United Liberty
Ron Paul Fans Should Learn About “Malinvestment”
Tue, 06/19/2012 - 11:15am | posted by Jeremy Kolassa
For a group of people who follow the veritable patron saint of Austrian economics on Capitol Hill, the fans of Ron Paul don’t seem to understand the Austrian concept of “malinvestment” very well. Malinvestment, as described by the Mises Wiki, is:
Malinvestment is an investment in wrong lines of production, which inevitably lead to wasted capital and economic losses, subsequently requiring the reallocation of resources to more productive uses. “Wrong” in this sense means “incorrect” or “mistaken” from the point of view of the real long-term needs and demands of the economy, if those needs and demands were expressed with the correct price signals in the free market.
Of course, the concept applies more to commercial dealings than with efforts in the political sphere, but I think it works here too, especially when you regard recent messages from the Ron Paul faithful:
Ok so the Rand endorsement let us all down a lot along with all of the discouraging emails and videos directly from the campaign. I think for the most part we are over the hump if you know what im saying.
Now think… before all of these shenanigans how much did you believe Ron Paul could win! And remember when we realized all the delegates are unbound?! That was amazing and at that point it was the cream of the crop. We were gonna win hands down, romney has no chance in hell.
You remember all those fuzzy feelings right?
So besides the pessimistic stuff coming from the campaign and Rand, NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
We still have tons and tons of victories in delegates and I still personally believe a ton of romneys delegates are RP supporters!I dare say these words, and I want everyone here to upvote this if you agree…
WE CAN WIN
WE WILL WIN
WE ARE, AS SUPPORTERS IN IT TO WIN IT AND WILL FIGHT THE BITTER END
RON PAUL WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATESDo you believe this to be true? Join me, lets make this the most upvoted post ever on the Daily Paul.
PS If your reply detracts from this message, I ask you simply abstain from posting, thank you
Ah yes, the “pessimistic stuff coming from the campaign.” You know, the part where Ron Paul has conceded the race and given up.
Honestly, while I respect the drive of Ron Paul’s supporters—I too, think the Texas congressman is a great defender and promoter of liberty—continuing to pour your energy and effort into a campaign that is already over with is a bit like believing that fire is not really hot at this point. It’s a belief that’s completely contrary to reality and it’s a total waste of very valuable resources.
If the “Ronulans” want to still be useful, still carry on the torch of liberty, there are a number of things they can and should do today, rather than making a “Ron Paul bubble” that will inevitably burst after November and lead to widespread misery.
Get behind Gary Johnson: Right now, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson is running on the Libertarian Party line for the presidency. If we can get Gary into the presidential debates, he will not only continue Ron Paul’s message, he will get it out to even more people—particularly those who never wanted to watch the GOP primary debates. Could you imagine what sort of an effect that would have? And its entirely doable, even if you just threw half of the energy they had with Ron Paul into Johnson’s race.
Fight for electoral reform: Our election system is a badly mismanaged, nigh-permanently rigged piece of crud that makes our “representative democracy” laughably unrepresentative. You should form broad-based, nonpartisan alliances with disgruntled and dejected Americans all over to fight to change this system, so that it better reflects the American people. Targets to hit are the utterly ludicrous petitioning and signature requirements that each state has, taxpayer funding of party primaries, gerrymandering, and if we get that far, switching from a first-past-the-post system to an approval voting system.
Educating the Public: You can and should still keep trying to educate the wider public about the positive effects of liberty and why it is the right answer to the problems plaguing us today. Make sure you don’t go off the deep end—as I’ve said before, people just don’t buy “stateless capitalism” arguments, so if that’s your thing try not to lead with it—or dive into any crazy conspiracy theories like the Bilderbergers or anything Alex Jones or Adam Kokesh say, but otherwise do your best to explain to people how liberty is the right thing for them. Make sure to use the resources at Reason magazine, the Cato Institute, Libertarianism.org, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, because they have a considerable amount there that will go far in helping you get the message across.
Get local and state candidates elected: Let’s admit it. The presidential campaign, for third parties and “outsiders,” is more about public relations than anything. The real target for serious, concrete campaigns should be at the local and state level. There, liberty-minded leaders can make changes that will directly impact Americans and let them see first hand how this philosophy works. People interact more with their DMV than they do with any federal agency. By having the network in place of Ron Paul Republicans and libertarians of all stripes, we can enact meaningful change that will start bubbling from the bottom up and soon infect all levels of government.
These are all far better uses of one’s time than continuing to push for a Ron Paul presidency. Yes, absolutely, I would prefer Ron Paul to either of the dingos the major parties are putting out. But the problem is that Ron Paul isn’t even running anymore, so its a moot point. You’re just going to get frustrated, angry, and malinvest your resources.
Right now we have an excellent opportunity to advance liberty. Let’s not waste it.
malinvestment, if by individual choice, will be worked out over time. You seem to be trying to compel choice which sounds pretty unlibertarian to me. Ron Paul speaks for me, and that is all I care about. I see no reason to support someone who doesn’t.
Also, Ron never conceded, he warned that he didn’t expect to have enough delegates to win. And he most certainly never gave up. This speech was the day AFTER his ‘I don’t expect to have the delegates’ email, and the same day as Rand’s endorsement. He was given the assignment of speaking at the Texas state GOP on ‘Republicans Uniting and on Balancing the Budget’. Just watch from minute 4 (start of his speech) to 14 if you don’t want to watch the whole thing. People who LIKE Paul will want to watch the whole thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BS7AFqukV0&feature=player_embedded
Explain just where, exactly, in my post, I “compelled” anyone to do anything.
I’m not compelling anyone to do anything. I’m using reason to try and convince you that the path you’re on is foolishness. If that constitutes “compulsion,” then any time you try to convince someone to vote for Ron Paul, you’re compelling their choice, meaning you’re unlibertarian…meaning you’re not holding up to Ron Paul’s principles and you’re in fact betraying his message.
See how ridiculous that is?
Also, you can say it to yourself until you believe it, but it won’t change—Ron Paul has conceded. When he says “I’m not going to win the race, and please be respectful at the convention” that’s the political way of saying “Well, I’m not going to win it this year, guys.” Will you continue to put your effort into that and waste your time, or will you do something more constructive for liberty?
I’m not taking away your choice, here. You can still say “I’m going to work for Ron Paul!” Very well. But when it doesn’t turn out the way you wanted, and you look back and realize you could have done more in other areas, don’t be surprised when I say “Told you so.”
again you doctored his words, though. He never said ‘I’m not going to win’. He said ‘I expect to have 500 delegates. While that isn’t enough to win…..’
He says he doesn’t have the delegates to win.
That means he’s not going to win.
Your argument is…?
he says he doesn’t expect, not that he gives up in case the unlikely occurs, and grass roots were and are still fighting for delegates in the trenches, getting bones broken in the process. That is not giving up.
“That means he’s not going to win.”
No it doesn’t. I means he doesn’t openly expect to win. Since he has no control over what the delegates will do at the convention or how many he really has, the statement says nothing about the actual possibility.
Be that as it may, we still are taking over the GOP.
Except that Romney has all the delegates he needs to win on first ballot, as they’re bound to him. (None of this “Actually they’re all unbound” nonsense; they are not. Let’s stop this and focus on reality.)
They don’t have to vote at all under the current rules. By the way, the “bound” delegates of which you speak have been evaporating over the summer. The media claimed that Iowa went to Romney but Iowa is not a state that binds delegates.
For a guy who wants to stop focusing on the theoretical you are not offering a lot of factual basis to the claim that Romney has over 1044 bound delegates. I’m not sure that this is an accurate statement.
At any rate, I’m also not sure it matters. I do know that it is a long shot and most people involved realize it’s a long shot.
What I don’t know is why you begrudge people their hopes. It’s what drives us to take over the GOP and run out the neocons.
Sure, Ron Paul has won more states, but he still doesn’t have anywhere near enough delegates, and even those technically “unbound” delegates, are not going to vote for Paul. They will vote for Romney…and he will take the first ballot. If you have any solid evidence that says otherwise, bring it.
I’m only talking about the Paul presidential campaign. And, as I’ve said, its victory is a mathematical impossibility, so there are other things to focus on. Run the neocons out of the GOP? Hell yes, that is a worthy goal and I support you in doing so. But that’s a far better use of your time and resources than continuing to shout “Ron Paul 2012!” when it’s very clear right now its not going to happen.
So Ron Paul is going to win the nomination even though he doesn’t have even half the delegates needed to do so. And I’m going to buy a million-dollar house even though I only have $500,000. Got it.
As soon as you called the people foolish for still supporting Dr Paul then you lose all credibility. You are what I like to call a “luke warm Paulie”. He has never said he was quitting and he is still in the race all the way to Tampa. You just lost have your readers with this crock of bullshit. Why lie just to get people to focus their efforts in other places? Why not do both…support Dr Paul AND work towards goals you have listed above. Not to mention if RP is a long shot to win then why would I support Gary Johnson this election when he has NO chance of winning?
As opposed to the folks who are still saying that he’s going to win with less than 500 delegates, even though he needs 1,144 to do so? Who is more credible?
But not to win the nomination, just to effect change to the platform. Which, in itself, is a laudable goal, and one I hope he achieves. There’s nothing wrong with supporting that.
Yet you folks keep coming back for more.
I’m not saying you don’t have to support him; you can, quite easily, as I do, just recognize that he’s not going to win and focusing on other areas. In fact, you can support him by taking his message to new arenas and focusing it on places where it can do the most good.
So if that’s the case, and Ron Paul is still a loser, why would you support a loser? I think we both know the answer to this, Nathan.
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
casino spil
Ron hasn’t conceded anything. So that’s misnomer number one. You have to understand that Paul chooses words very carefully and if you read his “concession” you’ll see it’s no concession at all.
Furthermore, abandoning the takeover of the GOP to back a libertarian who is wrong on both war and the Federal Reserve, is throwing away something that’s already been won.
Forget the nomination for a moment, though it is in no way a foregone conclusion that Romney gets it, the takeover of the GOP is far more important.
A hundred Ron Paul congressmen and women would be worth a million Ron Paul presidents. WE are taking this country back and putting energy only into one political office is the dumbest idea ever. Abandoning an effort which has so far netted GOP takeovers in 16 states would be even more dumb.
Jesus, Rick, not this crap.
Where is Johnson wrong? Where he is a warmonger? And where do you actually see the replacement of the Fed with a gold standard to be viable in the near future? (For the record, I’m a goldbug myself, but aside from the Auditing of the Fed—which is happening—I don’t see much of the agenda getting pushed within the next decade, at least not so radically.) I don’t agree with him 100%, but I agree with him 95%—and that’s more than good enough for me.
If you really think taking over the party organization is doable and achievable, then by all means go for it. That’s different than just pushing Ron Paul for the presidency. That makes more sense and is worth more. But denigrating the Libertarian Party candidate just because he doesn’t fit your personal selection is terribly bad form and beyond absurd.
Jeremy, Johnson is on record saying he would use the military to oust dictators. That is so far from being libertarian, I am not bothered at all that pointing it out makes libertarians uncomfortable.
What I think about the likelihood of Ending the Fed sooner rather than later is irrelevant. I can’t support somebody who rejects the fact that the Federal Reserve is not a government agency but a private organization. You have to be way more informed about it than that to sway me to support you.
I didn’t support Barr either for many of the same reasons. The LP has not always picked its candidates wisely. They have lately been enamored with pure name recognition rather than principles.
And frankly, I think the LP should stop wasting money and energy running a Presidential candidate. That would hopefully run out idiots like Wayne Allen Root. Speaking of malinvestment…..
Look at what a single Republican has been able to accomplish in the past 30 years. Ron Paul has single-handedly eclipsed every accomplishment of the National LP.
If the LP would invest only in races where a principled libertarian had a chance of winning and then publicize the accomplishments of those politicians once in office, they could totally change politics forever. All it takes is one office and a record to match the rhetoric. That is what gets people excited and what would draw people to the LP.
Ron Paul has created a blueprint. That’s why the crazies keep believing and keep trucking.
Citation needed.
Please tell me where I have rejected this. TELL ME. I have never rejected the fact that the Federal Reserve is owned by JP Morgan and other large banks, and is the most sinister example of crony capitalism today. Believe me, I want that gone as much as you do! We don’t differ in the ends, only in the means.
I was not terribly enthused with Barr, either, but I want to help the LP get over the stupid voting humps the two major parties have put in its place.
More like past 5; before that he was a virtual nobody in mainstream knowledge. But I get what you’re saying, even though at this juncture I disagree. Who will you support in the general? Romney, Obama, or Johnson? (Since Paul won’t be running, you can’t put him down.)
And they have hundreds of local officials across the country, so politics should have been changed forever forever ago. Look, I agree with you—more local and state candidates should be elected—but it’s not a one-size-fits-all solution.
The problem with the local elections that the LP has won….they have not highlighted or publicized the accomplishments of any of them on a regular basis. The last time they did any good work in this regard was back in 2000 when they talked about Harry Browne’s VP candidate (forget his name) who, while mayor of Bellflower, CA, abolished eminent domain.
But I agree totally with your last comments. The important thing is to become and back the Ron Paul candidates for local and national offices that will rise from this movement.
For those who were unsure what the author meant by Approval Voting, look here: www.approvalvoting.com
When I read the title of this post I thought it was going to be some article on how Ron Paul fans just don’t understand how things work. How we naive, with only a superficial understanding of how our government/economy really work. I was pleasantly surprised that the article wasn’t as condescending as the title would have you believe.
That being said you would have to have your head under a rock if you haven’t heard how ‘Ronulians’ are working on making inroads into the Republican party. Electing people to official party seats as well have political office.
And when it comes to educating the public. When before Ron Paul was there talk of ending the fed, auditing the fed etc. Ron Paul is educating people.
I do concede though that people who champion Ron Paul’s message are not just moving on to the next candidate when we are told our current candidate cannot win.
I see a lot of typical Republican thinking here. Few of us expected Ron Paul to win the nomination. The point is to get the Libertarian message into mainstream thinking so that logic behind it and common sense can spread. Dr Paul’s presidential run therefore was a strategic move to overcome the suppression that has been in place for years. Look at Romney, he is about as close to being a Democrat as is humanly possible without switching parties. He is nearly indistinguishable from his opponent Obama, albeit probably not as corrupt.
The point is that this is not a binary choice. If you want a variation on the Obama theme then you should vote for one of the main candidates. If not then send a message by voting for Gary Johnson. Give him big numbers to signal that the status quo is no longer acceptable. After all we do not need 2 Democrat parties, one is quite sufficient. What we need desperately is a real choice, a choice between liberty and servitude.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/yes-gary-johnson-endorsed-humanitari…
That article is not evidence he wants to “oust dictators”. The myopia of Ron Paul supporters sometimes is so very frustrating. You think RP has a monopoly on Liberty and you convince yourselves that no one else can ever be as good. Gary Johnson was the single most libertarian executive in the last 75 years and vetoed 750 bills (more than all other 49 governors combined). RP sought GJ endorsement in 2008. They overlap on 99% of issues and yet RP supporters will denigrate Johnson. That is just not foolishness.
More on the Daily Caller article:
The Lord’s resistance Army is not a dictatorship. It is a nationless, nomad army that is attacking and murdering civilians. AND he doesn’t propose ousting him, but says if a constitutional declaration of war is declared by congress he would ask for volunteers from the Military to stop them. That is not the same as ousting a dictator (Iraq, Libya, etc).
He has also said he would get us out of Iraq, Iran, Libya, SKorea and would not attack Iran. Where is the militarism.
The President doesn’t get to start from scratch. He has to be willing to unwind and untangle.
Here’s the problem with this article:
It comes from a false left/right paradigm, hidden-establishment point of view, in which the writer fails to address the underlying issue that Paul supporters are generally aware that Romney is basically the white Obama.
Those who have looked into it on their own can tell you that Romney designed the Obama-“care” bill, and implemented it for Obama, federally! LMAO! Don’t believe me, look it up! Even the ‘mainstream’ media has reported those facts!
Besides, Romney’s campaign is funded by the same general contributors as both the ‘08 and ‘12 Obama campaigns! LOL! Thinking Romney represents any real change from the status-quo is foolish!
Romney will continue to be the puppet for the banksters that put both he and Obama in, should he make it, and therefore the country will generally continue down the very same path it’s on now.
Nothing of real value will change, and it will likely continue to get worse. And when it does, this writer is likely to continue the same general jargon in 2016, and say something like, “here’s what (insert name here) supporters don’t realize about their candidate who’s not going to win…bla, bla, bla.”
Just so they can keep their jobs as so-called “journalists.” (aka, establishment brainwashing station attendees)
Uh, yeah, dude, no one is arguing otherwise…
There’s one major problem I have with this idea.
Gary Johnson himself can’t define malinvestment. When challenged on the term when he was still running as a Repub, he hadn’t a clue what it meant. He’s a “follow his gut” sort of guy, with very little intellectual curiosity and development of his own — and running a campaign not dissimilar from George W’s in 2000. As much as I like the LP, I DO NOT want this turkey on stage representing us against Obombney. All he’ll do is make us look like idiots. Can we get some real libertarians nominated next time, or are we going to be stuck with yet another political hack has-been semi-celebrity Republican-in-all-but-name?
Post new comment