(This came from Care2 Friend Jim Steve from New Windsor New York. It explained in terms I could understand what I think Ron Paul is all about. I hear a lot of fear from people who think our civil rights gains would be rolled back by him. I find that nonsense. Reality looks to me, with a just about worthless dollar, that the people may not have many liberties left.)
People seem to be missing Paul's economic underpinnings. Even though I am a trained economist, I didn't understanding what Paul was saying until I looked deeply into it. Since 1964, the wealthy ((top .1%) in this country increased their wealth as a percentage of the total national wealth by a factor of 700%. I don't have a problem with people getting wealthy, but in this case it was done almost exclusively in the financial services industry (banks). You know, the sector that we just bailed out because their leverage brought their companies to ruin. I will explain this if any are interested. But it comes under the Austrian school of economics as "mal investment". That weakens an economy and redistributes wealth to the unproductive areas.
Some people laugh at Paul when he talks about backing the dollar with gold or silver. I thought so too, but I was wrong and Paul was correct. The depreciation of our currency has caused inflation in prices, and we the people of this country have been robbed by the elites that control the government using the fake two party system. Productivity of the American worker has grown by 300% since 1964. But the standard of living of most Americans has languished. Why? In 1964, the minimum wage in the USA was $1.25. Paid in silver. That same pay in silver today would be about $70,000 in wags. As MINIMUM wage. Since the productivity of American workers have gone up by 300%, doesn't it make sense that they should have gotten the benefits of their output? Wouldn't it have been better to be still paying in real money instead of devalued currency?
And who got the extra wealth? Most of it flowed into financial services, because it was easier to leverage wealth that way. That's where the rich went. If a person leverages wealth at say 10:1 as many wealthy do, and there is a 4% inflation rate, the actual wealth of that person grows by 900% every 17.6 years. Without any other return. Just by inflation.
In other words, the government set up the rich to become more wealthy just by monetary policy. With no effort. At the cost of the American worker who got pretty much nothing.
Paul understands the uneven playing field between the rich and the rest or us. His answers redress the underlying advantage that the wealthy and powerful have. That is why he is a lightening rod.
Paul also understands that the fear generated by both the "sides" in the political system is designed to perpetuate a system that benefits the few at the expense of the many. The left claims that Paul's policies will deprive the poor of a living, In fact, it's the government that has made the economic condition of the poor much worse by inflationary monetary policies. The right claims that Paul will make the nation less secure by ending the costly wars and US foreign policies. There is no evidence of a threat at the extreme level that is claimed by the right. Outside of the 9/11 attacks (which the government failed on) there is a average of 3 deaths/year from terrorism in the USA. About the same as before the government started it's extreme measures to prevent terrorist attacks in the USA. Same in Europe. Last year only 3 terrorist events were by Islamic extremists. Only 2 died. One by blowing himself up. Of the 42 terrorist events in the USA over the last 10 years, 24 were instigated by the FBI/Homeland security.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).