Lunatic Ron Paul to Oversee the Fed

[dvictr]

there is nothing "lunatic" about Ron Paul's economics or his foreign policy belief's.

the Fed has failed in its dual mandate from Congress (price stability and low unemployment). - argue this

 

[tyr_13]

there is nothing "lunatic" about Ron Paul's economics or his foreign policy belief's.

the Fed has failed in its dual mandate from Congress (price stability and low unemployment). - argue this

But that's only part of what Paul says, a small part, and the rest is crazy nonsense.

What you're asking is the same as saying, 'prove that this car isn't a Jeep or else the statement, "Gold is the only true measure of wealth and because the evil Jews run the banks they want Reptoids to take over and therefore this car is a Jeep," is true.' Basically even if it can be successfully argued that the Fed has failed in its dual mandate from Congress (which I'm not granting by the way) that can't be used as evidence that Paul's economics aren't 'lunatic'.

 

[dvictr]

But that's only part of what Paul says, a small part, and the rest is crazy nonsense.

Basically even if it can be successfully argued that the Fed has failed in its dual mandate from Congress (which I'm not granting by the way) that can't be used as evidence that Paul's economics aren't 'lunatic'.

Ron Paul merely advocates the economic theory of reputable and respected academic economics including:

Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Friedrich Hayek, Murray N. Rothbard, Israel M. Kirzner, George Reisman, Roger Garrison.

these economists including a nobel prize winner shared a philosophical belief for classical liberalism.

 

[Puppycow]

Er, women and minorities are groups and therefore you can cater to them, right? But homeopathy isn't a group. It's a (faulty) theory and can't therefore be catered to.

Well tell that to Ron Paul. The point is that he thinks that homeopathy is a valid alternative to what he calls "allopathic medicine" (a word used by believers in homeopathy for modern medicine).

For clarification, I found a transcript of his remarks here:

16. There must be more competition for individuals entering into the medical field. Licensing strictly limits the number of individuals who can provide patient care. A lot of problems were created in 20th century as a consequence the Flexner Report (1910), which was financed by the Carnegie Foundation and strongly supported by the AMA. Many medical schools were closed and the number of doctors was drastically reduced. The motivation was to close down medical schools that catered to women, minorities and especially homeopathy. We continue to suffer from these changes, which were designed to protect physician’s income and promote allopathic medicine over the more natural cures and prevention of homeopathic medicine.

17. We must remove any obstacles for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care. We must remove the threat of further regulations pushed by the drug companies now working worldwide to limit these alternatives.

I think that the above makes clear that he is a believer in homeopathy as well as "holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care." It also makes it clear that he believes that doctors shouldn't be required to have a license to practice medicine.

 

[dvictr]

Ron Paul merely advocates the economic theory of reputable and respected academic economics including:

Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Friedrich Hayek, Murray N. Rothbard, Israel M. Kirzner, George Reisman, Roger Garrison.

these economists including a nobel prize winner shared a philosophical belief for classical liberalism.

most of these economists happen to be jewish, so clearly only an anti-semites would claim 'Ron Paul's' economics are crazy

 

[WildCat]

I've watched Bernanke and Greenspan talking to Congress and I've never seen any other member of Congress that seemed to have nearly as good of a grasp of 1) how the Fed works, or 2) the impacts of monetary changes.

This is parody, right?

 

[tyr_13]

Ron Paul merely advocates the economic theory of reputable and respected academic economics including:

Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Friedrich Hayek, Murray N. Rothbard, Israel M. Kirzner, George Reisman, Roger Garrison.

these economists including a nobel prize winner shared a philosophical belief for classical liberalism.

Oh, so you haven't actually read Paul's beliefs about the Fed. Nevermind.

 

[elbe]

He is responsible for everything in those newsletters whether he personally wrote them or not.

Oh, I agree he is, but I don't think he, himself, shares the views expressed in it when he took the eyes off of it - at least not all of them.

 

[dvictr]

Oh, so you haven't actually read Paul's beliefs about the Fed. Nevermind.

im not excatly peter schiff but i am the chief economist of a mid sized asset management firm.

 

[elbe]

This is parody, right?

People who are obsessed with something can become darn near experts on it - and still be wrong.

 

[Father Dagon]

Well tell that to Ron Paul. The point is that he thinks that homeopathy is a valid alternative to what he calls "allopathic medicine" (a word used by believers in homeopathy for modern medicine).

For clarification, I found a transcript of his remarks here:

16. There must be more competition for individuals entering into the medical field. Licensing strictly limits the number of individuals who can provide patient care. A lot of problems were created in 20th century as a consequence the Flexner Report (1910), which was financed by the Carnegie Foundation and strongly supported by the AMA. Many medical schools were closed and the number of doctors was drastically reduced. The motivation was to close down medical schools that catered to women, minorities and especially homeopathy. We continue to suffer from these changes, which were designed to protect physician’s income and promote allopathic medicine over the more natural cures and prevention of homeopathic medicine.

17. We must remove any obstacles for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care. We must remove the threat of further regulations pushed by the drug companies now working worldwide to limit these alternatives.

I think that the above makes clear that he is a believer in homeopathy as well as "holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care." It also makes it clear that he believes that doctors shouldn't be required to have a license to practice medicine.

And exactly what kind of doctor is he? I wonder what he thinks of France? I've heard that one third of the drugs at the pharmacies are homeopathic; because the homeopaths elbowed their way into the tax funded health insurance system. I hope that I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

most of these economists happen to be jewish, so clearly only an anti-semites would claim 'Ron Paul's' economics are crazy

If we're going to have a smorgasbord of different things, how about this:

The sort of novels we are looking for involve thermonuclear holocausts, apocalyptic viruses, doomsday asteroids, environmental collapse, revolutions, war, economic depressions, or Nazi UFOs, in scenarious that can be alternative histories, futuristic dystopias, space operas, or disaster novels, told from (but not limited to) Traditionalist, Conservative Revolutionary, Ariosophical, Apollonian, Occultic, Austrian economics, neo-Pagan, or Nietzschean perspectives.

Not that it makes Austrian economics better or worse. But even if it's something good, it won't change the big picture.

 

[tyr_13]

im not excatly peter schiff but i am the chief economist of a mid sized asset management firm.

That's related to what I said how?

 

[dvictr]

That's related to what I said how?

yeah, ive read 'all' of Paul's thoughts on the fed, and i agree with him and other economists when they propose slowly phasing out the federal reserve.

it would be completely realistic and practical for private organizations/ 3rd parties to issue paper currency and credit backed by physical assets such as silver/gold to compete with the US dollar. there is nothing "tin foil hat conspiracy" about that.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

yeah, ive read 'all' of Paul's thoughts on the fed, and i agree with him and other economists when they propose slowly phasing out the federal reserve.

it would be completely realistic and practical for private organizations/ 3rd parties to issue paper currency and credit backed by physical assets such as silver/gold to compete with the US dollar. there is nothing "tin foil hat conspiracy" about that.

Yeah, because individual bank-issued currency worked so well before, right?

And who are these economists that favour the dismantling of the Fed? All Austrian School loonies no doubt? Is there anyone who actually rates a mention in the real world?

 

[timhau]

im not excatly peter schiff but i am the chief economist of a mid sized asset management firm.

I pity the fool who hired you, then.

BTW, what does "I'm not exactly Peter Schiff" mean? That you're not as cuckoo as he is, or is that supposed to be some sort of an attempt at modesty?

 

[dvictr]

Yeah, because individual bank-issued currency worked so well before, right?

paper money and commodity certificates are completely different.

the 'game changer' is really the invention of the computer and proliferation of the internet. the telecommunications revolution would solve alot of the price transparency problems associated with the pre civil war system.

a -business- could now issue a certificate exchangeable for units of a commodity on demand.. it could be gold/silver/gasoline/milk/oranje juice. it appears people have this conception that a "gold standard" would mean having to carry around fannny packs of coins. the reality is that gold as a unit can be divisible into fractions of a gram and silver even more practical.

i believe many people would happily apply for a checking account backed debit card linked to a commodity price. - what is loony about this??

the point is that this is currently illegal! if you legalize competing currencies there is no need to 'end the fed'.

 

[dvictr]

excellent artice in todays new york times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/opinion/14grant.html?_r=1&hp

 

[tyr_13]

paper money and commodity certificates are completely different.

the 'game changer' is really the invention of the computer and proliferation of the internet. the telecommunications revolution would solve alot of the price transparency problems associated with the pre civil war system.

a -business- could now issue a certificate exchangeable for units of a commodity on demand.. it could be gold/silver/gasoline/milk/oranje juice. it appears people have this conception that a "gold standard" would mean having to carry around fannny packs of coins. the reality is that gold as a unit can be divisible into fractions of a gram and silver even more practical. i believe many people would happily apply for a checking account backed debit card linked to a commodity price. - what is loony about this??

the point is that this is currently illegal! if you legalize competing currencies there is no need to 'end the fed'.

I've highlighted (most of) the loony parts.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

paper money and commodity certificates are completely different.

But you said paper money, so I pointed out that the last time this was possible, it was an unmitigated disaster with bank collapses and funny money all over the place.

a -business- could now issue a certificate exchangeable for units of a commodity on demand..

They can already do this, they’re called gift vouchers.

it appears people have this conception that a "gold standard" would mean having to carry around fannny packs of coins.

I don’t know anyone who thinks this. But I do know that a gold standard has a contraction bias and is highly inelastic making it unable to respond adequately to changing market conditions.

i believe many people would happily apply for a checking account backed debit card linked to a commodity price. - what is loony about this?? [

the point is that this is currently illegal! if you legalize competing currencies there is no need to 'end the fed'.

Right, so when I go to the store there’s like 10 different prices for each item? Or maybe there’s only 5 because a store chooses not to accept the other 5 currencies? The “loony” part of it (competing currencies) is that would be a complete mess and a nightmare for consumers, retailers and banks. It would also negate the ability for effective monetary policy.

 

[dvictr]

Yes I have. And yes I can. What's happening now is proving him correct (or rather the system of economics he's written about).

I thought he was a lunatic (because that's what everyone calls him) until I read his books. Now I think he's one of the most consistent, principled politicians out there. Of course, both sides can't stand him for that.

He's a follower of the theories of the Austrian Economics and his writings don't divert from that in any way I can tell.

+1