Ron won't, but watch out for his son Rand in 2016. He's been dropping bombs on the senate since he got elected last year.
Too early to tell in my opinion. So far the only thing I've seen Rand Paul get credit for was pulling some political magic to indefinitely postpone a vote on banning synthetic weed. He's the reason K2 is still on the shelves in most states.
Anybody who says they will fulfill their big promise at the end of their second term are liars, they have no intention of doing it, by the end of their second term since the end is coming anyway they can just fuck everything up as much as they can and leave it scot free. Ron Paul is hated by the MSM? he's the one you need to vote for, it means the Zionists are scared of him.
The only exception I can think of is Clinton, but that was stopped short because of a blue dress. Aside from him every president turns lame duck come election season.
I don't follow american politics that closely, but apparently he's started trying to win over the zionist lobby recently.
Actually they did embrace neo-liberalism after having steady 3% GDP growth annually and it failed miserable and tanked their economy, they are just now embracing state capitalism. The IMF and the US generally tries to force this whole "free market" & "free trade" down everyone's throat and it has caused economic devastation in practically every instance. In truth infant industry NEEDS state support, in the form of subsidies, tariffs and bars to foreign ownership, if it expects to walk on it's own two feet and still work for it's country. As the industry grows and becomes more competitive you ween them off so-to-speak. You fail at the weening phase you get a failure to launch and are left with the industrial equivalent of a 30 year old basement dweller. This requires a steady and firm hand, the US is basically too large and corrupt to pull off the amount of detailed focus one needs, so states taking over much of these responsibilities is necessary but not without federal regulation to prevent them from screwing each other over as Gov. Perry did. That inefficiency has nothing to do with government, it has to do with large scale horizontal bureaucracies present in our federal government and major corporations, even more so in multinationals. Corporations are subject to the exact same structural issues (lack of primary information, ground level knowledge, over management, cultural rigidity, big brother complex and it's noose of paperwork) that plague our government, albeit with marginally more flexibility. How does Ron Paul respond to the historical reality that there is not one developed modern economy that did reach their position without the aid of tariffs and subsidies? How does he explain that Adam Smith only supported free trade when it was in favor of Great Britain, as evident by his support of the Navigation Acts whose sole purpose was to manipulate commercial shipping to the country's advantage. How does Ron Paul explain Japan's extraordinary state control, support, and regulation of their internal markets producing Toyota? How does Ron Paul explain South Korea's success with state capitalism, as evidenced by Hyundai and Samsung. What about the Finnish state dedicated long term support of Nokia running 17 years in a row at a loss and now one of the largest mobile phone company in the world (was number 1 up till apple's stole their patents and took their spot)? What does Ron Paul have to say about the fact that throughout the entire history US used tariffs (which were a major cause of the civil war) and subsidies along with prohibitive measures outlawing foreign ownership of US companies up until we had a developed and competitive industry? What of Britain who's monarch King Henry the VIII set up a range of government interventions to jump-start manufacturing to move his country from exporting wool to exporting textiles? Had any of these industries attempted to emerge in a free market environment they would have been subjected to bankruptcy and a hostile takeover by mature foreign competitors from developed countries. It is important to note that all of these countries supported free trade AFTER they had a developed industry catering to their needs as well as a secure position on the international markets. Free Trade is nothing more than an excuse for developed countries to prey on their developing neighbors. To quote Friedrich List's 1841 critique of Britain "It is a very common clever device that when anyone has attained the summit of greatness, he kicks away the ladder by which he has climbed up, in order to deprive others of the means of climbing up after him." <-- got ya real nigga right there bitch.
Do you really expect me to read all that shit? And why the fuck is this month old thread getting bumped?
I replied because you quoted me, in my thread. That and I wanted you to know how unappreciative I am of your tl;dr rant on whatever the fuck it is you were going on about. Groucho can suck a dick.
Proletarian nations need to reject the economic modes of the the neo-liberal West and look towards the economic policies of Fascist Italy in order to fast trace industrial development.
I quoted Friedrich List does that mean I expected him to reply? It's not yours, you're just the OP who dropped their thread a month ago. I wasn't expecting anything, I was hoping someone who knows what they are talking about would refute me. The argument you presented is old, stale, and dead - much like Ron Paul and was more than well aware that wasn't going to be you. You wanted to let me know that you don't understand economic history nor are you up to date on current economics and do not appreciate my post on those subjects. Why is it necessary to tell me that? That is good to know.
Intriguing concept, I am trudging through that book of yours and thus I feel uncomfortable commenting on Fascism until I've looked into the various strains of thought bounding about. Do you have any specifics?
.jpg)
