told them they must reduce their savings because they couldn't possibly afford to pay all that interest, they'd look at you like you were mad.

Hmmmmmm.... Interesting. So, basically, what we call "debt" is partly money owed to ourselves, or money deposited by other nations earned in doing trade with us?

See, this is interesting, because one of my uncles, a banker by profession, once told me that the entire system runs on debt. And that a lack of debt can actually be worse than too much debt---On the international level. "Government debt is not like your credit card, it's an entirely different animal.", he said.

But, he did not elaborate. I think I'm getting a clearer picture, now.

Thanks.

Dave

Right. I hear what you're saying. It's money that technically belongs to other countries, but we are holding it. We are responsible for it to some degree, but, it is not necessarily money owed to them.

Dave

Andrew Jackson once paid off the national debt which directly caused the worst depression (until the great depression) in our country's history.

I'd say your uncle knew how the system works.

Another thing to consider is that when looking at the economy on a macro level, too much savings on the consumer side is bad for the economy and probably more so than too much spending/borrowing. If someone decides they are going to save 2000.00 per year that they previously wouldn't have, that is 2000.00 taken out of the economy that someone else will need to spend to keep the economy rolling. Savings is good at a micro-economic level but it's dangerous to the economy as a whole.

Pretty much. If they want to sell stuff to us, they do it with the understanding that they are giving us tangible benefits in exchange for a bank statement.

AGREED!

This ties into something a friend on another board was assailed for; "It's all about flow. When people stop spending, for whatever reason, there is no flow-the economy screeches to a halt. So, the government attempts to take it from us and reinject that capital back into the system. It's far from perfect, nobody really likes it, but there is litlle else they can do. Besides allow a total collapse. And no sane person wants that."

They hurled hate at him for days over that. But, it made sense to me.

Dave

Okay. It's naptime now. Good talking to ya!

Dave

Now we have a system where International Currency Speculation, determine the value of all currencies. This system can be played by huge bids on any currency or gold and silver. However Gold and Silver have an intrinsic value world wide that will stabilize sooner that paper currency. Today our currency is backed by the full faith and confidence in the Federal Reserve System, a group of private bankers, both foreign and domestic that , with only the trust of Congress do as they please ?

Now please tell me why you believe that going to the Gold or Silver Standard will set us back 80 years ? I'm really interested.

Sincerely,

Bill

I'd like to actually see the gold we don't have in Fort Knox.

It sets us back 80 years because it puts constraints on the economy that are unnecessary (any commodity backed currency will). In any fixed currency system in the world that I am aware of, economic booms are boomier (my love for subwoofers is coming through) and down turns are steeper, harsher and longer lived. We've had 5 depressions in our country's history. IIRC, all 5 of them occurred during eras of fixed currency monetary system. Also, all of the concerns of insolvency become a reality rather than a misunderstanding of monetary operations.

Since we are the one borrowing this money, we must pay the interest and the principle on this money when due. We do not bank monies for others, we borrow from others and pay them interest on their moneys.

And today with a 14 trillion dollar debt, (not deposit), we pay $451,000,000,000 a year interest on that $14,000,000,000,000.

That's 451 Billion Dollars Interest on our 14 Trillion Dollar Debt.

The United States does not invest the money that we borrow, we spend it.

Bill

Federal spending is not constrained by borrowing or taxes collected.

We transfer money back to reserve accounts on a daily basis + interest and there is no reason why we couldn't do so for eternity. There is no threat of involuntary insolvency in our monetary system. If we ever became insolvent, it would be purely voluntary.

If this were true, the United States would not have lost its AAA credit rating.
Due to concerns over our almost 15 Trillion Dollars of Debt, soon to be 15.5 Trillion Dollars in Debt, it was determined that we were not as credit worthy as other Governments. This action will cost every tax payer money, as the Government will need to pay higher interest rates for the monies that it borrowes.


(Reuters) - The United States lost its top-tier AAA credit rating from Standard & Poor's on Friday in an unprecedented blow to the world's largest economy in the wake of a political battle that took the country to the brink of default.

S&P cut the long-term U.S. credit rating by one notch to AA-plus on concerns about the government's budget deficit and rising debt burden. The action is likely to eventually raise borrowing costs for the American government, companies and consumers.

"The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics," S&P said in a statement.



Bill

Cept it didn't work that way.

Another excellent post. The radical boom and bust cycles of past versions of capitalism were the reason for adopting the Keynesian model in the first place.

Go back, and we will learn the hard way, why the old system was rejected.
Unfortunately, that is the only way some of us learn.:rolleyes:

Dave

Dave