The Hill: Ron Paul drives Republican policy, Republicans drive America to a crash

[bobbyw24]

By Brent Budowsky - 09/23/11 08:34 AM ET

When Republican House Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.) threaten the Fed if it tries to help the economy with monetary policy, their low-concept imitation of Ron Paul is economically ignorant and historically unprecedented. When Republican candidate Rick Perry threatens the Fed with charges of treason and comes close to threatening violence if the Fed chairman visits Texas, his polyester impersonation of Paul makes him intellectually and morally unfit for the presidency.

When the books are written, one story of the 2012 campaign will be the full magnitude of influence that Ron Paul has achieved over Republican economic policy. For better or worse, it is an enormous achievement for Paul that his lifetime body of work is now a consensus policy of the Republican Party.

The larger story, when the books are written, will be how Republican leaders in Congress appear hell-bent on returning the nation to the economic crash that began under the last Republican president, as so many recessions and depressions have begun under Republican leadership.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-a-budget/183509-ron-paul-drives-republican-policy-republicans-drive-america-to-a-crash

[Cabal]

But Ron Paul is wrong, dead wrong, fatally wrong, disastrously wrong and catastrophically wrong to attack the concept of using monetary policy, properly applied, and to use fiscal policy, properly applied, to increase growth and create jobs during a recession or depression.

Lol... Fail.

[Kotin]

Lol... Fail.
huge, mega fail.

[Mises_to_Paul]

Economic illiteracy will doom us all.

[Cabal]

Economic illiteracy will doom us all.

Not to mention historical ignorance, and an absence of logic and reason.

[jason43]

Too bad for that clown there is an internet. Look at the 10 pages of comments...

[D.A.S.]

Brent Budowsky has actually been writing very fair pieces about Ron Paul and his chances before this piece. Today, the Democrat in him is winning over the "fair and balanced" Brent he's been for a while..

[Cabal]

Brent Budowsky has actually been writing very fair pieces about Ron Paul and his chances before this piece. Today, the Democrat in him is winning over the "fair and balanced" Brent he's been for a while..

Or he was just pandering to what he thought would get him more traffic in the past.

[RP4Peace]

Loved this comment... One of the best:

--------------------------------------------
I think its silly and childish to make the future of this nation hinge on the Big "R" or "D" preceeding a candidates name. Let's face the facts. Todays Democratic party platform looks amazingly simular to what the Republican party platform started off as, and vice versa. The truth of the matter is that the parties have become so un-defined, that it is impossible to judge a candidate by their party affiliation. Both sides play the same games, both sides have their sacred cows, both sides are more worried about future elections than they are about solving issues. Besides that, both big party candidates take in millions of dollars from big business, and special interest groups. By the time any of them hit the oval office, they have been bought, and are owned by those groups. None of them will serve this nations best interests! They are in effect sell outs.

If America is ready for real change, then I'd suggest the one candidate who is not a big "R" or "D". The one candidate who receives his money not from big business or special interest groups, but rather from the American people. He is the candidate most likely to serve the public while in office, because he owes nothing to those big groups. Not to mention that he has a spotless 30 yr record of voting for the public taxpayer to prove his conviction. He is a Republican out of necessity. In his heart he is Libertarian, and that puts him miles ahead of other candidates who garnish large percents of their votes from straight ticket voters. Ron Paul serves America. Ron Paul serves you and I. He has served us for over 35 years both in the Congress and in the Air Force. Now he is willing to serve us again, in a critical time for this nation. Hasn't Ron Paul done enough to EARN your vote? If not, then none of the other candidates have either. Let's stop wasting our time with these sleezy politicians with their baby kissing and $400 hair cuts. In 2012 let's elect a man who has proven to be a true servant to the American Public. Someone who doesn't just kiss babies on the campaign trail, but has literally delivered over 4000 babies in person. Let's vote for the patriot who has earned our respect and trust, not the politicians who only promise us goods, and shift their stances to pander to different crowds, knowing that they don't intend to keep any of them. Listen to Huntsman in the last debate. Ron Paul is the only candidate running who supports the American people by seeking a limited government, tax reforms, strong currency, balanced budget, defended borders, and removing us from illegal foreign wars.



Ron Paul 2012 -Every vote for Ron Paul is a small win for America.-

-------------------------------------------------------

[Orwell]

Economic illiteracy will doom us all.

I don't really understand why people say this. :confused:

The author was restating what is taught in EVERY economics class. I'm not saying it's right, but it doesn't qualify as economic 'illiteracy'.

This is exactly what any macroeconomics class will teach you:

http://plus.maths.org/latestnews/sep-dec06/nobel06/Phillips.gif

Inflation or unemployment - pick one. Now again, I'm not saying that's correct, but it's a bit silly to state people are naive or stupid for holding the view economists have had for the last 90 years. The fact of the matter is, if Paul had his way, unemployment would undeniably go up for a time. That's just basic economics at work. Is that necessary in order for longer term recovery? I'd say so.

(Yes, I know this post will get flamed, but we shouldn't demonize people simply for disagreeing with us)

[PaleoForPaul]

But Ron Paul is wrong, dead wrong, fatally wrong, disastrously wrong and catastrophically wrong to attack the concept of using monetary policy...to increase growth and create jobs during a recession or depression.

You're dead wrong if you disagree with the writers opinion.

[LibertyEagle]

(Yes, I know this post will get flamed, but we shouldn't demonize people simply for disagreeing with us)

True. We should calmly and respectfully explain to them the fallacy of what they said.

[Mises_to_Paul]

Post

I didn't demonize anyone. I certainly did not call anyone evil or stupid (and I don't think that at all).

EDIT: Actually, in retrospect I can better understand why one would think that. I've removed the first part of my post to avoid confusion.

What I said is cold-hard reality, and not meant as anything else. It has nothing to do with the intentions of people (usually). But it matters with actual results to real flesh-and-blood human beings all the same. I can have the greatest intentions in the world (or a high level of native intelligence), but if I don't have authentic math/engineering ability, and attempt to build a bridge, the people who cross the bridge will be doomed. It doesn't matter if I learned the bad math in a state-sponsored school or not.

Faulty theory (like the theory behind the Phillips Curve) leads to bad outcomes. Intellectual laziness generally leads to bad outcomes.

We shouldn't demonize people for disagreeing, but we shouldn't error too far in the opposite direction and pretend like all opinions are equal, have equal impact in the real world, etc...

I also agree that when possible, we should attempt to educate. My post wasn't an attempt to educate, because that person isn't here and I am amongst like minded people (by and large, anyway). In the real world, I do attempt to educate. It's the best way to affect meaningful change in a population.

[musicmax]

I don't really understand why people say this. :confused:

The author was restating what is taught in EVERY economics class. I'm not saying it's right, but it doesn't qualify as economic 'illiteracy'.

This is exactly what any macroeconomics class will teach you:

http://plus.maths.org/latestnews/sep-dec06/nobel06/Phillips.gif

Inflation or unemployment - pick one. Now again, I'm not saying that's correct, but it's a bit silly to state people are naive or stupid for holding the view economists have had for the last 90 years. The fact of the matter is, if Paul had his way, unemployment would undeniably go up for a time. That's just basic economics at work. Is that necessary in order for longer term recovery? I'd say so.

(Yes, I know this post will get flamed, but we shouldn't demonize people simply for disagreeing with us)

Examine the US economy prior to the Fed and you'll see why your chart is wrong. The Federal Reserve Act's mandate of an "elastic currency" renders all true economic laws worthless, as the Fed can impose wholesale distortions on the market via manipulation of the money supply.

Also if your chart is accurate then the Fed's "dual mandate" of "stable prices and low unemployment" is ipso facto unachievable (btw, 2% inflation does not meet the definition of "stable prices" as continuous 2% inflation will cut your purchasing power in half within 37 years).

[Orwell]

I didn't demonize anyone. I certainly did not call anyone evil or stupid (and I don't think that at all).

EDIT: Actually, in retrospect I can better understand why one would think that. I've removed the first part of my post to avoid confusion.


My apologies if I came off as directing my commentary at you; it was more a general statement of things I often see.

[Carole]

Wow! Did anyone glance through the over two hundred responses? I think every one of them was opposed to what was said in that article. Great job readers!! :D

My response to The Hill article:

In the words of Henry Morganthau:

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work."

"I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot!"



"In these words, Morgenthau summarized a decade of disaster, especially during the years Roosevelt was in power."

Indeed, Morgenthau confessed what so many keepers of FDR's flame won't admit: The New Deal failed. Massive spending on public works programs didn't erase historic unemployment. It didn't produce a recovery.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2009/01/Get-Over-It-New-Deal-Didnt-Do-the-JobBY CAROLE on 09/23/2011 at 13:40


Congressman McFadden
on the Federal Reserve Corporation

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/mcfadden.html

"Attacks on McFadden's Life Reported"
Commenting on Former Congressman Louis T. McFaddens's "heart-failure sudden-death" on Oct. 3, 1936, after a "dose" of "intestinal flu," "Pelley's Weekly" of Oct. 14 said:

Now that this sterling American patriot has made the Passing, it can be revealed that not long after his public utterance against the encroaching powers of Judah, it became known among his intimates that he had suffered two attacks against his life. The first attack came in the form of two revolver shots fired at him from ambush as he was alighting from a cab in front of one of the Capital hotels. Fortunately both shots missed him, the bullets burying themselves in the structure of the cab.
"He became violently ill after partaking of food at a political banquet at Washington. His life was only saved from what was subsequently announced as a poisoning by the presence of a physician friend at the banquet, who at once procured a stomach pump and subjected the Congressman to emergency treatment."
/s/ Robert Edward Edmondson (Publicist-Economist)

[Mises_to_Paul]

My apologies if I came off as directing my commentary at you; it was more a general statement of things I often see.

No worries man.

[Orwell]

Examine the US economy prior to the Fed and you'll see why your chart is wrong. The Federal Reserve Act's mandate of an "elastic currency" renders all true economic laws worthless, as the Fed can impose wholesale distortions on the market via manipulation of the money supply.

Also if your chart is accurate then the Fed's "dual mandate" of "stable prices and low unemployment" is ipso facto unachievable (btw, 2% inflation does not meet the definition of "stable prices" as continuous 2% inflation will cut your purchasing power in half within 37 years).

See, that's the sort of thing I like to see. :) I think intelligible arguments explaining why something is incorrect go much further than "fucker's an idiot. SPAM HIM".

[centure7]

It looks like comments are now disabled for that article to me. Some people clearly can't handle the truth.

[mainstream economist]

I don't really understand why people say this. :confused:

The author was restating what is taught in EVERY economics class. I'm not saying it's right, but it doesn't qualify as economic 'illiteracy'.

This is exactly what any macroeconomics class will teach you:

http://plus.maths.org/latestnews/sep-dec06/nobel06/Phillips.gif

Inflation or unemployment - pick one. Now again, I'm not saying that's correct, but it's a bit silly to state people are naive or stupid for holding the view economists have had for the last 90 years. The fact of the matter is, if Paul had his way, unemployment would undeniably go up for a time. That's just basic economics at work. Is that necessary in order for longer term recovery? I'd say so.

(Yes, I know this post will get flamed, but we shouldn't demonize people simply for disagreeing with us)

The diagram you show (Phillips Curve) and the interpretation of it that you have attached to it have been discredited in the 70s. It was discredited such a long time ago that even most undergraduate macroeconomics textbooks (which tend to lag FAR behind the frontier of knowledge) usually contain some blurb about how this was a mistake.

However, let us not be confused, the Keynesians have come up with convoluted (but internally consistent) logic about how fiscal and monetary policy are beneficial. Unfortunately, that Keynesian story is dominant in undergraduate textbooks.

The real issue I take with the author is his arrogance in assuming that the academic issue has been settled in favor of Keynesian interventions because Paul Krugman tells him so in a shrill editorial. There is huge dissension, even WITHIN mainstream economics, about whether Keynesian interventions are desirable. Just consider the long list of economists, which includes several Nobel winners, who wrote to congress to oppose the TARP bailouts. They make fun of Dr. Paul for his Austrian economics without understanding what it is, but many of Dr. Paul's conclusions about fiscal policy and monetary policy are not unreasonable propositions within mainstream academic (as opposed to pop) economics. Of course, you would never know that from reading editorials like these, but that is true.

People like Budowsky were convinced by a cute story whose implausible underlying assumptions were well-hidden. Unfortunately, that is the level of intellectual discourse today.

[Carole]

There was a two-page list as the end awaiting moderation. :D Maybe they felt inundated. Every comment was anti the article. :D