Originally Posted by
Dr.No.
I’ve outlined it elsewhere (in a vituperative fashion), but Ron Paul and many libertarians have been so grossly erroneous with their economic predictions because they fundamentally don’t understand how our monetary and financial system works. They make assumptions about human behavior and perfect markets that just do not exist in the real world. Ron Paul believes that except for the presence of taxes, we live in a Miller-Modigliani world, which is a laughable concept. I’ve listened to Austrians like Tom Woods, Peter Schiff, and Robert Murphy over the years. I’ve listened to classical/neoclassical guys like Robert Barro. I’ve listened to monetarists and market monetarists like Cochrane, Sowell, and other Friedmanites. All of these guys share much when it comes to economics. Yet if I had to grade their economic predictions, I’d give them something between a D- to an F. Outside of maybe Scott Sumner (D, D+) and maybe someone like Bryan Caplan (D+), that’s the grade I’d give to most conventionally-thought-of-as right-of-center of economists. It is the same grade I’d give to far-left economists (although I’d give Varoufakis a D/D-, maybe). Other players who are vilified on this forum, like Bernanke, Krugman, and Yellen I’d give something between a C- to a C+; even if I have disagreements in principles and just don’t like those guys, that’s my assessment of their predictive record. Being right is important, and not being partisan to “your guys” is important. Between 2007 and 2009, and even to this day, you’ll see libertarians grouse about how David Frum, Bill Kristol, and John Bolton would get venerated for their foreign policy advice despite their terrible record on it. Why can’t we apply the same standard to the libertarian economists who have gotten little right since 2008?
Connect With Us