Have you taken an economics class?

[Ridiculous]

I am curious how many Ron Paul supporters have actually taken an economics class.

[ThePieSwindler]

I've taken a few, and i read alot.. but why do you ask?

[Ridiculous]

I am just curious how educated Ron Paul supporters are on this topic.

[UCFGavin]

just two. but i actually learned more about econ in the last 6 months just doing research than i did in class. maybe because i actually give a shit now.

[maiki]

No, but my dad was/is an economist, and he talked about the stuff all the time. Does that count? I never ended taking a class. Not my cuppa tea.

[surf]

Keynes was king in grad school... i did poorly in that class ( ripping on Keynes is not advised even if your professor is an idiot)

[Green Mountain Boy]

I've never had economics in high school and I don't plan on taking any while in college. Most of my knowledge is from reading books and research online. I tend to think that most economics you learn in school is brainwashing.

[ThePieSwindler]

Keynes was king in grad school... i did poorly in that class ( ripping on Keynes is not advised even if your professor is an idiot)

Damn really? I was under the impression most mainstream economists were closer to free market types than Keynesians. Maybe alot of it depends on the school. All the classes ive taken are less about actual schools of thought, and more about basic economic premises, ones that exist under marxism and under anarcho capitalism.

[nexalacer]

Not since that bullshit called "economics" in high school. But I've learned more about economics in the last 3 or 4 months than I think I would have in one of those state-sponsored ones at the University.

Most economists crack me up with their "analysis" of current economic conditions, which are largely a result of governmental whims. How can most mainstream economists call their work science when it relies on individual humans' interference in the market, not natural laws? The Austrians are the only ones I've seen that don't fall into this as they are the only ones who consistently deride the government for getting involved.

By the way, this thread screams elitism. Lemme guess, you're an economist with a grad degree?

[10thAmendmentMan]

I took one, but honestly the overwhelming majority of economics is just common sense. Being able to figure out how a logical person would act given certain circumstances goes a very long way.

[crhoades]

just two. but i actually learned more about econ in the last 6 months just doing research than i did in class. maybe because i actually give a shit now.

Ditto.

[Johnnybags]

college. In fact, it appears all that I learned was for not with a Federal reserve picking winners and losers. It does not matter how you finance or run your company if Uncle Ben is going to save it. It should be an addendum to all finance/economics books ever made. Now that the Federal government is involved in racketeering public markets on a daily basis, currency,bonds,stocks, commodities, the economics books cannot mean much. They never said when an economy is going to recession that extracting savings out of personal bank accounts or theft to prop up markets was an option. Now its the rule. Ford is bankrupt yet thru magical accounting and financing is still alive. Oh well, the finance class envisioned free markets, maybe I should have taken courses on central planning economies.

[jcbraithwaite7]

I went to a state funded school in Ohio and took economics... funny... they never mentioned a word about the Federal Reserve. I got schooled on that BS by Aaron Russo and Freedom to Facism.

I thought with my business degree and critical thinking skills I was so smart. Now I feel like a chump/victim of government/public education.

[jblosser]

All of you saying "0" or that only learned the wrong stuff, here is your homework. It won't take you long to read.

http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/

[Ridiculous]

Here is my thing, devaluing the dollar isn't always bad. Unless the dollar totally and completely crashes, a decrease in value is not always a negative. It increases the demand for US goods and services and increases our exports. It will actually increase the need for labor in the US. If the value of the dollar is high compared to other currencies people actually loose jobs because there is less of a demand for US goods and services. So It makes sense what you really want is a sort of equilibrium.

A decrease in value is bad for importers, but good for exporters. This isn't some Keynesian theory it is just simple logic. Out trade deficit which used to be huge is actually shrinking.

It seems like to a lot of people on here: Ron Paul's words = gospel

Well I support Ron, but I question.

While I am a Paul supporter, I want to have an educated understanding of what he is saying. It seems that a lot of people are just hearing, dollar down = bad, without really understanding the actual economic theory. I want to know more about the theory that Ron subscribes to before coming to my own opinion.

Someone on here said that they learned more about economics in the last six months than they did in college. Well if you learned about all that since becoming a Paul supporter you probably read sources that support his views. His views are actually in the minority, the school of thought that Ron subscribes to is Chicago/Austrian. Learning about from those sources in not bad at all. But you also have to know the dominant Keynesian school of thought very well if you are going to argue for the minority. (I'm not saying that the poster above didn't do this, I'm just using him as an example). I personally really want to know both so I can come to my own conclusion. But it isn't exactly like learning the ABCs.

Having said that, I do think the Fed is unconstitutional :)

[kalami]

this is a nice site:
http://www.econlib.org/

I learned macro out of Greg Mankiw's book. The book talked about the federal reserve and never gave any criticism, if I'm remembering this correctly. All that talk about central planning generally is bad and market planning is generally better, there wasn't any indication I got that the federal reserve wasn't completely legitimate.

[bygone]

Here is my thing, devaluing the dollar isn't always bad. Unless the dollar totally and completely crashes, a decrease in value is not always a negative.

Well I support Ron, but I question.



I agree with both of these statements. You can find some texts on his economic theory if you search here, or perhaps someone with the link handy will post it for you. From my limited experience with his views I would be willing to say that it isn't likely that he (or people here in general) will agree with your point of view about the dollar.

The difference between RP and other candidates (to me) seems to be that while I can usually guess to a word what the others will say, RP is usually saying something different and will suprise you from time to time.

Just to throw a wrench in things, I'll ask a question. If you owe debts, and the dollar is worth less, how does this affect both sides of that?

[kalami]

Here is my thing, devaluing the dollar isn't always bad. Unless the dollar totally and completely crashes, a decrease in value is not always a negative. It increases the demand for US goods and services and increases our exports. It will actually increase the need for labor in the US. If the value of the dollar is high compared to other currencies people actually loose jobs because there is less of a demand for US goods and services. So It makes sense what you really want is a sort of equilibrium.

A decrease in value is bad for importers, but good for exporters. This isn't some Keynesian theory it is just simple logic. Out trade deficit which used to be huge is actually shrinking.

It seems like to a lot of people on here: Ron Paul's words = gospel

Well I support Ron, but I question.

While I am a Paul supporter, I want to have an educated understanding of what he is saying. It seems that a lot of people are just hearing, dollar down = bad, without really understanding the actual economic theory. I want to know more about the theory that Ron subscribes to before coming to my own opinion.

Having said that, I do think the Fed is unconstitutional :)

I think Ron Paul's argument isn't necessarily against having a low valued currency, just why it's getting devalued.

[Green Mountain Boy]

Here is my thing, devaluing the dollar isn't always bad. Unless the dollar totally and completely crashes, a decrease in value is not always a negative. It increases the demand for US goods and services and increases our exports. It will actually increase the need for labor in the US. If the value of the dollar is high compared to other currencies people actually loose jobs because there is less of a demand for US goods and services. So It makes sense what you really want is a sort of equilibrium.

A decrease in value is bad for importers, but good for exporters. This isn't some Keynesian theory it is just simple logic. Out trade deficit which used to be huge is actually shrinking.


Of course equalibrium is good and that is what should be strived for, but the global monetary system is farther from equilibrium than most people can imagine. The decrease in the value of the dollar is just an effect of the much greater problem of debt inflation. What good that comes out of the decrease in the dollar is overshadowed by the impending economic doom, if you catch my drift.

[rodent]

Not since that bullshit called "economics" in high school. But I've learned more about economics in the last 3 or 4 months than I think I would have in one of those state-sponsored ones at the University.

Most economists crack me up with their "analysis" of current economic conditions, which are largely a result of governmental whims. How can most mainstream economists call their work science when it relies on individual humans' interference in the market, not natural laws? The Austrians are the only ones I've seen that don't fall into this as they are the only ones who consistently deride the government for getting involved.

By the way, this thread screams elitism. Lemme guess, you're an economist with a grad degree?

I'm not an economist, but I'm a statistician (or at least, a grad student in that area.) Statisticians are like economists' best friends. Economics is probably the most science-y of the social sciences because of econometrics and the construction of mathematical models to explain inter-relationships between variables. It's a very math-intense subject that "just reading on the internet" can't begin to tackle.

Of course, not everyone who is an economist has the most intense mathematics training. Your mileage may vary, depending on which economist's bs you're reading. However, the ones who know what's going on are the ones who make money from their intuition and also the ones who won't tell you what they know.

It's not about elitism -- the more in-tune someone is with the mathematics of free-markets, the more crisp their understanding how public policy should be formed. It's unfortunate, however, that most politicians lack this sophistication and pass legislation without a care in the world for the impact it will have on... let's say, "variables" in the US economy.

[Ridiculous]

I agree with both of these statements. You can find some texts on his economic theory if you search here, or perhaps someone with the link handy will post it for you. From my limited experience with his views I would be willing to say that it isn't likely that he (or people here in general) will agree with your point of view about the dollar.

The difference between RP and other candidates (to me) seems to be that while I can usually guess to a word what the others will say, RP is usually saying something different and will suprise you from time to time.

Just to throw a wrench in things, I'll ask a question. If you owe debts, and the dollar is worth less, how does this affect both sides of that?

You don't owe more because the dollar is worth less.

[silverhandorder]

Lets just say I hated FED since high school and before I met RP.

[Chester Copperpot]

I took a class in high school but none in college. I learned about economics myself. though I must say Ive learned more in the last 5 years than all the other time combined...

[Johnnybags]

Here is my thing, devaluing the dollar isn't always bad. Unless the dollar totally and completely crashes, a decrease in value is not always a negative. It increases the demand for US goods and services and increases our exports. It will actually increase the need for labor in the US. If the value of the dollar is high compared to other currencies people actually loose jobs because there is less of a demand for US goods and services. So It makes sense what you really want is a sort of equilibrium.

A decrease in value is bad for importers, but good for exporters. This isn't some Keynesian theory it is just simple logic. Out trade deficit which used to be huge is actually shrinking.

It seems like to a lot of people on here: Ron Paul's words = gospel

Well I support Ron, but I question.

While I am a Paul supporter, I want to have an educated understanding of what he is saying. It seems that a lot of people are just hearing, dollar down = bad, without really understanding the actual economic theory. I want to know more about the theory that Ron subscribes to before coming to my own opinion.

Someone on here said that they learned more about economics in the last six months than they did in college. Well if you learned about all that since becoming a Paul supporter you probably read sources that support his views. His views are actually in the minority, the school of thought that Ron subscribes to is Chicago/Austrian. Learning about from those sources in not bad at all. But you also have to know the dominant Keynesian school of thought very well if you are going to argue for the minority. (I'm not saying that the poster above didn't do this, I'm just using him as an example). I personally really want to know both so I can come to my own conclusion. But it isn't exactly like learning the ABCs.

Having said that, I do think the Fed is unconstitutional :)

This is not some tweeking of exchange rates but a systemic problem which eventually will lead to hyperinflation for US consumers and a firesale of US assets to global concerns. What you see before you is nothing short of exporting our standard of living due to overspending and fiscal mismanagement. It will create two classes of citizens, slaves and slavemasters. Yes, exporters sell more overseas. Importers get crushed, domestic consumption falls. China will end up buying our wheat? This is not some brilliant experiment, its a systemic failure.

[Chester Copperpot]

This is not some tweeking of exchange rates but a systemic problem which eventually will lead to hyperinflation for US consumers and a firesale of US assets to global concerns. What you see before you is nothing short of exporting our standard of living due to overspending and fiscal mismanagement. It will create two classes of citizens, slaves and slavemasters. Yes, exporters sell more overseas. Importers get crushed, domestic consumption falls. China will end up buying our wheat? This is not some brilliant experiment, its a systemic failure.

Agreed.... Having stable money is the key, and that we have not had since we went off the gold standard

[Paulitician]

I haven't taken a college class on one yet but I've read some entry-level books and have a whole course lecture on my computer that I'm just starting to listen to.

[LibertyOfOne]

I remember when I was in college the professor ripped on Keynes any chance he got.

[nexalacer]

I'm not an economist, but I'm a statistician (or at least, a grad student in that area.) Statisticians are like economists' best friends. Economics is probably the most science-y of the social sciences because of econometrics and the construction of mathematical models to explain inter-relationships between variables. It's a very math-intense subject that "just reading on the internet" can't begin to tackle.

Of course, not everyone who is an economist has the most intense mathematics training. Your mileage may vary, depending on which economist's bs you're reading. However, the ones who know what's going on are the ones who make money from their intuition and also the ones who won't tell you what they know.

It's not about elitism -- the more in-tune someone is with the mathematics of free-markets, the more crisp their understanding how public policy should be formed. It's unfortunate, however, that most politicians lack this sophistication and pass legislation without a care in the world for the impact it will have on... let's say, "variables" in the US economy.

OK, I get this, statistics is very important in economics and it definitely makes it more science-y than the rest of the social sciences. However, my main point, is your statistics are quite worthless when they are applied to market situations that are tampered with through state interference. And since ALL transactions/markets in our world are tampered with because ALL currency is tampered with through fiat currencies, the whole science is based on the whims of the central banks and the governments that borrow from them.

I did really well in statistics, when I took those classes, but I didn't go very far because I ended up not having a need for it. However, I've got the type of brain that works well in statistics. And from what I understand, statistics value is based on the value of the data used, and if the data is flawed, then the statistics don't mean shit. And since all the data is flawed, all of the statistics that pro-government interference economists use don't mean shit.

These types of economists like to talk about how the government did this bad in this way, and it should do it in that way. Or how they are interfering too much, so they should interfere less. My problem with this way of thinking is that the government is a criminal organization (through counterfieting and theft through taxation), thus asking them to do it differently or asking them to do it less is the same as asking a hold-up artist to use a knife instead of a gun, or to just steal a little less. It's an immoral way to approach the science of economics.

The virtue of the scientific revolution was that it never accepted violence in the theories that were produced. The assessments were made on observations of real world events, grounded in a solid foundation of the scientific method, and never forced upon people through violence. The science of Economics has failed at reaching this virtue thus far, because it's conclusions, especially in the 20th century, have demanded that histories most violent entity, the state, should "fix" the problems of the economy.

And Ridiculous is right when he says most people here have learned from the Austrian school. That's because the Austrian school is the only school of economics founded on the moral tenet that everyone has a natural right to liberty and self-ownership. This is why Dr. Paul follows this school, and it is why this school has been the most consistent in predicting the fall of socialism, communism, and other economic systems that are interfered with by the state.

If they want to start doing real economics, the statisticians and economists would first be better off spend their time harping on the damage government interference does in the free market. Then with a pure economic system, they could actually teach us real economics.

[Ridiculous]

GDP and Inflation (while currently going up) aren't actually horrible right now.

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Annual_Inflation/annual_inflation_chart.htm

[surf]

i learned about Austrian economics in high school and fought professors in college. they tend to believe that an economy can be managed and they discount Bastiat's broken-window analogies.

"deficient markets theory" is how i'd describe my grad school econ classes

[JMann]

Never took a coarse but my father was a college professor in economics and he was so conservative, he makes Paul look like a big government guy. I'm sure that not many of his students over 25 years teaching ran into anyone else like him.

[atilla]

i received a degree in financial economics. no, the school i went to did not offer the typical macro/micro divisions. i studied the financial markets, foreign trade, currencies and interest rate swaps, derivatives, options, futures, synthetic futures.

please, please, please, join the crusade to have mary-kate and ashley restore their noses to their pre-plastic surgery form.

[nexalacer]

GDP and Inflation (while currently going up) aren't actually horrible right now.

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Annual_Inflation/annual_inflation_chart.htm

GDP means nothing to you and me dealing with our basic day-to-day lives. GDP is a statistic that is supposed to show us the strength of the nation's "economy" as though it's a legitimate entity. It ignores that the economy, just as any group, is just a group of individuals. So by giving you a statistic, which represents the amount of goods in the market, it is not taking into account any of the steps that are required in the production of this good, nor does it take into account individuals' ability to actually buy this good. Here (http://www.mises.org/story/770) is a good article to help you with this one.

And again, the inflation data is garbage, too. That is based on the FED's reporting of inflation and it does not take into account the real-world facts of the situation: the more money there is in the economy, the less real value each dollar has. And since there is a constant influx of new dollars due to the counterfeiting practices of the FED, there is constant inflation, which is defined, simple, as an increase in the money supply. Trusting the FED's numbers on this is like trusting the fox when he tells you he won't steal any chicken's eggs... it's bullshit man.

[Johnnybags]

GDP and Inflation (while currently going up) aren't actually horrible right now.

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Annual_Inflation/annual_inflation_chart.htm

on inflation, Clinton changed the way its calculated because we looked like a Banana Republic. It was spitting out 10 to 15 percent. Go out and buy something? Its worse now than any other time in my life.

[Ridiculous]

GDP means nothing to you and me dealing with our basic day-to-day lives. GDP is a statistic that is supposed to show us the strength of the nation's "economy" as though it's a legitimate entity. It ignores that the economy, just as any group, is just a group of individuals. So by giving you a statistic, which represents the amount of goods in the market, it is not taking into account any of the steps that are required in the production of this good, nor does it take into account individuals' ability to actually buy this good. Here (http://www.mises.org/story/770) is a good article to help you with this one.

And again, the inflation data is garbage, too. That is based on the FED's reporting of inflation and it does not take into account the real-world facts of the situation: the more money there is in the economy, the less real value each dollar has. And since there is a constant influx of new dollars due to the counterfeiting practices of the FED, there is constant inflation, which is defined, simple, as an increase in the money supply. Trusting the FED's numbers on this is like trusting the fox when he tells you he won't steal any chicken's eggs... it's bullshit man.

The FED does not report inflation, or GDP, the Department of Commerce does. The fact that you don't know that makes me doubt your knowledge of economics as it is pretty common knowledge.

And, thousands of economics professors of different schools of thought are watching those numbers. The process at which they are derived is actually pretty transparent believe it or not. It is all published.... http://www.bea.gov/

[johnrocks]

I have my degree in Economics, I was fortunate to have gotten it at a time when a lot of monetarist economic professors were teaching it.:D

[nexalacer]

The FED does not report inflation, or GDP, the Department of Commerce does. The fact that you don't know that makes me doubt your knowledge of economics as it is pretty common knowledge.

And, thousands of economics professors of different schools of thought are watching those numbers. The process at which they are derived is actually pretty transparent believe it or not. It is all published.... http://www.bea.gov/

I never said the GDP was reported by the FED, but the fact that it's reported by the DoC should be enough to show you that it's a nation-state statistic and not a real indicator of anything that is relevant in real-world economics.

And the DoC gets their numbers from the FED.... what do you think the recent video was talking about with Dr. Paul and Bernake.

Common Knowledge != Correct information. Before the 16th century, it was common knowledge that the world was flat. I guess I should go back to believing that, eh?

And I've already stated, most economists are hacks because they praise the free markets yet they don't ever stand up against the biggest infringer on free markets, the central bank and the government.

[Johnnybags]

The FED does not report inflation, or GDP, the Department of Commerce does. The fact that you don't know that makes me doubt your knowledge of economics as it is pretty common knowledge.

And, thousands of economics professors of different schools of thought are watching those numbers. The process at which they are derived is actually pretty transparent believe it or not. It is all published.... http://www.bea.gov/

and the FED does blabber about it constantly, like yesterday, running at two percent. The # is a manipulated stat so that federal payments tied to inflation are kept in check. It has nothing to do with the inflation we all see. Ex food and energy, substitution crap is hocus pocus.

[Ridiculous]

I never said the GDP was reported by the FED, but the fact that it's reported by the DoC should be enough to show you that it's a nation-state statistic and not a real indicator of anything that is relevant in real-world economics.

And the DoC gets their numbers from the FED.... what do you think the recent video was talking about with Dr. Paul and Bernake.

Common Knowledge != Correct information. Before the 16th century, it was common knowledge that the world was flat. I guess I should go back to believing that, eh?

And I've already stated, most economists are hacks because they praise the free markets yet they don't ever stand up against the biggest infringer on free markets, the central bank and the government.

You didn't say that GDP was reported by the Fed but you did say that inflation was, which it is not.

The FED gets their data from the DoC, not the other way around. The DoC is pretty transparent like I stated. You can pretty much look at any of their data. Economics professors and think tanks do every day. Paul and Bernake were arguing about policy not the source of the data. The numbers that the DoC reports are not part of some big conspiracy.

You are right about economists being saying they are for free markets but not standing up for them.

[nexalacer]

You didn't say that GDP was reported by the Fed but you did say that inflation was.

The FED gets their data from the DoC, not the other way around. The DoC is pretty transparent like I stated. You can pretty much look at any of their data. Economics professors and think tanks do every day. Paul and Bernake were arguing about policy not the source of the data. The numbers that the DoC reports are not part of some big conspiracy.

You are right about economists being saying they are for free markets but not standing up for them.

I wish we had the banging the head against the wall smiley. It's appropriate talking with you.

Regardless of where the damn statistics come from, they are worthless because they don't talk about the real supply of money. They use bullshit statistics like the CPI and the GDP. Again, these are useful for determining Keynesian inflation, but they do nothing to determine the real inflation that INDIVIDUALS face in their daily economic life. That inflation is determined by an increase of the money supply.

From Wikipedia:

Keynesian economic theory proposes that money are transparent to real forces in the economy, and that visible inflation is the result of pressures in the economy expressing themselves in prices.
This theory says money, the neural system of an economy, is transparent to real forces in the economy. This talk about visible inflation does not take in the long term, does not take in the fact that more money means less value per unit, and is the exact kind of nonsense needed to justify government intervention. This is hackery, not economics.

It's not about a conspiracy, its about mainstream economists, including those in the DoC, having been fooled by this shit for decades and not basing their science on any moral basis of truth. They tell us the truth when they say free markets are good, then they lie when they say government interference is good as well. You can't have both! This makes all of their statistics garbage.

[jblosser]

Paul and Bernake were arguing about policy not the source of the data.

Paul criticizes their numbers fairly often. He doesn't accept their BS 2% inflation rate claim.

[Ridiculous]

I wish we had the banging the head against the wall smiley. It's appropriate talking with you.

Regardless of where the damn statistics come from, they are worthless because they don't talk about the real supply of money. They use bullshit statistics like the CPI and the GDP. Again, these are useful for determining Keynesian inflation, but they do nothing to determine the real inflation that INDIVIDUALS face in their daily economic life. That inflation is determined by an increase of the money supply.

From Wikipedia:

This theory says money, the neural system of an economy, is transparent to real forces in the economy. This talk about visible inflation does not take in the long term, does not take in the fact that more money means less value per unit, and is the exact kind of nonsense needed to justify government intervention. This is hackery, not economics.

It's not about a conspiracy, its about mainstream economists, including those in the DoC, having been fooled by this shit for decades and not basing their science on any moral basis of truth. They tell us the truth when they say free markets are good, then they lie when they say government interference is good as well. You can't have both! This makes all of their statistics garbage.

You'd still be using the same methods to measure the economy if we had totally free trade. Just because the policy is bad does not mean that the economic metrics are. The DoC isn't faking data, anyone can look at it.

Regardless of policy, you still use the same metrics to measure the economy. What is debatable is if a trend is good or bad, or what level of inflation, employment, production, is acceptable. As long as the metrics used are consistent you can get a decent picture, but it isn't an exact science. All these methods of measurement are shared. If one is changed you can just compare the new with the old.... It isn't like the way that they got to 2% is a secret....

[nexalacer]

You'd still be using the same methods to measure the economy if we had totally free trade. Just because the policy is bad does not mean that the economic metrics are. The DoC isn't faking data.

Regardless of policy, you still use the same metrics to measure the economy. What is debatable is if a trend is good or bad, or what level of inflation, employment, production, is acceptable.

This is an interesting post. I've not considered this before.. if we had a free-market with no government interference would we be measuring the economy at all? I mean, of course economists would study it, I suppose, but would they use the same metrics? All of these metrics are used to determine how much government interference to use, aren't they? I'm not sure. I will definitely think on this.

And I really don't mean that the DoC is faking it when I say their data is bullshit. I just mean it doesn't help US in determining how our quality of life is. High GDP or low DoC-reported inflation don't mean shit when you can't afford your mortgage or health care. These statistics are useful in shaping policy in order to please the top 5% of society who get their wealth in the big dollar games that most of us don't get involved with.

Edit- oh, and in a free market, there would be no "policy" because government policy makers would not be involved.

[atilla]

Paul criticizes their numbers fairly often. He doesn't accept their BS 2% inflation rate claim.

here is where ron paul gets his numbers:

http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs?

[Ridiculous]

Edit- oh, and in a free market, there would be no "policy" because government policy makers would not be involved.

There has to be some kind of monetary policy even on a gold standard. You can't just have zero policy.

[nexalacer]

There has to be some kind of monetary policy even on a gold standard. You can't just have zero policy.

Sure you can. With no national currencies, the true free market gold standard, we would use weights of gold, just like we've always used, until the 19th century and the development of nationalized currencies. The prices would fluctuate freely on the market, as they do now, but it would be in grams or ounces of gold and silver, rather than some currency that is decided by a governments policy.

I know its hard, but please, when you think of something concerning economics, before you find it to be the truth, ask yourself if its based on a statist view of the world. If it is, check your premises and reevaluate your thought.

[Johnnybags]

Washington DC * August 12, 2007 * By deciding to ante up $38 billion for a hopeless bailout of predatory Wall Street hedge funds and the banks that stand behind them, Federal Reserve Chairman Helicopter Ben Bernanke has placed the bankrupt US dollar on a direct course towards the precipice of hyperinflation. In so doing, he has given new momentum to the backers and controllers of Dick Cheney, who favor an insane flight forward into general war with Iran, deluding themselves that they can thus escape from both military defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan, and from the death agony of the dollar.

On August 9-10, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, the Federal Reserve, plus the central banks of Australia, Norway, Switzerland, and other countries "injected" the equivalent about a third of a trillion dollars ($325 billion) into the money systems of the world. The Bank of Japan handed out a dramatic ¥ 1 trillion, about $8.5 billion. The European Central Bank showed signs of panic, or of realism, by spewing out about ¤ 160 billion over two days. Their goal was to stave off a spreading panic at bond trading desks and in the capital markets of the world about junk bonds, collateralized debt obligations (CDOS), mortgage backed securities, and other paper debt instruments. At about 9 AM on Friday August 10, the Chicago futures markets suggested that the Dow Jones Industrial average would open down about 190 points. That meant the potential for spreading stock market panic, with the DJIA closing down 1,000 to 2,000 points or more by the end of the day, quite possibly pitching more banks and hedge funds into bankruptcy. Such an event would also tend to awaken the US middle class to the fact that their 401 (K) and IRA pension plans were being liquidated. This would make the financial crisis a political crisis as well, and perhaps stoke the fires of impeachment. Helicopter Ben therefore followed his predecessor, Bubbles Greenspan, on the path of bailout, although on a larger scale than what Greenspan had ever attempted in public. Bernanke and the New York Fed bought up $38 billion of toxic mortgage-backed securities from the principal hyenas of Wall Street -- led, we can be sure, by Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, J.P. Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, and Citibank. For bailout purposes, the banks were given a sweetheart interest rate, just 4%, less than the 5.25% target Fed funds rate used for interbank lending, and much less than the 6.25% the Fed requires from banks coming to its own discount window under normal circumstances. The $38 billion, injected in three doses during the course of the day, in addition to other Fed measures, was almost enough to prop the market up for eight hours * the Dow closed with a loss of 31 points. So the central banks will need to provide more fixes, sooner rather than later.

As Alan Greenspan instructed Bill Clinton when the latter took office, the bond market, also referred to as the capital or credit market, is much more important than the stock market in the current US-UK financial system. Right now not just dubious junk bonds and mortgage-backed securities, but even the classic triple A investment grade corporate bonds, are in great distress. Indeed, the bond market has partially shut down in response to the crisis. This is far more serious than a mere stock market crash, such as the one of October 1987.

The Bank of England has said nothing about injections, and is poised to raise its interest rates once again, putting additional pressure on the dollar by tempting hot money to flee out of Wall Street to London. The British may well figure that when the battered US greenback goes under, the British pound sterling will remain afloat, and benefit from the US shipwreck. London has in any case already replaced New York as the real financial capital of the world; this has been a strategic priority for Gordon Brown for some years.

[Ridiculous]

Sure you can. With no national currencies, the true free market gold standard, we would use weights of gold, just like we've always used, until the 19th century and the development of nationalized currencies. The prices would fluctuate freely on the market, as they do now, but it would be in grams or ounces of gold and silver, rather than some currency that is decided by a governments policy.

I know its hard, but please, when you think of something concerning economics, before you find it to be the truth, ask yourself if its based on a statist view of the world. If it is, check your premises and reevaluate your thought.

The whole world would have to be on a gold standard for that to work, not just the US. It is not realistically feasible.

[KingTheoden]

I've taken a total of four Economics classes (plus four business classes). Three were at Columbia University, one being on the edge of undergraduate and graduate level. I think the best thing a student can do is study Microeconomics with a solid book and instructor.

[slantedview]

I am just curious how educated Ron Paul supporters are on this topic.

More educated than a typical supporter of some other candidate, unfortunately.

[wgadget]

Never took a college level economics class, but as homeschoolers we have studied Richard Maybury's books. Does that count?

[sky21448]

lmao my economics class professor is stupid, I learned much more from youtube and from ron paul...I think most of those economics classes are useless

[Wilkero]

I'm working on a Ph.D. in economics right now. For the purposes of full disclosure, I'll tell you that I'm not that far along (I haven't taken my prelims yet). However, in order to understand the subject, you have to realize that most of it consists of mathematically-based models and certain assumptions regarding how people behave (i.e. people derive an individual amount of utility from certain goods/things/activities and act rationally in order to maximize their utility).

For macroeconomics, it is extremely difficult to observe how any single policy or decision affects an economy. This is simply because it is impossible to control for all of the variables that come into play. Therefore, it is relatively easy to argue for or against the validity of different models. I am, however, a fan of the more intuitive models, like those of the Austrian school. As a result, I think RP's economic ideas are quite attractive.

[Richandler]

I took economics in high school, but it was a completely worthless class. I've learned more from watching Bullshit!, Penn Radio, John Stossel, and listening to Ron Paul.

[enter`name`here]

Currently working on an undergraduate degree in economics. I've learned mostly Keynesian nonsense though, but I've made up for it by buying alot of Austrian texts on-line.

[cjhowe]

<snip>
Common Knowledge != Correct information. Before the 16th century, it was common knowledge that the world was flat. I guess I should go back to believing that, eh?


Ah ha! The world is flat! Earth however, not so much.

There is no one correct school of thought on the matter of economics. Economics is after all a science, a study of human decisions and their repercussions. New facts and data points are coming in all of the time. New ways of looking at the data being considered all of the time. But for what? Like any science, it's purpose is to do stuff; to have application; to make decisions.

The philosophical argument for why you should reject a central bank is not because it's some cartel, or because of some cloak and dagger fantasy, or based on the prospects of a prosperous society, or growth, or interest rates, or inflation, but because the purpose of economics is to make decisions.

Central planning of the economy consumes many decisions that should be personal and individual. When you are unable to make decisions that are person and individual, you are less free. Choosing freedom is why you reject the central bank.

[nexalacer]

The whole world would have to be on a gold standard for that to work, not just the US. It is not realistically feasible.

Ok, so when we go from the Dollar to the Amero, the world will adapt quite easily, but if we go from the Dollar to ounces or grams of gold, they won't? Come on man, what's that 1400g mass of gray matter between your ears for if you don't wanna use it?

[jonahtrainer]

I've never had economics in high school and I don't plan on taking any while in college. Most of my knowledge is from reading books and research online. I tend to think that most economics you learn in school is brainwashing.

The economics in public education is there to confuse people and promote the state. Here is the Austrian home study course (http://www.mises.org/store/Mises-Institute-Home-Study-Course-in-Austrian-Economics-P211C0.aspx) from Mises.org. They have some great products on economics.

[jonahtrainer]

Ok, so when we go from the Dollar to the Amero, the world will adapt quite easily, but if we go from the Dollar to ounces or grams of gold, they won't? Come on man, what's that 1400g mass of gray matter between your ears for if you don't wanna use it?

If we changed to a gold monetary system it would be more stable but the growth would probably be constrained. Debt is like a sugar high then crash. 'Investors,' or Capital, would no longer get bailed out for bad decisions at the expense of 'Labor.' I can hear them now; 'We will not be crucified upon a cross of gold!' Because Capital wouldn't get bailed out they would be much more cautious with their money. This will constrain the economy but provide for better allocations of capital and a higher standard of living in the long-term.

If fractional reserve banking were done away with (which it probably shouldn't because it interferes with freedom of contract) then there would be even less liquidity. There are already functioning alternatives, like GoldMoney.com (http://www.goldmoney.com), to the current debt-based system.

The only real change that needs to be made is the removal of the 28% rate gain tax on gold bullion as measured in federal reserve notes. Ironically, Sen. Larry "tappy tappy" Craig had sponsored a bill that would do that.


I'm working on a Ph.D. in economics right now. For the purposes of full disclosure, I'll tell you that I'm not that far along (I haven't taken my prelims yet). However, in order to understand the subject, you have to realize that most of it consists of mathematically-based models and certain assumptions regarding how people behave (i.e. people derive an individual amount of utility from certain goods/things/activities and act rationally in order to maximize their utility).

For macroeconomics, it is extremely difficult to observe how any single policy or decision affects an economy. This is simply because it is impossible to control for all of the variables that come into play. Therefore, it is relatively easy to argue for or against the validity of different models. I am, however, a fan of the more intuitive models, like those of the Austrian school. As a result, I think RP's economic ideas are quite attractive.

This is a prime reason the economic theory needs to be backed by philosophy. Ultimately, it gets back to individual rights. This Philosophy of Liberty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I) video is a very simple video that explains the topic very well.

Ultimately, it gets down to the policy and values we endorse as a society. This is reflected in our law. In full disclosure, I am a Doctor of Law. This is where the breakthrough of American jurisprudence really was revolutionary in the history of the world. It subjugated society to moral law and became the rule of law and not of man.

The issue is a moral one which leads back to the Creation from Design argument (intelligent design, creationism, etc. are all offshoots of this argument). That argument has kept philosophers chasing their tales for a long, long time. For example, Jefferson used Nature's God as the source of rights, the violation of which, justified Revolution. Where else do we derive the authority?

See the line of questioning: They are inherent in the individual. Then what difference does it make if they are violated? It would be immoral. Why?

[Vonhayek7]

Was going to major in economics but switched to nursing. All of the information I learned was really helpful and kinda glad that I made the mistake first time around. Finding nursing than economics to be harder, go figure! Afraid my 4.0 is about to go away due to microbiology :(

[nexalacer]

If we changed to a gold monetary system it would be more stable but the growth would probably be constrained. Debt is like a sugar high then crash. 'Investors,' or Capital, would no longer get bailed out for bad decisions at the expense of 'Labor.' I can hear them now; 'We will not be crucified upon a cross of gold!' Because Capital wouldn't get bailed out they would be much more cautious with their money. This will constrain the economy but provide for better allocations of capital and a higher standard of living in the long-term.

If fractional reserve banking were done away with (which it probably shouldn't because it interferes with freedom of contract) then there would be even less liquidity. There are already functioning alternatives, like GoldMoney.com (http://www.goldmoney.com), to the current debt-based system.

The only real change that needs to be made is the removal of the 28% rate gain tax on gold bullion as measured in federal reserve notes. Ironically, Sen. Larry "tappy tappy" Craig had sponsored a bill that would do that.

I agree there would be lots of complaints, but I don't think the fears of constrained growth are valid. I mean, it wouldn't be this current growth that is a result of a far too large money supply, but there are methods of providing credit without committing fraud.

And I absolutely agree, fractional reserve banking is bad, but it should not be illegal because of freedom of contract. However, if your contract does not include fractional reserve and the bank loans out your money with a fractional reserve model, they should be held accountable for committing fraud, just like any other con-artist would.

And yes yes yes! We must remove ALL taxes on bullion! Silver and gold bullion must not be taxed for a hard money system to work.

[RP4ME]

Here is my thing, devaluing the dollar isn't always bad. Unless the dollar totally and completely crashes, a decrease in value is not always a negative. It increases the demand for US goods and services and increases our exports. It will actually increase the need for labor in the US. If the value of the dollar is high compared to other currencies people actually loose jobs because there is less of a demand for US goods and services. So It makes sense what you really want is a sort of equilibrium.

A decrease in value is bad for importers, but good for exporters. This isn't some Keynesian theory it is just simple logic. Out trade deficit which used to be huge is actually shrinking.

It seems like to a lot of people on here: Ron Paul's words = gospel

Well I support Ron, but I question.

While I am a Paul supporter, I want to have an educated understanding of what he is saying. It seems that a lot of people are just hearing, dollar down = bad, without really understanding the actual economic theory. I want to know more about the theory that Ron subscribes to before coming to my own opinion.

Someone on here said that they learned more about economics in the last six months than they did in college. Well if you learned about all that since becoming a Paul supporter you probably read sources that support his views. His views are actually in the minority, the school of thought that Ron subscribes to is Chicago/Austrian. Learning about from those sources in not bad at all. But you also have to know the dominant Keynesian school of thought very well if you are going to argue for the minority. (I'm not saying that the poster above didn't do this, I'm just using him as an example). I personally really want to know both so I can come to my own conclusion. But it isn't exactly like learning the ABCs.

Having said that, I do think the Fed is unconstitutional :)

I hear ya but it is a short term benefit....I dont belive you can sustain the economy with this long term.....we are gonna have hyperinflation that is magnificently breathtaking.....and ultimately it sets us up for even more dollar decline...I'll see you at the assembly plant when we pick up our checks form our chinese masters!

[RP4ME]

this is a nice site:
http://www.econlib.org/

I learned macro out of Greg Mankiw's book. The book talked about the federal reserve and never gave any criticism, if I'm remembering this correctly. All that talk about central planning generally is bad and market planning is generally better, there wasn't any indication I got that the federal reserve wasn't completely legitimate.

I was a Finance Major and in commercial banking the Fed and its functions were thouroghly presented but there really wasnt any dissecting the value of the Fed....it was just liek thsi is how it is.....I just walked away with an inner knowing that Greenspan ruled the WORLD not the President. Later I realized G-man was a lackey for the real BOOGEYDMENS!:eek:

We SHOULD be questioning these things in school. Hopefully this campaign will change that.

[BuddyRey]

I've never taken any economics classes, and the prospect of doing so bewilders and frightens me, as I am easily intimidated by mathematics and left-brain thinking in general.

[jonahtrainer]

I agree there would be lots of complaints, but I don't think the fears of constrained growth are valid. I mean, it wouldn't be this current growth that is a result of a far too large money supply, but there are methods of providing credit without committing fraud.

And I absolutely agree, fractional reserve banking is bad, but it should not be illegal because of freedom of contract. However, if your contract does not include fractional reserve and the bank loans out your money with a fractional reserve model, they should be held accountable for committing fraud, just like any other con-artist would.

And yes yes yes! We must remove ALL taxes on bullion! Silver and gold bullion must not be taxed for a hard money system to work.

The fears for growth are because capital would be idle. Our current system strongly promotes an increased velocity of money. There are advantages to it. I think the advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages though. Also, our current system is immoral which is the main disadvantage.

Under our current law deposits are treated as loans not bailments. When the property is treated as a bailment and loaned out the charge is embezzlement.

For example, if the drycleaner rents your suit he has committed an embezzlement. If he goes bankrupt while having possession of your suit it does not show up on his books as an asset for creditors to seize. A deposit shows up on the bank's balance sheet and is available to creditors upon bankruptcy. The account holder becomes an unsecured creditor instead of a bailor. The bank is a debtor instead of an absconding bailee. The legal case is presented in The Case Against the Fed (http://www.mises.org/store/Case-Against-the-Fed-The-P69C1.aspx) by Rothbard.

The debt market has a legitimate and useful purpose. I favor a strict separation of warehouse operators and lending operations. There are new avenues for loans though like Prosper.com (http://www.prosper.com). We are in for a lot of change in the Information Age and the Ancient Metal of Kings (http://zealllc.com/2002/digigold.htm) will play a very large role.

[ksuguy]

Took 3 classes from local colleges back when I was High School. It is actually a pretty easy subject to understand.

[Paul4Prez]

I took an economics class at the Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University, in the MBA program. It was great -- pure free market.