Dave Weigel of Reason with Egg on the face...

[Chieftain1776]

Just rediscovered this review (http://www.reason.com/news/show/126457.html)from Reason. I haven't looked to see if Weigel has recanted yet. Maybe his mistake hasn't been pointed out.

"Paul never sounds as certain as when he gets to link this all to monetary policy. He's rarely less convincing. Paul sees a direct link between central banking, fiat currency, and the economic crises that he argues wreck the average American's prosperity and empower thugs. A financial collapse, he prophesies, "becomes more likely every day." He proposes legalizing precious metals as currency and killing sales and capital gains taxes on metals to stave off the crisis. It's all packaged as a monetary twist on Pascal's wager: "If we're wrong, then all we've done is eliminate some taxes on gold and silver. No harm done." This is awfully optimistic. The 19th century's booms and busts were far more damaging to livelihoods and to economic systems than anything in the fiat money era. They provided much steadier footing for radical movements. Paul's overheated worry about a Weimar Republic-style collapse kicks the legs out from underneath the argument."

[BuddyRey]

I used to love Reason Magazine, but they're looking more and more like an over-apologetic pack of yellow, gutless Beltway libertarians every day.

I know that the Senior Editor, Brian Doherty's heart is in the right place (I even read at a Justin Raimondo column that reported his job had been threatened because he was" too pro-Paul"), but he really needs to crack down on the LINO's like Matt Welch that are driving his publication into the ground.

[Chieftain1776]

eh, I still like Reason but I realize they have their own approach. Thankfully we have the Mises Institute and LRC. Actually what led me to that find was this blog post (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/024302.html)...if your interested in the rivalry with the "Kochtopus". All in all I think it's important to not become too enmeshed in it (all though I do like to take shots here and there) but to realize that they each have different agendas/approaches.

[Kludge]

Hardly... Weigel is pointing out the initial devastation that will arise from switching to a metals standard that Paul (understandably) leaves out unless prompted. Weigel also attacks the reason Paul attracts so many truthers and conspiracy theorists: his constant noting of a "TPTB"-type shadow government. I personally think Paul would carry more weight if he used more jargon in his speeches instead of leaving it simple but ambiguous and that Weigel's review (it's very long and generally favorable of Paul) is quite fair.

[Knightskye]

I used to love Reason Magazine, but they're looking more and more like an over-apologetic pack of yellow, gutless Beltway libertarians every day.

I know that the Senior Editor, Brian Doherty's heart is in the right place (I even read at a Justin Raimondo column that reported his job had been threatened because he was" too pro-Paul"), but he really needs to crack down on the LINO's like Matt Welch that are driving his publication into the ground.

Buddy, Can you disprove what Weigel said about Paul's ideas for monetary policy?

[MicroBalrog]

THe entire review is very positive. Sure, it has digs at Paul there and then, but come on. RP isn't God. He's just a very awesome person.

[Chieftain1776]

THe entire review is very positive. Sure, it has digs at Paul there and then, but come on. RP isn't God. He's just a very awesome person.

Oh, I know, I just thought it was worthy to point out (what seems to me) Weigel's dismissal of a financial meltdown prediction as kooky.

[BuddyRey]

Buddy, Can you disprove what Weigel said about Paul's ideas for monetary policy?

No, I'm not exactly well-equipped to do that. But I'm sure Lew Rockwell or any other prominent hard money advocate of the Austrian School could take his scaremongering Fed defense apart piece-by-piece.

[mczerone]

The 19th century's booms and busts were far more damaging to livelihoods and to economic systems than anything in the fiat money era.

I'd like to see some data on this claim. Is he saying the each panic in the 1800's was worse for the well being of the common American than was the GD, or the 1970s? And doing so without any academic support?

I'd like to think that Reason, which is what non-libertarians use to classify all of us, would at least be a little better supported than that, regardless of support for Paul, and his crazy "the financial markets are collapsing" talk.