PDA

View Full Version : Is Dwight K. Schrute a closet Ron Paulite?




Weston White
07-08-2012, 09:35 AM
I being a huge fan of “The Office”, was researching some Ron Paul related things, during which one of the hits returned had caught my eye, a reference to “Dwight Schrute”, so naturally I had to check out the link. What I discovered was the recent blog authored by a studying “economist” (go figure), specifically a one Daniel Kuehn (presently a doctoral candidate at American University and holding a master’s in public policy from George Washington University). In his rather convoluted article the author touches on the underlying connections between what was stated in The Office and Ron Paul’s position on monetary policies. At any rate the message of Rep. Ron Paul, MD is definitely amassing. The article:



Dwight Schrute commits the Ron Paul fallacy

I can't find a clip yet, but last night on The Office, Dwight Schrute committed the fallacy that Andolfatto called Ron Paul out on (this was several months ago so I forget what happened next... I'm sure Andolfatto got a warm reception from those nice Paulites, though).

In the episode Nellie, a somewhat deranged character from the Tallahassee office, comes to the Scranton office and starts acting like the manager (in the hopes that she'll get the job eventually). One of the things she does to get buy-in from the employees is to do a “performance review” for each of them, after which she gives all of them a raise. It's Dwight’s turn and to dissuade him Jim says that “the money isn't real - it's not worth anything”. Dwight responds “None of our money has been worth anything since we went off the gold standard”.

Ah yes! Cue Bob Roddis to trot over here and complain about currency debasement! End the Fed! End the Fed!

Except that's not quite right. Yes, the purchasing power of the dollar has gone down, but wages have gone up! What would you think of a presidential candidate who got up and said “Isn't it great - the amount of money on your paycheck has gone up persistently year after year! And look at profits! We're always setting 'record profits'! To say nothing of home prices - sure we had some trouble a coupl[e] years back, but if you look at the whole century, house prices keep getting higher and higher!”

You would say “well, OK, but all prices have increased over that period, so the fact that my paycheck keeps going up doesn't necessarily mean anything”.

So why do so many people speak so highly of a presidential candidate that talks like this about one side of the price level - the value of the dollar??? Why is this guy praised as having a solid grasp of economics? Wouldn't you be deeply suspicious of a candidate that praises ever increasing paycheck figures? So why aren't you deeply suspicious of Ron Paul?
SOURCE: http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2012/03/dwight-schrute-commits-ron-paul-fallacy.html


The Office - “Get the Girl” transcript excerpt:



Nellie: Dwight, I have completed your evaluation. You're getting a raise.
Dwight: What?
Nellie: Dwight, you carry this company on your massive shoulders. You are our Atlas, and for that do you not think you deserve a raise?
Dwight: There's no limit to what I think I deserve.
Nellie: Then you accept it?
Dwight: Five percent. No less.
Nellie: Absolutely not. Seven percent.
Dwight: Six percent, I know my worth.
Jim: The raise isn't real.
Dwight: Money isn't real ever since we got off the gold standard.


QUESTION: Is this really how they are teaching college students to write (geez)?

cstarace
07-08-2012, 10:42 AM
Ha! Nice catch. I haven't been paying attention, is this the new season?

Weston White
07-08-2012, 10:47 AM
Yes and from what I understand its finale.

affa
07-08-2012, 01:14 PM
The author is incorrect. Yes, wages rise, but he implies that this creates balance which isn't necessarily true. In the past, a family often had one bread winner and savings. Now, families have two bread winners and debt. he also fails to notice that Ron Paul often singles out the eldery on fixed incomes as the hardest affected, because he does, indeed, understand economics.

Your thread borders on anti-Ron Paul propaganda.

CaptUSA
07-08-2012, 03:05 PM
Wow, is this guy high or just stupid?!

He seems to think wages rise in a vacuum or something. The reason wages go up is because the things we buy cost more. The reason these things cost more is because the devaluing of the dollar. But the inflation happens constantly and the wage increases only happen a couple times a year if you're lucky. That means, that even if you are NOT on a fixed income, you are still getting screwed. When the wage increase comes, you are only being brought up to where you were formerly - again if you're lucky. So all the time in between, your wallet was getting thinner and thinner.

Somehow, this guy believes that wages for the same job will always go up and it's a good thing the Fed is devaluing your dollars so you don't get too rich.

Understand I'm talking about cost-of-living raises, not merit increases. Merit increases are because you are more valuable to the company than you were when you had less experience. Which tends to demonstrate another point this guy seems to be missing. When your merit increase is tied into your cost-of-living increase - which most companies do - you are actually getting screwed again. Because you should be receiving a raise based upon your merit and increased value to the company, but instead, most companies combine these two and your actual increase is negligible. And that's if you're lucky.

Weston White
07-09-2012, 12:33 AM
Your thread borders on anti-Ron Paul propaganda.

I think it is more interesting to realize that this is the current position of a soon to be Ph.D in economics that is “specialized” in public policy, which likely means he is going to be working for a government think-tank or established on some bureaucratic committee.

Indy Vidual
07-09-2012, 02:29 AM
Your post reminds me of my Libertarian mentors. Learning "that stuff" the first time was so much fun. :D


...The reason wages go up is because the things we buy cost more. The reason these things cost more is because the devaluing of the dollar. But the inflation happens constantly and the wage increases only happen a couple times a year if you're lucky. That means, that even if you are NOT on a fixed income, you are still getting screwed. When the wage increase comes, you are only being brought up to where you were formerly - again if you're lucky. So all the time in between, your wallet was getting thinner and thinner.

Somehow, this guy believes that wages for the same job will always go up and it's a good thing the Fed is devaluing your dollars so you don't get too rich.

Understand I'm talking about cost-of-living raises, not merit increases. Merit increases are because you are more valuable to the company than you were when you had less experience. Which tends to demonstrate another point this guy seems to be missing. When your merit increase is tied into your cost-of-living increase - which most companies do - you are actually getting screwed again. Because you should be receiving a raise based upon your merit and increased value to the company, but instead, most companies combine these two and your actual increase is negligible. And that's if you're lucky.

Danan
07-09-2012, 06:07 AM
Haha, omg.

Ron Paul doesn't say that US citizens have a lower standard of living now than 50 years ago. He knows his stuff perfectly well. This is also true for every respected economist on Ron's side.

Obviously the amount of stuff a consumer can buy for one hour of work (with average wage) is higher today than ever before. The reason for this is increased productivity (mainly in Asia, but also in the US thanks to technological progress). The end of the cold war and "freer" global trade (again, especially China) play a big role too. The more people are allowed to trade freely, the more they are able to specialize in their comperative advantage. Through division of labor prices go down especially when wage disparities are very high between to regions.

Poor people 50 years ago had a really low income and had to do the shittiest jobs to survive. What percentage of the populace has a fridge and a washing machine today? Almost everybody. This was not the case back then. Sure minimum wage laws and other "labor protection" (haha) makes it quite difficult for poor people nowadays but under the same set of rules like 50 years ago there is no doubt that they would be better of today.

But that progress has nothing to do with "good" monetary policy. Monetary policy is only a burden on the economy. Just because the standard of living went up doesn't mean the policy was a good one. It would have gone up even more in absence of government, like it did for a hundred years before they took over the economy. If anything it shows the amazing ability of markets to increase the general wellfare even in the most difficult circumstances. Although the government constantly creates a huge mess the standard of living tends to increase.

The "Ron Paul fallacy" is nothing but total BS.



I think it is more interesting to realize that this is the current position of a soon to be Ph.D in economics that is “specialized” in public policy, which likely means he is going to be working for a government think-tank or established on some bureaucratic committee.

Well, 99.9% of these clowns are completely wrong today and sadly that's not very likely to change in the near future.


Edit: I also don't get what he's trying to tell his audience. Why in the world should a politician constantly mention that technological progress and market economy probably increased the standard of living more than government managed to decrease it? He want's to be president. Wouldn't it make sense to focus on stuff politicians can actually influence (the burdensome laws and regulations, bad monetary and so on)? There is no point in talking about the achievements of market actors for a presidential candidate since they managed to do what they did despite of politics. Of course that's only the case if you aren't under the wrong impression the government can actively "help" the economy through policy...