Ed Crane (Cato CEO): Ron Paul "hangs with folks he shouldn't"

[Epic]

My long time friend, Ron Paul (who hangs with folks he shouldn’t) has a popular new book out, End the Fed. I’m for that.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/11/ed-cranes-hopes/

[catdd]

Crane has lunch with the King of Counterfeiting and then complains about the people RP hangs with. Damn hypocrite.

[purplechoe]

So, this is what the new dailycaller is all about? I checked it out yesterday and it has establishment written all over it.

[MRoCkEd]

He calls Ron Paul his friend and shows support for his book...
good enough for me

[Epic]

Crane is good - he rails against the big-government neocons and the Fed, and promotes public choice economic analysis.

[FSP-Rebel]

So, this is what the new dailycaller is all about? I checked it out yesterday and it has establishment written all over it.
Dennis Miller interviewed Tucker Carlson on his radio show yesterday for a whole hour discussing his involvement in creating The Daily Caller. Tucker said he started the site with one of his former college buddies that was in the Bush admin.

[gls]

I thought CATO was pro-Federal Reserve (while still having the balls to call themselves a "free market" think tank). It was one of the reasons they were always attacking Ron Paul during his presidential run. Hell they even had Ben Bernanke give the keynote address at their 25th anniversary party a couple of years ago.

I guess now that the momentum has shifted, they're no longer as afraid of bucking the establishment they long so much to be a part of.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Once again CATO shows how much of an ass they are.

[jkr]

FREEDOM of association!

[mczerone]

Who are these "folks"?

Lew Rockwell or the other 424 congresspeople besides Paul?

[TheConstitutionLives]

Pretty good write up I thought.

Ed Crane’s hopes for this fine publication
By Ed Crane 01/11/10 at 1:19 pm

At last, an alternative to Arianna. Congratulations on the chronically postponed launch of The Daily Caller. I love reading Tucker’s stuff, which is always entertaining and occasionally insightful. I hesitate to offer this post for fear it might obviate the need for The Daily Caller, but I’ve been around, ya know, and I can at least aim things in the right direction.

Public Choice – Fer christsake, someone take Jim Buchanan’s Nobel Prize seriously. Government exists to expand. Politicians and bureaucrats are self-interested. They want more power, more money, more clients. P. J. O’Rourke’s famous statement that “Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys” is no joke. I read a proposal somewhere recently that said the welfare state should never be larger than it needs to be. Please. Enough. It was Franklin who told the woman outside the Constitutional Convention when she asked, what have you given us?, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.” That’s what the Constitution is all about: limits on the power of government. The Framers and Founders were not dummies. Pretty smart, actually. They would have been amazed that the Constitution held together for as long as it did. But now, while all politicians pay lip service to “the rule of law,” they all also ignore the source of law in America, the Constitution. Remember the lovely Speaker Pelosi sputtering “Are you serious? Are you serious?” when a constituent deigned to inquire as to where the Feds got the constitutional authority to mandate individual health insurance. So when the WaPo offers its wide-eyed innocent accounting of Congressional hearings, as though they represented a rational weighing of policy alternatives and not a forgone behind closed doors done deal, bemusement, not deference, should be the order of the day.

War – War is the health of the state, always has been, always will be. What in the world are we doing in the Middle East? Are we worried that they’ll stop producing oil and take to eating sand? I wouldn’t worry about that. Eisenhower was dead on right about the military-industrial complex. See Public Choice. Conservatives want to increase military spending as though we’re in the 1940s. Not only is this a waste of money, it clearly decreases our national security. I went to the Soviet Union in 1981 and was dumbfounded to see that, while the CIA was claiming the Soviets had 63% of our GDP, they, in fact, had no GDP. Little food, no consumer goods, lousy tanks and nothing else. (Okay, some nukes.) But whatever GDP they had amounted to perhaps less than 5% of what we had in the US. I wrote an article in December of 1981 making that very point, predicting the imminent demise of the USSR. Thank you. My point is the Feds haven’t got a clue about economics. They think that if we’re not in the Middle East we will run out of oil and die or something. Wrong. Oil is a fungible commodity and we don’t need to spend trillions of dollars to insure it gets on the world market. No more kids should die in Iraq or Afghanistan. Bring them home now.

Federal Reserve System – Much as I hate to drop names, I had lunch with Ben Bernanke in the White House mess just about a week prior to his being named as head of the Fed. Nice guy. But it soon became clear that the man actually believes a strong economy is inherently inflationary. Please. An honest strong economy is deflationary, which is good, since the lower prices occur at the point of productivity gain and, hence, do not distort relative prices. But that’s not the way Ben looks at it. I said to him, it seems as though you disagree with Milton Friedman that inflation is solely a monetary phenomenon. He said, yes, that is true. Well, thank god the food in the White House mess is so good, or I’m out of there. The fact is we are in for a period of ugly inflation because Ben Bernanke doesn’t appreciate Milton Friedman. My long time friend, Ron Paul (who hangs with folks he shouldn’t) has a popular new book out, End the Fed. I’m for that. His bill to have more oversight of the Fed might be problematic but for Bernanke’s seeming desire to join the Obama Cabinet. Read my lips: The more of a commodity that exists, the less value each unit of that commodity will have. See the sinking dollar.

GOP Follies – My friends at Cato are sick of hearing me beat up on the Supply-siders and the Neocons. But I’m the CEO so they listen (or pretend to). The supply-side movement, with which I am in agreement if the issue is too-high marginal tax rates, lost its direction because gurus like Jude Wanniski, Jack Kemp and Art Laffer explicitly adopted a strategy of promoting economic growth, not liberty, as the driving force for the GOP. Now, the late Jude was, in fact, a self-proclaimed big-government Democrat who embraced supply-side economics to grow the economy so the government would grow to fund more government programs. But supply-side was (and is) associated with the Republicans. It made them quite lame in their efforts to defend limited government. No spending cuts were to be mentioned, much less the proper role of government under the Constitution. It’s why some of the best and brightest are in the Club for Growth. From my perspective, liberty is more compelling thatn growth. As for the Neocons, don’t get me started. They always have been and always will be big government folks. Look, they were agitating for a war against Iraq a decade before 9/11. They are the ones behind the thinly disguised federal effort to take over education in America. They promote National Greatness, the concept that says you’re not really fulfilled until you subjugate your goals and values in life to the greater good of the nation. (Wasn’t that tried and found wanting in the 20th Century?). Anyway, get ‘em the hell out of here..

So, that’s a taste of where I hope the libertarianish Daily Caller will guide us. At a minimum, Tucker doesn’t have a Greek accent.

Ed Crane is the founder and president of the Cato Institute.

[Matt Collins]

Someone should ask him to elaborate on that statement.

[steve005]

this should not be tolerated, its blatent propaganda, anyone who doesn't know much about him will dismiss him and his book because of that comment

[tron paul]

My name is Ed Crane and I'm soooo Important because I lead the State-O Institute, the nations premier Beltwaytarian Sell-Out, Pseudo-Conservative Think Tank.

I am so egotistical that I presume to tell Dr. Ron Paul, the most powerful and respected Republican in DC, who he should allow to be his supporters.

And furthermore, I'm butthurt.... Snivel, snivel, whine whine. Weasel. Isreal uber alles, snivel. Whaaaa, Whaaa Whaaa!

[SimpleName]

Can't trust Cato. They are lost puppies. Rupert Murdoch was on their board of directors. That is enough to make me steer clear from bothering with them. Also, Liberty Media Chairman John Malone (neo-con) is now on the board. Ugh!

[AggieforPaul]

I agree with CATO on this one. Ron Paul hangs with Lew Rockwell, and whatever other racist slobs wrote those newsletters. He'd be better off cutting them loose.

[DjLoTi]

oh come on it's just a little comment, you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill

[John of Des Moines]

What does Ed say about Jesus hanging with the wrong people? Just asking.

[Elwar]

Cato and Reason were against Ron Paul throughout his campaign.

Sides were chosen during his campaign. They showed their true colors, just like Glenn Beck.

[speciallyblend]

well hanging with gop leaders is a tough job. he can't help he has to hang with corrupt gop leaders. the gop leaders is who he is talking about;)

cato lost any respect they ever had!!! cato is just a dildo for the failed gop!!

[Mini-Me]

It sounds like he's afraid of someone or something in the event that he does not add some kind of caveat to his statement that Ron Paul is a friend of his.

[Cowlesy]

He calls Ron Paul his friend and shows support for his book...
good enough for me

+1

Also from that blogpost


War – War is the health of the state, always has been, always will be. What in the world are we doing in the Middle East? Are we worried that they’ll stop producing oil and take to eating sand? I wouldn’t worry about that. Eisenhower was dead on right about the military-industrial complex. See Public Choice. Conservatives want to increase military spending as though we’re in the 1940s. Not only is this a waste of money, it clearly decreases our national security. I went to the Soviet Union in 1981 and was dumbfounded to see that, while the CIA was claiming the Soviets had 63% of our GDP, they, in fact, had no GDP. Little food, no consumer goods, lousy tanks and nothing else. (Okay, some nukes.) But whatever GDP they had amounted to perhaps less than 5% of what we had in the US. I wrote an article in December of 1981 making that very point, predicting the imminent demise of the USSR. Thank you. My point is the Feds haven’t got a clue about economics. They think that if we’re not in the Middle East we will run out of oil and die or something. Wrong. Oil is a fungible commodity and we don’t need to spend trillions of dollars to insure it gets on the world market. No more kids should die in Iraq or Afghanistan. Bring them home now.

[Endgame]

I agree with CATO on this one. Ron Paul hangs with Lew Rockwell, and whatever other racist slobs wrote those newsletters. He'd be better off cutting them loose.

That association is going to haunt RP forever. It will be brought up every time he is anywhere near successful. What the LRC crowd really want is social conservative monarchy and to restore the Catholic Church to the level of power it had in medieval times (see "Democracy: The God that Failed" by their current academic god Hoppe, or Tom Woods' book sucking up to the papacy). They're just wingnuts trying to latch onto something marginally more popular than their own ideas. Like Lew tried to latch on to the white supremacists in the 80's and 90's. Sure, they write a lot of great articles and say things that most people here would agree with, but that's not the real agenda.

[Southron]

I agree with CATO on this one. Ron Paul hangs with Lew Rockwell, and whatever other racist slobs wrote those newsletters. He'd be better off cutting them loose.

There was nothing racist in those newsletters from what I could tell.

Just because you mention race and you are white does not make you a racist by any definition of the word I know.

I don't trust CATO or Reason.

[Mini-Me]

That association is going to haunt RP forever. It will be brought up every time he is anywhere near successful. What the LRC crowd really want is social conservative monarchy and to restore the Catholic Church to the level of power it had in medieval times (see "Democracy: The God that Failed" by their current academic god Hoppe, or Tom Woods' book sucking up to the papacy). They're just wingnuts trying to latch onto something marginally more popular than their own ideas. Like Lew tried to latch on to the white supremacists in the 80's and 90's. Sure, they write a lot of great articles and say things that most people here would agree with, but that's not the real agenda.

What book did Tom Woods suck up to the papacy in?
I haven't read Democracy: The God that Failed, but I was always under the impression Hoppe does not WANT monarchy, but merely argues that its despotism and illegitimacy is more easily recognizable than what we have today, and that people would therefore put up with less bullshit before revolting. Can you cite page numbers, quotes, etc. where he actually advocates monarchy over anarcho-capitalism? Can you cite any evidence at all that any of these guys want the Catholic Church to regain coercive power?

I find it hard to believe that self-proclaimed an-caps with such a deep understanding of liberty are actually secret monarchists who want the Catholic Church to have coercive power again. :rolleyes:

[No1ButPaul08]

What book did Tom Woods suck up to the papacy in?
.

I assume he's talking about these.

http://www.thomasewoods.com/images/cover_churchmarket_lg.jpghttp://www.thomasewoods.com/images/cover_churchwciv_lg.jpg

[The Deacon]

What book did Tom Woods suck up to the papacy in?
I haven't read Democracy: The God that Failed, but I was always under the impression Hoppe does not WANT monarchy, but merely argues that its despotism and illegitimacy is more easily recognizable than what we have today, and that people would therefore put up with less bullshit before revolting. Can you cite page numbers, quotes, etc. where he actually advocates monarchy over anarcho-capitalism? Can you cite any evidence at all that any of these guys want the Catholic Church to regain coercive power?

I find it hard to believe that self-proclaimed an-caps with such a deep understanding of liberty are actually secret monarchists who want the Catholic Church to have coercive power again. :rolleyes:

Agreed. I've read Democracy (granted it was quite a while ago), and Hoppe isn't advocating monarcy. He plainly says that from the start. That's like saying Buchanan is defending Hitler or Ron Paul is defending terrorists.

Same old Cato-style simplistic garbage.

[Mini-Me]

I assume he's talking about these.

http://www.thomasewoods.com/images/cover_churchmarket_lg.jpghttp://www.thomasewoods.com/images/cover_churchwciv_lg.jpg

LOL, yeah, I'd definitely call that sucking up. ;) It's still going to take a lot more to convince me that he, Hoppe, or anyone else LRC-related is actually advocating monarchy or restoring coercive power to the Catholic Church though.

[RM918]

That association is going to haunt RP forever. It will be brought up every time he is anywhere near successful. What the LRC crowd really want is social conservative monarchy and to restore the Catholic Church to the level of power it had in medieval times (see "Democracy: The God that Failed" by their current academic god Hoppe, or Tom Woods' book sucking up to the papacy). They're just wingnuts trying to latch onto something marginally more popular than their own ideas. Like Lew tried to latch on to the white supremacists in the 80's and 90's. Sure, they write a lot of great articles and say things that most people here would agree with, but that's not the real agenda.

This whole thing sounds absolutely ridiculous.