Yes, I think that explains Ron Paul's misfires pretty well. He had neither education nor experience in economics, finance, or any other related field. He was just a gynecologist who fell into the orbit of goldbugs and Austrian-school kooks, and imagined that gave him some sort of insight into such matters. It was a severe case of Dunning-Kruger.
Speaking of Dunning-Kruger, am I right to understand that you have next to no experience with investing? Here, this will help:
https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/
If you set the starting month at January 2009 and the ending at January 2017 (the Obama market), you'll see that the annualized S&P 500 return, with dividends reinvested, was 13.228%, adjusted for inflation. To put that in perspective, compare to the Reagan years, which Republicans generally agree was a bull market. From January 1981 to January 1989, the figure was 10.084%, adjusted for inflation. So, the Obama bull kicked that bull's ass by a handy margin.
Of course, you could arbitrarily declare that a "bull market" requires more than a 13.228% return after inflation. But how many eight-year periods in history would qualify? Even the legendary Clinton bull market barely exceeded that.
