Tag Archives: Ron Paul

Lessons from the Paul vs. Paul Debate by Vedran Vuk

A few days ago, I saw this really funny “debate” between Ron Paul and Paul Krugman.  It wasn’t really a debate because of the time lag between when each would talk and the other could hear it, and because Krugman has no idea what he’s talking about and just makes it up as he goes.  Even I could see holes in his arguments.

Vedran Vuk wrote up a good debunking of Krugman’s arguments, and I have a few more to add.

Early on in the debate, Krugman says, “You know you can’t leave the government out of monetary policy …. The central bank is always going to be in the business of managing monetary policy. If you think that you can avoid that, you’re living in some – you’re living in the world as it was 150 years ago.”

Either Krugman has been hanging around Joe Biden too long and has completely lost track of time, or he does not know that the Federal Reserve is barely 99 years old.  The United States did not have a central bank from 1833 through 1913

And times were good!  Without monster central banks controlling the currency and inflation, booms and busts were limited to small geographic regions, and involved very few banks.  When banks acted foolishly, they went bankrupt and were replaced by more responsible banks.

But Krugman has to pretend that was not the case, and insists:

Krugman goes on: “And look, history tells us that in fact a completely unmanaged economy is subject to extreme volatility – subject to extreme downturns. I know that there’s legends that people, probably like you Congressman, have, that the Great Depression was somehow caused by the government – caused by the Federal Reserve – but it’s not true. The reality is that was a market economy run amok. Which happens. It happened repeatedly over the past couple of centuries.”

The Oblivious Economist has to pretend like it wasn’t the central bank’s market policies that have caused every nationwide boom and bust since its inception, and has to be both ignorant and dumb to imagine that our completely managed economy hasn’t been subject to extreme volatility.

And since he’s an idiot, he doesn’t have to reconcile the contradictions in his assertions: that the Fed is required in order to eliminate extreme market volatility and to prevent market economies from running amok, while both ignoring that all this has happened on the Fed’s watch — which means it’s a failure — and the Fed’s contributions to every boom and bust since its inception — which also means it is a failure.

I like how Vuk wraps up:

And here, Krugman completely verifies the validity of Paul’s criticism. It’s impossible for central planners to figure out the perfect interest rate. Similarly, Krugman doesn’t know what the limit to the debt should be. And I don’t blame him for having a tough time – who does know the solution to these problems? Maybe our national debt as a percentage of GDP can reach 200%, 150%, or maybe it’s approaching Armageddon at 130%. It’s impossible to say for sure. In the same way, it’s impossible for the Federal Reserve to set an appropriate interest rate. Is zero too low for inflation? Is raising it to 4% too high? What are the consequences to finding some middle ground?

These are truly unanswerable questions. Without the Fed, the market would find the interest rate itself. You can fill a whole room with Nobel-Prize-winning economists, and they still won’t be able to figure out what the market would do with interest rates. If they knew, most would be millionaires and running their own hedge funds – not employees of quasi-governmental agencies and universities.

Unfortunately, a lack of knowledge doesn’t stop economists from making policy decisions much like what Krugman advocates. He admits to not knowing the limit to our national debt, but at the same time advocates pushing the debt to 130%. What if that’s too high and the result is the start of a final death spiral for the US economy? “Whoops; sorry America.”

This is the general problem with the Fed and all central planners. They try to guide the economy, but more often than not, they create the very recessions that the system is supposed to prevent. The Federal Reserve either leaves rates too low for too long, or it raises them so high as to create an economic slowdown of its own. The Federal Reserve isn’t the wonderful safety net economic idealists imagine. Instead, it’s much closer to driving a car while blindfolded. Unfortunately, people like Krugman are more than willing to take the keys knowing full well the dangers of driving blindfolded. And when these Fed economists inevitably crash into a brick wall, it is the passenger – the American worker – who gets creamed.

via Lessons from the Paul vs. Paul Debate by Vedran Vuk.

What Ron Paul Talks About | Cato @ Liberty

Ron Paul talks about the things about which I like to hear.

So what do we see? Ron Paul talks about deficits and debt more than any other candidate. (President Obama seems to have talked about the deficit most in 2009, when it was all Bush’s fault.) He’s virtually the only candidate who talks about war and troops—no doubt in phrases like “bring the troops home” and “troops in 147 countries.” All those folks who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 to end the war may be wondering where the determined young antiwar senator went; now he doesn’t even talk about America’s wars.

It’s no surprise that Ron Paul uses the words “freedom” and “liberty” more than all the other candidates combined. Those words are pretty basic to the American political tradition. Why don’t the other candidates mention them? He’s also the most likely to mention the Constitution, the document that limits the powers the candidates wish to exercise.

No wonder the other candidates try to pretend like he’s not there.  Those topics aren’t very glamorous, but they are the meat and potatoes of a healthy nation.

via What Ron Paul Talks About | Cato @ Liberty.

I Wouldn’t Hire Ron Paul… by Charles Goyette

This is the best article I’ve seen in recent times on the obvious and flagrant differences between Paul and Romney.

I will grant that Ron Paul is both intelligent and wise. And yes, it is true, that he is the most effective champion of human liberty in public life and seems to know more about the U.S. Constitution than any other elected official. He does seem to be personally kind and is even patient with the most obnoxious media figures. And it’s clear from his voting record that he is a man of principle and integrity.

Still, I wouldn’t hire Ron Paul…

… to fix my car. He could be a backyard automotive tinkerer for all I know. But there is no public evidence to that effect. And I sure wouldn’t hire him to do eye surgery.

He’s not that kind of doctor.

Nor would I hire him to structure a leveraged buyout or manage a hostile corporate takeover. He’s not experienced in those things. In fact, for something like that, or to run a private equity firm that does corporate turnarounds, I actually might hire Mitt Romney. It seems he has both experience and demonstrable success in that area.

But I certainly wouldn’t hire Romney to be president.

Especially now.

via I Wouldn’t Hire Ron Paul… by Charles Goyette.

Electionwatch: 2012

Item The First:
via » It’s the Math, Stupid!: Seven Devastating Facts About 2012 – Big Government.

As we enter 2012, the presidential candidates would do well to wrap their minds and messages around these seven mathematical facts:

  1. Every day, the U.S. government takes in $6 billion and spends $10 billion. This means that every day the federal government spends $4 billion more dollars than it has.
  2. The real unemployment rate is a jaw-dropping 11 percent.
  3. Every fifth man you pass on your way to work is now out of work.
  4. College graduates are now 34% less likely to find a job under Obama than they were under President George W. Bush.
  5. Every seventh person you pass on the sidewalk now relies on food stamps.
  6. The ravages of the Obama economy now mean that more Americans live under the federal poverty line than at any time in U.S. history since records have been kept.
  7. Under President Barack Obama, every fifth child in America now lives in poverty.

Item The Second:
via A Guide to the Presidential Candidates’ Proposals to Cut Spending | Cato @ Liberty.

Ron Paul

Paul’s “Plan to Restore America” would eliminate the departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing & Urban Development, and Interior. Numerous agencies and programs would be eliminated or cut.

Paul supports allowing younger people to opt-out of Social Security and Medicare. Medicaid and other mandatory programs like food stamps would be block-granted to the states. Funding would be cut and froze. Further elaboration on his ideas for Social Security and Medicare would be helpful.

Paul proposes to end all foreign aid. Military spending cuts would be achieved by bringing troops home from overseas and pursuing a non-interventionist foreign policy.

When it comes to proposing specific spending cuts and identifying the dollars amounts, Paul’s website is unrivaled. He is the only candidate to put together an actual budget proposal. Paul’s spending proposals would amount to the largest reduction in the size and scope of the federal government of any candidate.

Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate who actually gives concrete fixes for the nation’s problems, which are entirely caused by too much government.

None of the other candidates want to actually eliminate or reduce anything; they’d much rather talk about making painful decisions and complain about Democrats holding up the process.