hey Red

[redandguilty]

Ron Paul and Paul Krugman had a discussion. I think that Ron Paul officially has chunks of Krugman in his stool after it. Not even Dash Riprock mediator could save Krugman, who is someone who could never apply the policies he supports to run a business. He is a moocher of the first order.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ron-paul-battles-paul-krugman-on-bloomberg-tv/

I saw this too, but I don't think I was as impressed as you were. Krugman has a tough time getting his thoughts out there in the talking head, talk over each other format. I don't blame him for that.

The argument that I was surprised that Ron didn't make was when Krugman talked about the policies after WWII and liking the America his parent's prospered in, Ron didn't jump back to his favorite topic of gold and silver currency or point to some other thing that he's against that's changed since then.

 

[cheeno]

Bank bailouts and quantitative easing reopened the purse strings allowing credit to flow back into the economy. Ie. Fiscal stimulus

Where did sub prime mortgages come from? And historically low interest rates? One hint, it starts with an F.

Not public sector spending, public sector jobs. 15% of the work force as civil servants in a country the size of Greece is a drain not a stimulus.

 

[byco42]

it must be compulsory; otherwise you have a free rider problem.

ideally, you would sign a social contract when you're 18 or whatever that spells it out. if you say, "screw that, I don't want to work & pay taxes" then society says, "cool" and you move to some uninhabited place and live like a hermit. then you don't have to share, you don't have to pay taxes, you don't have to deal with people like me or Paul Krugman.

That's not how it's works. I just collect welfare, and join the 49% who don't pay federal income tax. It's the American Way.

 

[byco42]

I saw this too, but I don't think I was as impressed as you were. Krugman has a tough time getting his thoughts out there in the talking head, talk over each other format. I don't blame him for that.

The argument that I was surprised that Ron didn't make was when Krugman talked about the policies after WWII and liking the America his parent's prospered in, Ron didn't jump back to his favorite topic of gold and silver currency or point to some other thing that he's against that's changed since then.

The transcript indicates that Paul and Krugman spoke about the same amount of time.

 

[redandguilty]

You and red need to study economics.

I know I need to study economic history and develop a better sense of how things stand and how things work if I want to speak authoritatively on the subject. What I have an excellent sense of is how dynamic systems work in a mechanical sense, which I use to draw analogies that work for me. Just based on that, I'm skeptical that anyone is smart enough to always know what's best. It's not that I doubt the wisdom of the smartest guys on the best message boards, I doubt that Krugman or Greenspan could keep us free from market crashes if given complete control. That's why my arguments are about balance between government and business rather than pushes for one or the other to get their way. Somethings are too complex to yield power to a single business or government entity. The economics of the Soviet Union did not fail because the central planners weren't smart guys. Russia has a history of excellent mathematicians. That being said, at least central planners are trying to manage their economies. You turn it over to corporations, with their obligation to their stockholders to take over the planet no matter the consequences, and you haven't help stabilize anything.

The idea there's a set of economic theories that can forever protect us from crashes is BS.

Not that that's the end of the story. The trade off between performance and stability mean that in a competitive global market, you have to take on the risk of instability in order to keep up.

 

[redandguilty]

Wow. You really believe this. Okay. It's anti-themic to the root principles of this country but even Ben Franklin was not certain they would last a generation. I share out of choice, not out compulsion, and we were born to rise to our own chosen level of prosperity and not by what the state defines as "my fair share." A free society would never even conceive such a term.

There's some truth to it though. As an American, no matter how right you feel principles of individualism are, by the time you're old enough to have such thoughts, you are greatly indebted to the society around you. I wouldn't go as far as MC cheerleading collectivism...but you can't avoid the benefits of of our collectivist efforts in this country. The gov gets a cut of everything and some of the things they've done with it are pretty great.

 

[byco42]

There's some truth to it though. As an American, no matter how right you feel principles of individualism are, by the time you're old enough to have such thoughts, you are greatly indebted to the society around you. I wouldn't go as far as MC cheerleading collectivism...but you can't avoid the benefits of of our collectivist efforts in this country. The gov gets a cut of everything and some of the things they've done with it are pretty great.

My main contention is that the government gets a cut of what I earn before it even gets to me. As taxes go.

 

[Michchamp]

...

The argument that I was surprised that Ron didn't make was when Krugman talked about the policies after WWII and liking the America his parent's prospered in, Ron didn't jump back to his favorite topic of gold and silver currency or point to some other thing that he's against that's changed since then.

Probably because, as Krugman pointed out, from WWII to the 1980's, other than the oil price shocks (which were outside the government's control) the economy was relatively stable, had no major financial crises, and provided for its citizens well: low unemployment, affordable higher education, decent primary education, class mobility, etc. In the 1980's... well, I guess "priorities" changed, and it became more important that the rich got richer at the expense of the rest of society. and they did. and they continue to. and we've seen unemployment rise, repeated financial disasters (S&L bailouts of the late 80's, LTCM in the late 90's, the tech bubble, and the more recent subprime mortgage disaster), lack of regulation and oversight, diminished rule of law for elites... I could go on and on.

instead, Ron Paul stuck to his Roman Empire analogy... no data there, so he could claim whatever he wanted.

 

[redandguilty]

Probably because, as Krugman pointed out, from WWII to the 1980's, other than the oil price shocks (which were outside the government's control) the economy was relatively stable, had no major financial crises, and provided for its citizens well: low unemployment, affordable higher education, decent primary education, class mobility, etc. In the 1980's... well, I guess "priorities" changed, and it became more important that the rich got richer at the expense of the rest of society. and they did. and they continue to. and we've seen unemployment rise, repeated financial disasters (S&L bailouts of the late 80's, LTCM in the late 90's, the tech bubble, and the more recent subprime mortgage disaster), lack of regulation and oversight, diminished rule of law for elites... I could go on and on.

instead, Ron Paul stuck to his Roman Empire analogy... no data there, so he could claim whatever he wanted.

Clever I guess. I thought it was standard talking head procedure when someone points out that something good happened to say it was caused by something you like.

Before I pick on Ron Paul here, I want to make it clear I think he's one of the good guys. He adds to the conversation and I don't think he does any damage. I suspect he'd compromise rather than hurt the nation chasing the ideas he talks about. There's a big problem in the Republican party. Ron Paul predates it and isn't a part of it in my view. I think proper used of the word "maverick" applies to him better than other republican.

All that being said, I have a hard time nailing down what Ron Paul actually advocates. I like Ron Paul doing what he's doing, but that bit about not calling to end the FED in his book End the FED makes me wonder what his practical compromises with ideology would be if he ever had the responsibility of making decisions. It makes me wonder, to what degree does he believe the things he says. How big a role does he think monetary policy had in bringing down empires, would they have gone down anyway, and could different monetary policy have saved them? I have my doubts that he's a believer in the way the people he inspires are believers...and that puts him in scary company.

 

[Michchamp]

I agree with you about Ron Paul, and actually agree with him on a number of other issues & have a hard time bashing him - except when it comes to economics.

His views on many things, foreign intervention, government intrusion in our privacy, the drug war, etc. are enlightened, and valuable... which makes his antiquated views on economics seem jarring by comparison.

the Fed is a mess, but exactly WHY it's a mess requires more nuance: conservatives rail against all government, and implicitly include the Fed in this complaint. I think from a "liberal" standpoint, which I happen to agree with, the criticisms of the Fed are that it's far too cozy with the big banks on Wall Street, and therefore ineffective.

but the answer should not be LESS government, or no Fed, the answer is we need a more independent Fed. one that isn't a revolving door between Washington & Goldman Sachs...

 

[redandguilty]

You have to let your mouse pointer hover over the graphic to get the 2nd punchline/comment to appear with these comics.

http://xkcd.com/1049/#