Ron Paul has establishment support. PIMCO CEO considers him the best candidate.

http://www.examiner.com/finance-exa...including-pimco-s-bill-gross-support-ron-paul

Looks like Paul is not just an anti-establishment candidate. He would not mind a Ron Paul Presidency.

 

Gee, I'm shocked!!! And what have I been saying all week.

 

Gee, a businessman wanting a free market and sound money... who'da figger'd.

 

Bob Gross was just on CNN. He is not a proponent of Paul's monetary policy, but his fiscal and foreign policies.

 

Not to be disrespectful, but why would I care what Bob Gross thinks?

 

Sorry, that was a misnomer. I meant to say Bill Gross.

 

Okay, better. I would think that any Chief Officer from any corporation would view Ron Paul's monetary policy with some trepidation. After all Dr. Paul would want to eliminate the Fed, the lender of last resort and the cause of many of the boom and bust cycles of the past century.

Eliminate the lender of last resort and implement sound money practices then banks, and the government, would have to make an honest living (which they can't do so they'll fail).

 

How is the Bill Gross even remotely "establishment?"

 

Note; businesses in general will fail, because none of them are capable of earning an honest profit (if such a thing can even exist--I am skeptical).

 

Right, because every CEO on the planet is part of the "establishment".

 

What do you think this proves, exactly?

Obviously, some CEOs are going to support Ron Paul, but that does not mean the "establishment" supports Ron Paul.

Do you always jump to ridiculous conclusions, or do you only do it when it concerns Ron Paul?

 

In other words, this "establishment" type supports Ron Paul, except when it comes to Ron Paul's most important component of his political platform.

 

Business will always exist, as long as there are consumers. Honesty in business comes from the consumers ability to choose. Consumers tend to choose the best product for the best price. Failure occurs when government regulates business and eliminates choice, hence monopolies, higher costs and inferior products.

 

Not necessarily. However, Bill Gross is the co-founder of the largest bond trader in the nation. He does not advocate ending the Federal Reserve, nor does he advocate returning the gold standard. He is certainly a member of the establishment.

 

There is exactly one way an honest profit can happen; for a business to willingly admit that they're just tacking on a percentage charge simply for the privilege of allowing you to buy something... and for the customer to go along with it.

It's like someone saying "Hey, this item cost me $5 in materials and $2 worth of labor paying myself, so the price for you is $10." It's pretty much just an admission that the business owner is screwing the customer.

Free-market drivel.

 

When PIMCO donates millions to his campaign and meets with him, then we'll talk.

 

So what?

Then he does not really support Ron Paul.

Maybe he is, but you haven't provided any reason why we should consider him as part of said "establishment", nor have you provided an objective definition of what constitutes the "establishment".

 

So the standard for "really supporting" a candidate is 100% complete agreement on all issues? That's pretty crazy. Ron Paul is not a religion... I think.

 

You think providing goods and services to individuals at a price they're willing to pay is "screwing" someone?

Socialist delusions never cease to amaze me...

The only drivel I see is your irrational and perverse conception of how a voluntary exchange between mutually consenting parties constitutes some kind of injustice.

I would suggest seriously reevaluating your worldview because it is really messed up and irrational.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/establishment

 

No, but not supporting a central tenet of his economic philosophy should disqualify you.

It'd be like saying I support Hitler, except for his plans to exterminate the Jews and institute a thousand year Reich.

 

You left out something.

the existing power structure in society; the dominant groups in society and their customs or institutions; institutional authority (usually preceded by the ): The Establishment believes exploring outer space is worth any tax money spent.

How does PIMCO meet such a definition? They do not have any authority or power over anyone as far as I can tell.

 

They have significant authority or power over the Federal Reserve. Almost every major investing or banking institution has the power to influence monetary policy.

 

If there is a profit margin on an item, one of two things has happened;

A) The business owner has underpaid his workers.
B) The business owner is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing the customer over.

There is no other explanation for profit. We're not even talking about something like arbitrage, where the owner is benefiting in temporary dislocations between labor pricing and sales price. We're talking a systematic attempt to do A, or B, or both. Someone in all of this is getting screwed, there's no other way to explain the percentage.

Which certainly explains why one person gets rich from a succession of exchanges and the other person gets poorer. Either you think that most of humanity is dumber than dirt (in that they won't seek beneficial exchanges), or there's a systemic inequity, and likely a great deal of coercion. I mean, not all coercion is as blatantly obvious as a gun in the face. Leaving someone with no real option other than accepting a raw deal for renting themselves is pretty coercive too. You can't have meaningful consent given under pressure, say from starvation or homelessness, or all the other problems that come from a lack of wealth in a capitalist society. It distorts labor pricing, severely, in favor of the holders of capital.

For no reason you seem to be able to explain, other than some tripe about "voluntary exchange" in a context of extreme coercion and implied violence.

 

Why? You can't support him because of his stance on foreign policy, or his stance on social policy, or hell, just because he's pretty much the only candidate supporting an end to the war on drugs? So you disagree with him on economic policy? So what? It's not like we're voting for dictator here, there's more people involved than just the president in making policy. Maybe you realize that he's got a good chance of getting his foreign policy and a poor chance of reforming the fed, and are willing to take that bet.