Ron Paul Post-Mortem's the GOP

[Pangloss]

Interesting op-ed piece by Ron Paul on CNN's web site today:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/paul.republican/index.html

 

I don't agree with some of his point but it's pretty insightful and worth a read. Some things that stood out to me:

 

There's no doubt that a large majority of Americans believe we're on the wrong track. That's why the candidate demanding "change" won the election. It mattered not that the change offered was no change at all, only a change in the engineer of a runaway train.

 

The opportunity finally came in 2000 to do something about the cancerous growth of government. This clear message led to the Republican success at the polls.

 

Once the Republicans were in power, though, the promises faded, and all policies were directed at maintaining or increasing power by trying to whittle away at Democratic strength by acting like big-spending Democrats.

 

The Republican Congress never once stood up against the Bush/Rove machine that demanded support for unconstitutional wars, attacks on civil liberties here at home, and an economic policy based on more spending, more debt, and more inflation -- while constantly preaching the flawed doctrine that deficits don't matter as long as taxes aren't raised.

 

I think these points are right on target. What do you all think?

[bascule]

There's no doubt that a large majority of Americans believe we're on the wrong track. That's why the candidate demanding "change" won the election. It mattered not that the change offered was no change at all, only a change in the engineer of a runaway train.

 

He's certainly preaching to the Alex Jones crowd with statements like that. I've always been curious about the relationship between those anarchists / conspiracy theorists and Ron Paul, especially considering Alex Jones has been one of Ron Paul's most vocal advocates. I've also been curious of how much Ron Paul is aware of them. It would seem that Alex Jones made a better pick of Ron Paul than I ever realized, or Ron Paul became aware of these people effectively being his "base" and is now speaking directly to them.

 

Probably the former. Every time I've seen Ron Paul confronted about his relationship to those people he's always plead ignorance. But he's happy to take their money...

[john5746]

I think these points are right on target. What do you all think?

 

Clinton and the Republican congress had us on a decent track, but he got a BJ and the values crowd just couldn't take it.

 

The internet bubble did burst and we did have 9/11, but if we didn't go into Iraq, I think we might have paid more attention to domestic issues.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, cuz everybody here knows how ecoli and I are Alex Jones fans...he's just speaking to the tin foil hat crowd. The federal reserve is great! People we didn't elect, rich bankers, get to run our currency, which is working out just terrific right now. Just look at the value of the dollar. And this fiat currency, what a god send that was. It's always splendid to detach the currency from static assets - that way you can inflate and prove to everyone that money is just paper after all - and we all know how good that is for economy.

 

Yeah, what a nutcase.

 

Well, in all actuality, those are the same points he's been repeating for years - particularly during this campaign. It's the same old spill. He doesn't get a license for rhetoric like everyone else since he criticizes their candidates with harsh realities. And of course, since he's a Jeffersonian, obviously there's no real difference between the federalists running for president.

 

His written pieces always show a bit more intellect than oration, so I'm not surprised it appears more thought out.

[npts2020]

I have seen Ron Paul called a wacko or wingnut by more than one media type. The problem is that those people rarely elaborate or try to point out fallacies in any of his statements. I would not say I am an expert on him but the things I have read and heard about him do have a certain logic to them that match my reality far better than the other segments of his party's words and actions. One thing is for sure, his approach to our economic problems would be very different from either Obama or McCain.

[ParanoiA]

My problem has always been the idea that drastic change to policy equals wingnut. Sweeping change on the order of pure restructure of government is not a nutcase position. I'm sure if we were a fascist dictatorship, we would not think it nutty to propose a constitutional republic. And the kind of change Paul proposes, doesn't touch that kind of dramatic change at all. It merely affects the fiscal structure within a government already established.

 

And with so many fiscal problems right now, I find it suspicious that those in the financial business would be so offended by him...

[bascule]

The only "solution" I've heard for the financial crisis out of Ron Paul is to let the whole financial sector collapse. Another depression is the solution?

 

But more than that, it's this kind of rhetoric:

 

There's no doubt that a large majority of Americans believe we're on the wrong track. That's why the candidate demanding "change" won the election. It mattered not that the change offered was no change at all, only a change in the engineer of a runaway train.

 

Juxtapose that with this quote from Alex Jones:

 

What a bunch of garbage... liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican. It's all there to control you... two sides of the same coin! Two management teams, bidding for control of the CEO job of Slavery Incorporated!

 

Note any similarities?

 

I never said that all Ron Paul supporters are Alex Jones nutjobs, but I think a striking majority of them are. Ron Paul's hands-off approach appeals to anarchists.

[ParanoiA]

No, they're not similar at all. Alex Jones views the country as a corporatized slave state. Ron Paul views it as federalists monopolizing the republic.

 

You imply one idea between Alex and Ron and that's supposed to be some kind of supporting evidence? Alex also fears for our civil liberties. That's just like the liberal agenda. So I guess we just elected an Alex Jones nutjob to the white house.

 

The only thing missing is me wasting my time to nab a quote from Obama that talks about civil liberties, and then nab one from Alex that talks about civil liberties, and point out the similarity. Great scientific ethic you've got going here...

 

Paul's position is the libertarian position - it is not owned by Alex Jones, nor does Alex have any claim to an idea that has been around for centuries. How ridiculous.

 

Ron Paul's hands off approach appeals to libertarians, and free market proponents. Any ideology, including nutcase think tanks, that like pure free market principles are going to be attracted.

 

Ron Paul supporters are not made up of a majority of Alex Jones fans. Try again. Hell, I'm not even sure Alex Jones has enough total fans to make up a majority of Ron Paul's total supporters. I can't find any numbers though.

 

Nevertheless, the only time I heard the two names in the same sentence was here in your posts and on the Alex Jones show - that and Charlie Sheen, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr.

 

The only "solution" I've heard for the financial crisis out of Ron Paul is to let the whole financial sector collapse. Another depression is the solution?

 

And the only "solution" offered by your precious candidate of same ole same ole is to print even more money. I noticed you stopped bitching about the value of the dollar once Obama signed on to bailing out wall street.

 

Yes, the best solution is to let it fall on its face. It's the check and balance that has been undermined with regulation and "nanny economics" so this needed to play out. To remind the market that natural forces are still relevant, even though they are obscured by unnatural forces. Kind of like always catching your child when he falls - eventually he forgets to worry about it, until one day you're not there and he falls on his ass. Let them fall on their ass. Same with the car makers. We're doing voodoo in the federal reserve and you're rationalizing it with appeals to the past - post federal reserve I might add.

Edited November 13, 2008 by ParanoiA

[bascule]

And the only "solution" offered by your precious candidate of same ole same ole is to print even more money.

 

[...]

 

Yes, the best solution is to let it fall on its face.

 

Okay, then what? How do you pull the economy out of a depression?

 

The New Deal worked pretty well... but that also involved printing more money.

 

Perhaps we should just all live in poverty until the economy "naturally" comes out of the depression.

[ParanoiA]

The new deal didn't pull us out of the depression. It masked the poverty with government employment until the war pulled us out.

 

How are you sure we'd suffer a despression? Just how much good do you think the bailout money is really doing?

 

More importantly, is the country chaulk full of anarchists, because I seem to remember congresscritters getting slammed with calls to reject the bailout? I also remember poll after poll indicating the majority rejected the bailout. Which is weird, because the people have elected a democrat president running as a centrist for change. So are they anarchists that suddenly became rational? It almost sounds like rejecting the bailout was rather mainstream.

[bascule]

The new deal didn't pull us out of the depression. It masked the poverty with government employment until the war pulled us out.

 

Let's just not go down that road... I doubt we'll reach any agreement

 

How are you sure we'd suffer a despression? Just how much good do you think the bailout money is really doing?

 

I'm not, nor am I talking specifically about the bailout. Ron Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve in the middle of a financial crisis, and cease regulation of the economy as a whole.

 

I think that would cause a depression.

[ParanoiA]

I'm not, nor am I talking specifically about the bailout. Ron Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve in the middle of a financial crisis, and cease regulation of the economy as a whole.

 

I think that would cause a depression.

 

No. Again, you're making an assumption that Ron Paul wants everything abolished tomorrow. Everytime this immediacy was charged to Dr Paul during an interview, he always replied about a "plan", or method to remove or change whatever entity he was implicating. Including Iraq, and he was the most vocal about immediate withdraw. On that, the federal reserve, the IRS, and other departmental slashes and overhauls, he always reminded the interviewer that these things take time to implement.

 

Unless you have a quote, I doubt Dr Paul would propose to abolish the Federal Reserve and cease regulation on the economy tomorrow. I could however buy the idea he would want to abolish the Federal Reserve during the crisis if he had some reason to believe the timing was particularly right. He does serve on the financial committee, and economy is his thing.

[bascule]

Fine, perhaps you'd care to explain to me how Ron Paul would get us out of a financial crisis without causing a depression

[Sisyphus]

The new deal didn't pull us out of the depression. It masked the poverty with government employment until the war pulled us out.

 

This I never understood. How was the war not also just "printing money" and massive government employment and spending? If you buy that the war pulled us out, how is it so hard to believe that the New Deal helped?

[Mr Skeptic]

Fine, perhaps you'd care to explain to me how Ron Paul would get us out of a financial crisis without causing a depression

 

By doing nothing, or anything? A financial crisis pretty much is a depression (well, recession is the new term), so its already been caused.

[ParanoiA]

This I never understood. How was the war not also just "printing money" and massive government employment and spending? If you buy that the war pulled us out, how is it so hard to believe that the New Deal helped?

 

It's not hard to believe that it helped, but it didn't pull us out. As I read, if it weren't for the New Deal, we may not have had much of an america to kick into gear for the war, so I do believe it helped.

 

Fine, perhaps you'd care to explain to me how Ron Paul would get us out of a financial crisis without causing a depression

 

I'm not sure that anything Ron Paul would do would get us out of a depression. Ron Paul's strength is about ideological ends. I don't think he's particularly talented at telling us how to get there, or performing the same witch craft with the economy as the people he's criticizing for doing just that.

 

No, I think he'd be cautious enough to roll out his agenda carefully enough not to cause catastrophe, like a depression, but not overly concerned about heartaches along the way either. He has that old fashioned grin-and-bear-it attitude.

[ecoli]

It's not hard to believe that it helped, but it didn't pull us out. As I read, if it weren't for the New Deal, we may not have had much of an america to kick into gear for the war, so I do believe it helped.

 

HEre's a (lengthy) Austrian view on the matter:

 

 

I'm not sure that anything Ron Paul would do would get us out of a depression. Ron Paul's strength is about ideological ends. I don't think he's particularly talented at telling us how to get there, or performing the same witch craft with the economy as the people he's criticizing for doing just that.

His whole point is that people inherently can't manage the economy well. At least, not better than an efficient free market.

 

No, I think he'd be cautious enough to roll out his agenda carefully enough not to cause catastrophe, like a depression, but not overly concerned about heartaches along the way either. He has that old fashioned grin-and-bear-it attitude.

Paul's competing currency idea: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr121307h.htm

 

Bascule, take note: Paul isn't proposing to take down the fed overnight.

[Pangloss]

The thing I think you guys aren't getting is that Americans are convinced that something is wrong, but they're not even remotely convinced that our system itself is broken. They know we're in a mess, but they blame that on politicians and money-grubbers, not the basic concept of having a compromise between "capitalism" and "caring". And frankly they're not wrong to think that, because the points in favor of non-intervention have logical and sensible responses. We know what happens when you carelessly deregulate an industry that inherently puts people at some form of risk. What we don't know is the exact point of compromise at which we have a successful industry and happy and safe consumers. We're still figuring that one out.

 

So while I may not agree with bascule that the majority of Ron Paul supporters are like Alex Jones supporters, I do think the fundamental basis of that comment is accurate. Non-interventionism is as dead as communism. Putting it forward in this day and age makes about as much sense as assigning everyone a job on a communal farm and writing up a Five Year Plan. Sorry gents, but that's just the way it is.

 

It's time to find a new philosophy to pin your hopes on. We DO need to recognize the importance of right-sizing regulation and reducing it when it becomes an unnecessary and counterproductive burden. Austrians and libertarians and such can still make an important contribution in that regard. Why not grab that baton and run with it instead?

[ParanoiA]

It's time to find a new philosophy to pin your hopes on. We DO need to recognize the importance of right-sizing regulation and reducing it when it becomes an unnecessary and counterproductive burden. Austrians and libertarians and such can still make an important contribution in that regard. Why not grab that baton and run with it instead?

 

Don't we though? See, it's my contention that compromise is for politicians. My job is to be the force of intent that I believe in. And I try to persuade others to believe in it too, to wield a stronger force. But politicians, or statesmen rather, are to negotiate all of the various forces, coupled with their personal belief system and compromise as appropriate for whatever given issue is at hand. That's not for me to do. I'm going to follow my philosophical belief as purely as I can. All of us should.

[ecoli]

The thing I think you guys aren't getting is that Americans are convinced that something is wrong, but they're not even remotely convinced that our system itself is broken. They know we're in a mess, but they blame that on politicians and money-grubbers, not the basic concept of having a compromise between "capitalism" and "caring". And frankly they're not wrong to think that, because the points in favor of non-intervention have logical and sensible responses. We know what happens when you carelessly deregulate an industry that inherently puts people at some form of risk.

 

Ironically, Austrian business cycle says that government intervention creates more risk, or at least handicaps our ability to judge risk. People can't asses risk accurately when industries are subsidized and interest rate targets are set artificially lower than real market rates and prices. The point is that market prices usually are the best reflection of how that industry or product will perform. Sometimes the market is wrong, but more often, the government is wrong.

 

To me, it seems like allowing government intervention is a bigger risk, because it assumes that the government knows what is better for us than the market. I reject this assumption based on the imperfect human model we all know exist. Why should we trust Ben Bernanke with our money? Why do we trust the federal government to subsidize the right industries? These things lead to corporate protectionism, not national economic growth (and by extension, not personal economic growth either).

 

 

It's time to find a new philosophy to pin your hopes on. We DO need to recognize the importance of right-sizing regulation and reducing it when it becomes an unnecessary and counterproductive burden. Austrians and libertarians and such can still make an important contribution in that regard. Why not grab that baton and run with it instead?

As paranioA said, let the politicians compromise. I'm tired of mainstreamers telling me I need to compromise my beliefs, all the while complaining about how things are turning out.

 

I have very realistic expectation about what government will and won't do, but that doesn't mean I should stop talking about what I think government should and shouldn't be able to do.

[bascule]

His whole point is that people inherently can't manage the economy well. At least, not better than an efficient free market.

 

That would seem to be the opposite view from Greenspan's postmortem on the mortgage crisis.

 

What I'd really like to know is: why should we listen to Ron Paul on the economy? He has no formal education in the matter and for all intents and purposes no practical experience in the matter either. Seems like he just likes to write and speak about the Austrian School with zero credentials whatsoever.

 

He blames the financial crisis on overregulation. Is he insane?

[Pangloss]

Don't we though? See, it's my contention that compromise is for politicians. My job is to be the force of intent that I believe in. And I try to persuade others to believe in it too, to wield a stronger force. But politicians, or statesmen rather, are to negotiate all of the various forces, coupled with their personal belief system and compromise as appropriate for whatever given issue is at hand. That's not for me to do. I'm going to follow my philosophical belief as purely as I can. All of us should.

 

Believe me, it's not unilateral individuals that scare me, but unilateral politicians. Ron Paul doesn't scare me at all, though, it's the establishment Democrats and Republicans that do. If you want to follow what seems to me to be an irrelevant and ineffectual philosophical belief all the way to the grave, that's not only your right, it's the American way. More power to you.

 

(Doesn't mean I think anything less of you either, btw. Most of my friends think I'm misguided about some thing or another.)

 

 

Ironically, Austrian business cycle says that government intervention creates more risk, or at least handicaps our ability to judge risk. People can't asses risk accurately when industries are subsidized and interest rate targets are set artificially lower than real market rates and prices. The point is that market prices usually are the best reflection of how that industry or product will perform. Sometimes the market is wrong, but more often, the government is wrong.

 

Right, right, and socialism was supposed to end all wars. There's a reason we stopped believing in that idea too. You're just repeating familiar arguments here that have received logical counterpoints many times on this forum.

 

 

 

I'm tired of mainstreamers telling me I need to compromise my beliefs, all the while complaining about how things are turning out.

 

See I think that's what's actually driving a lot of the resurgence of these old unilateral beliefs like Austrianism. I don't mean you, I think you do a great job of thinking things through, but I can't say I see very many folks like you out there.

[ecoli]

That would seem to be the opposite view from Greenspan's postmortem on the mortgage crisis.

As far as I know, yes it is. The Austrians are going crazy over Greenspan's speech.

 

What I'd really like to know is: why should we listen to Ron Paul on the economy? He has no formal education in the matter and for all intents and purposes no practical experience in the matter either. Seems like he just likes to write and speak about the Austrian School with zero credentials whatsoever.

 

Paul Krugman won his Nobel prize for his trade theory, but he's an economist, and hasn't gotten a degree in journalism. Does that mean he shouldn't write for the NY Times.

 

Last time I checked, having a degree in something doesn't make you an expert. Studying something on your own, through well accepted literature (like thousands of books devoted to Austrian business school), is a perfectly legitimate way to learn things, as anyone on this board should know (tsk tsk for implying otherwise).

 

And, just because someone has an economics degree from Harvard doesn't mean that they know everything about the economy, especially from a capitalist standpoint. We all know that most Ivy Leaguers (and universities in general) have a liberal bias...

 

 

He blames the financial crisis on overregulation. Is he insane?

 

It's not like this area is completely unexplored. Economists have speculated, and observed, how overregulation can cause financial crises. The Austrian Business cycle model is just one of these. If you want to debate the finer points in a separate thread, I would be more than happy to do so.

 

That being said, its not like there isn't debate about these things. The Cato Institute is divided into the Austrians and the non-Austrians. The Austrians treat economics like a philosophy, and so don't like getting their work "dirtied" with math. However, the Chicagoans pick up here nicely adding math and empirical evidence to the pool.

 

Just because these conservative, lassiez-faire ideas aren't mainstream right now doesn't mean their wrong. Again, I point to the political power-increasing role of Keynesian economics as a possible reason why politicians like it so much. It helps stoke their egos and perceived global importance.

 

Right, right, and socialism was supposed to end all wars. There's a reason we stopped believing in that idea too. You're just repeating familiar arguments here that have received logical counterpoints many times on this forum.

Well a lot of people haven't given up on socialism. I bet there's a greater number of those out there than free market capitalist.

 

 

See I think that's what's actually driving a lot of the resurgence of these old unilateral beliefs like Austrianism. I don't mean you, I think you do a great job of thinking things through, but I can't say I see very many folks like you out there.

Well, I would have to disgree with that. I think trying to subscibe to a specific economic theory takes a lot of thought and intellectualism, even just to prove to yourself that its valid. Yeah, I suppose there's a lot of people out there who can't tell you why they think government handouts are bad, but they'll toe that party line anyway. These people don't know that Austrian economics exist though, and very few of them are RP supporters.

[Pangloss]

I think trying to subscibe to a specific economic theory takes a lot of thought and intellectualism, even just to prove to yourself that its valid.

 

That's a perfectly reasonable point, but it strikes me as being a bit like debating the effect that instant teleportation might have on the transportation sector of the economy -- it's a "price of tea in china" debate. In my opinion it's not that these ideas don't have their merits, it's that we've made a decision to do things a certain way, and we have established to the satisfaction of the majority that the problem we're currently facing is not (in the main) the fault of the system itself, but rather the imperfect and corrupt application of it. Therefore we owe it to ourselves to stand by our intelligence, our logic, and our resolve, and not throw out the baby with the bathwater here.

 

And perhaps more to the point, those ideas aren't going to be tried. They're simply not in the mainstream discourse. So I think they detract from a debate on the subject of "what can/should/will be done". Mind you, I never object to an interesting discussion. I just think it detracts from this one.

 

But of course that's just my two bits on it, and you're welcome to think otherwise.

[ecoli]

And perhaps more to the point, those ideas aren't going to be tried. They're simply not in the mainstream discourse.

...yet. The logic could have applied to civil rights movement, quantum physics, or any type of change that results in a paradigm shift. I think you'd have a hard time convincing Ghandi that the British are just mainstream so there's no point in debating whether or not they should be there.

 

Similarly, you'd have a hard time convincing Ron Paul that the Federal Reserve is mainstream, and therefore improper to debate the fact of whether or not having a central bank is necessary or proper.

 

Surely you are not telling anyone on this board that they should give up on their convictions just because they are not mainstream??

 

Obviously I am under no illusion that the government is going to give up its regulatory powers tomorrow. But, I am hopeful that, if the right free market arguments are in the right places at the right times, people will see in the future how the latest rounds of regulations will utterly fail us and a different paradigm ought to be employed.