4 ms·

His movement has quite a big impact in GOP right now. They are replacing people in local GOP parties with their own. Even if Ron Paul doesn't win now, whoever

His movement has quite a big impact in GOP right now. They are replacing people in local GOP parties with their own. Even if Ron Paul doesn't win now, whoever will be their candidate in 2016 or even for the next Congress elections, will have a very high chance of winning. You may or may not like the libertarian views, but I'd say they'd be a huge improvement to the current religious conservatives, the neo-conservatives who want more wars and bigger military budgets, and the general corruption within GOP.

WiseWeasel 14y ago
I think all that stuff is great, and that's why I supported him last time, but then he also has some less good platforms, like wanting to bring back a gold-backed currency [1], and a perhaps controversial stance on the legality of abortion. He's a mixed bag to me, and on top of that, he just comes off as not being sure why he's even in the race. [1] Hard currency is deflationary rather than inflationary, which takes away much of the incentive for holders of wealth to place their holdings in relatively risky placements such as seed funding and venture capital funds (a consequence HN readers would surely realize the distateful meaning of). This decreases social mobility, which is anathema to the American Way. Inflation, to a point, is the lubricant for social mobility.
- TDL 14y ago
  Contrary to your point, the 19th century was a deflationary period and there was massive wealth creation and innovation. Inflation is not and was never a lubricant for social mobility.
  - WiseWeasel 14y ago
    There was tremendous wealth concentration, ultimately leading to the New Deal and Federal Reserve.
    - TDL 14y ago
      The New Deal had absolutely nothing to do with the late Victorian period (or the 19th century.) The New Deal was a reaction to the Great Depression. There was indeed great wealth concentration in the 19th century, but there was also a massive amount of wealth creation that benefited more than just the very wealthy. The Federal Reserve had little to do with the concentration of wealth. The Federal Reserve was the culmination of decades of lobbying to bring back a central bank the U.S.

WiseWeasel 14y ago

I think all that stuff is great, and that's why I supported him last time, but then he also has some less good platforms, like wanting to bring back a gold-backed currency [1], and a perhaps controversial stance on the legality of abortion. He's a mixed bag to me, and on top of that, he just comes off as not being sure why he's even in the race. [1] Hard currency is deflationary rather than inflationary, which takes away much of the incentive for holders of wealth to place their holdings in relatively risky placements such as seed funding and venture capital funds (a consequence HN readers would surely realize the distateful meaning of). This decreases social mobility, which is anathema to the American Way. Inflation, to a point, is the lubricant for social mobility.

TDL 14y ago
Contrary to your point, the 19th century was a deflationary period and there was massive wealth creation and innovation. Inflation is not and was never a lubricant for social mobility.
- WiseWeasel 14y ago
  There was tremendous wealth concentration, ultimately leading to the New Deal and Federal Reserve.
  - TDL 14y ago
    The New Deal had absolutely nothing to do with the late Victorian period (or the 19th century.) The New Deal was a reaction to the Great Depression. There was indeed great wealth concentration in the 19th century, but there was also a massive amount of wealth creation that benefited more than just the very wealthy. The Federal Reserve had little to do with the concentration of wealth. The Federal Reserve was the culmination of decades of lobbying to bring back a central bank the U.S.