94 replies to this topic

[JChief]

Further, as far as economics are concerned I have a fondness for economist Peter Schiff. He is another keen observer and calamity predictor in a similar vein as Paul: see here.

Edited by JChief, 25 January 2012 - 09:28 AM.

[Rational Madman]

Although Ron Paul is certainly a cerebral fellow, he isn't really a credible source on economics. Rather, I would start with the Ideas.respec.org's list of most cited economists---there are a lot monetarists in the top 20. Anyway, I take it that he's suggesting that the inflation of prices is mostly attributable to the "debasement" of our currency, right?

“I strongly recommend that every American acquire some basic knowledge of economics, monetary policy, and the intersection of politics with the economy. No formal classroom is required; a desire to read and learn will suffice. There are countless important books to consider, but the following are an excellent starting point: The Law by Frédéric Bastiat; Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt; What has Government Done to our Money? by Murray Rothbard; The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek; and Economics for Real People by Gene Callahan.
If you simply read and comprehend these relatively short texts, you will know far more than most educated people about economics and government. You certainly will develop a far greater understanding of how supposedly benevolent government policies destroy prosperity. If you care about the future of this country, arm yourself with knowledge and fight back against economic ignorance. We disregard economics and history at our own peril.”

—Ron Paul



And I think it would be wise for someone such as yourself to have a look at this and at least agree that someone with his foresight just *may* understand a thing or two about monetary policy and economics and worth a closer look.

Okay, but if you remember, I did admit that Mr. Paul has a sharp mind. However, he certainly wasn't the only person to ring the alarm bells: Robert Schiller, Raghuram Rajan, Nouriel Roubini, Robert Schiller, Kenneth Rogoff, and Stephen Roach. And furthermore, Paul has been consistently predicting the "imminent doom" of our economy, and more often than not, his predictions have failed. But of course, given the nature of the business cycle, maintaining a bearish posture will eventually pay dividends.

[JChief]

I'm not certain what you mean about predicting imminent doom continually. From my perspective he was warning about the boom bust cycles that the federal reserve policies create. It takes time for those problems to manifest. The Federal Reserve needs to go as does Keynesian economics as well. I'm not gonna get in a big debate on this forum though. I'd suggest you have a look at the books if you wish to understand. You seem fairly sharp so you've got plenty to work with right there. Maybe have a look some time. Of course, no prestigious circle cared much about Austrian economics except the one that matters most that gave F.A. Hayek a Noble prize in 1974 for his pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and his penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena.

Here's a bio of economist and philosopher F.A. Hayek. Of note: "Hayek developed a warm relationship with the English economist John Maynard Keynes whose advocacy of government intervention in the economy he emphatically disagreed with. [...] F.A. Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom struck a responsive chord with at least some of Hayek’s intellectual adversaries. Keynes wrote Hayek: “In my opinion it is a grand book—morally and philosophically, I find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it; and not only in agreement with it, but in a deeply moved agreement.”"

[Rational Madman]

I'm not certain what you mean about predicting imminent doom continually. From my perspective he was warning about the boom bust cycles that the federal reserve policies create. It takes time for those problems to manifest. The Federal Reserve needs to go as does Keynesian economics as well. I'm not gonna get in a big debate on this forum though. I'd suggest you have a look at the books if you wish to understand. You seem fairly sharp so you've got plenty to work with right there. Maybe have a look some time. Of course, no prestigious circle cared much about Austrian economics except the one that matters most that gave F.A. Hayek a Noble prize in 1974 for his pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and his penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena.

Here's a bio of economist and philosopher F.A. Hayek. Of note: "Hayek developed a warm relationship with the English economist John Maynard Keynes whose advocacy of government intervention in the economy he emphatically disagreed with. [...] F.A. Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom struck a responsive chord with at least some of Hayek’s intellectual adversaries. Keynes wrote Hayek: “In my opinion it is a grand book—morally and philosophically, I find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it; and not only in agreement with it, but in a deeply moved agreement.”"

Are you serious? You think I should spend some time to review the literature? Seriously, take your own advice, because Hayek is quite dated, and is not taken very seriously by mainstream economists that use more accepted methodologies. And why would you presume that I haven't read The Road to Serfdom, or more insultingly, would need a brief synopsis of his career? I mean, do you think it's possible that I read it and found it lacking in many areas? Anyway, I seriously doubt that you "avoid" debates because you're secure about your convictions.

Edited by Rational Madman, 26 January 2012 - 06:09 PM.

[JChief]

I'm not certain what you mean about predicting imminent doom continually. From my perspective he was warning about the boom bust cycles that the federal reserve policies create. It takes time for those problems to manifest. The Federal Reserve needs to go as does Keynesian economics as well. I'm not gonna get in a big debate on this forum though. I'd suggest you have a look at the books if you wish to understand. You seem fairly sharp so you've got plenty to work with right there. Maybe have a look some time. Of course, no prestigious circle cared much about Austrian economics except the one that matters most that gave F.A. Hayek a Noble prize in 1974 for his pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and his penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena.

Here's a bio of economist and philosopher F.A. Hayek. Of note: "Hayek developed a warm relationship with the English economist John Maynard Keynes whose advocacy of government intervention in the economy he emphatically disagreed with. [...] F.A. Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom struck a responsive chord with at least some of Hayek’s intellectual adversaries. Keynes wrote Hayek: “In my opinion it is a grand book—morally and philosophically, I find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it; and not only in agreement with it, but in a deeply moved agreement.”"

Are you serious? You think I should spend some time to review the literature? Seriously, take your own advice, because Hayek is quite dated, and is not taken very seriously by mainstream economists that use more accepted methodologies. And why would you presume that I haven't read The Road to Serfdom, or more insultingly, would need a brief synopsis of his career? I mean, do you think it's possible that I read it and found it lacking in many areas? Anyway, I seriously doubt that you "avoid" debates because you're secure about your convictions.

Look I'm not yet labeling you a Social Democrat. But yeah I'm kinda serious. I do think you should spend some time reading it. You might profit from that knowledge. But perhaps I underestimated you and you have already paid them a visit. And I apologize for insulting you. But I am more than secure of my convictions. If you did indeed read that particular book and have the intellectual wherewithal (audacity?) to challenge Hayek's conclusions I think you should write a book yourself! I'd read it too. It is my opinion that the Austrian school of economic thought understands human nature and "the business cycle" ie they see the world for what it is not as your models "believe" it to be. The "accepted methodologies" you refer to, you can most likely credit in some way to Keynes, and is flawed at its very core.

If you did actually read and comprehend the philosophy you wouldn't be wondering why Paul and other economists who follow this "dated" (read: never implemented and only vindicated after the fact) school of thought are zigging when everyone else seems to be zagging. Perhaps you are an ideologue on the same level as Keynes was. I do not care to know really. Maybe you are just one that concludes the Keynes v. Hayek mania is ridiculous? I'm inclined to think we reach a point where there seems to be something at the most fundamental level, ingrained in our genetic code perhaps (lol), that influences our philosophical tendencies in such a way that, no matter how eloquently or persuasively argued in opposition, ensures this debate will never be put to bed. Nor will the theories that were Noble prize worthy ever be given a chance to prove itself in the modern world if people like you continue to outsmart themselves. All that a true understanding will do is allow you to predict, with a high degree of certainty, our economic fate.

Keynes and Hayek: The Money Economy (Routledge Foundations of the Market Economy) by G R Steele can be had on Amazon for $240. I bet you haven't read that one. Keynes vs Hayek, greatest debate in the history of economics, has only seen one side dominate economics of this century...


Have you read Murray N. Rothbard's America's Great Depression? "Applied Austrian economics doesn't get better than this. Murray N. Rothbard's America's Great Depression is a staple of modern economic literature and crucial for understanding a pivotal event in American and world history. Since it first appeared in 1963, it has been the definitive treatment of the causes of the depression. The book remains canonical today because the debate is still very alive.

Rothbard opens with a theoretical treatment of business cycle theory, showing how an expansive monetary policy generates imbalances between investment and consumption. He proceeds to examine the Fed's policies of the 1920s, demonstrating that it was quite inflationary even if the effects did not show up in the price of goods and services. He showed that the stock market correction was merely one symptom of the investment boom that led inevitably to a bust. The Great Depression was not a crisis for capitalism but merely an example of the downturn part of the business cycle, which in turn was generated by government intervention in the economy. Had the book appeared in the 1940s, it might have spared the world much grief. Even so, its appearance in 1963 meant that free-market advocates had their first full-scale treatment of this crucial subject. The damage to the intellectual world inflicted by Keynesian- and socialist-style treatments would be limited from that day forward." mises.org

Sorry for insulting you.