financeguy said:
The reality is that there is a huge potential constituency out there for an anti-war, anti-globalist, anti-statist candidate and Ron Paul fits that bill perfectly.
That's fine and all, but that will just make me question why. I would understand why you'd be interested in Ron Paul. As a non-American, I'm sure that anything that reduces American economic and cultural imperialism might be desirable to you--correct me if I'm wrong, if I have made too broad of an assumption here. And, as for Ron Paul's tax cuts, who doesn't like, at least, the thought of a "tax cut"?
At least in terms of his grasp of economics, I believe that Ron Paul is a nut, and this is not strictly because of his advocacy for tax cuts. This is, instead, because of his support for the resumption of the gold standard, which most credible economists think is a terrible idea. And I'm inclined to agree. Since the gold standard substantially reduces monetary flexibility in times of economic instability, one greatly risks having a hard recession or even an economic depression. The prevailing monetarist theory as for the origins of the Great Depression puts the blame almost squarely on the failures of the gold standard.
Secondly, "anti-globalism" is about as ridiculous, today, as it would being "anti-gravity." That is, no law is going to effectively stop global trade without risking substantial economic harm on the economy supposedly being protected. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930 is a very extreme example of this. In attempting to make domestic products more desirable, while making foreign products seem undesirable, it had the ultimate effect of not only angering all of our trade partners, but also substantially reducing our exports, so that any supposed benefit from this act was completely negated. In the short term, of course, globalism has hurt, as any corporation will naturally gravitate to where they can operate the cheapest. On the other hand, these third-world countries that have benefited from the Western world, like India, have grown so much that they have now become increasingly "expensive" and, likewise, some Indian corporations have grown so much as to start investing and creating businesses in the West themselves. It is complicated, sure, but I feel as though we have no choice but to embrace globalism, while continuing to try and perfect it.
Third, Paul is not strictly "anti-statist," as much as he desires shifting government from the federal to state levels. Historically, "states' rights" have been a rallying cry in America, but, in practice, it has generally been a failure. Most of our state governments are generally run by idiots who make our "federal idiots," by comparison, seem like geniuses.
Admittedly, I found him appealing, at first, too. But, reading further, I do not see him to be the "Savior" that everyone wants him to be. In contrast, I think Paul would be an unabashed disaster as president. His elimination of the income tax vastly benefits the rich (most middle class people who bitch about income taxes are probably more likely bitching about the AMT, which is a separate taxation issue), while the large sales taxes required to make up for that loss in tax revenue would be highly detrimental economically. Just as rich people don't like income taxes, imagine having to lump 20%+ onto everything we buy--in addition to, at least, 6% in state sales taxes? At that point, guaranteed, the rich will just go off and buy things in cheaper nations, the millions of people who live on the border of Canada and Mexico will be more enticed to buy things there, and we'll be in more trouble then.
I guess that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it is my opinion, which I have elucidated above, that Paul is not only not the "Savior" that everyone wants him to be, but that he would cause substantial economic harm trying to enact his economic policies. Paul is nothing but a dangerous reactionary ideologue in maverick's clothing.