94 replies to this topic

[Rational Madman]

Name a first world country that is to the right of the United States, if you don't think the US is among the furthest to the right. I will be pleased if you come up with a good one because that will give me hope.

Just because America is relatively libertarian doesn't make America libertarian.

What puts us to the extreme is that our nation is the only one seriously talking about getting rid of social security and medicare. We have deregulated our economy. There is little left to do to on the road to a pure neo-liberal economy.

Everybody else does it by simply cutting back on funding, like for example the NHS. Greece is also trying to implement austerity like cutting pensions, raising retirement, etc.

We are simply discussing a plan to make it fairer by reducing contributions, and telling people what to expect ahead of time.

Deregulated our economy? Not a chance. It cannot be deregulated with the current tax exemptions (for instance), which gives an advantage to bigger companies. The current incarnation of the EPA is a bureaucratic nightmare which can shut down any activity without having to justify itself to anyone except the president. We have saved the banks which were engaging in risky investments.

Lets not forget the drug war, which forces another sector of economic activity into the black market.

Austerity would certainly be appropriate in inflationary conditions, and following a recovery of aggregate demand, but the austerity programs that you cite have had regressive effects in both countries. In Greece, austerity has failed to raise market confidence, arrest a soaring increase in public debt, or restore growth to a stable rate. Rather, there has been a contraction of 5.5% of GDP for Y2011, and since Y2010, the national debt has increased to 182% of GDP---from 120% of GDP. In Britain, its relative strengths, and less draconian cuts in spending have prevented a similar outcome. But, its growth forecast has been reduced by approximately three quarters for Y2012, and whatever improvements that it has enjoyed in its fiscal situation will be wiped out as its tax base shrinks in anemic---or recessionary---conditions. To be sure, though, these growth forecasts can't be attributed to national policies alone, since the dithering, and limited coordination of Euro Zone economies has greatly exacerbated matters.

I understand the appeal of austerity, and sympathize with critics of poorly implemented countercyclical programs, but there are serious costs to cutting back spending in conditions of deflation and greatly reduced demand. Indeed, an IMF authored study of government responses to recessions since 1980 found that a 0.5 reduction in spending was correlated with a 0.25 loss in output---in addition to a mountain of supportive evidence that reached similar conclusions. At the same, though, fiscal stimulatory measures are certainly not a panacea solution, since such spending has in some notable cases---like Japan---failed to deliver expected results. But I think such failures can be attributed to the chosen targets, the timing, misguided actions by the Central Bank, and a failure to signal an intention to seriously unwind operations at a future date. Regardless of the evidence, though, the present level of cognitive dissonance will probably prevent many from departing from their dogmatic views, which could be for the best---since another systemic failure could permanently kill the argument.

Edited by Rational Madman, 03 January 2012 - 05:24 AM.

[Rational Madman]

Can you be more specific in why Ron Paul's policies would have a negative impact?

For example why would non-intervention be worse than the current foreign policy?

Also, even if you don't agree with a candidate on all policies how much weight do you put on honesty and consistency? If a candidate says one thing before a campaign and then does another once elected does that not bother you?

If Paul is serious about going back on the gold standard, then that would be one I'd disagree with. That would be an economic disaster.

Non-intervention would be great. I think we could protect "the homeland" (to use a creepy term) while spending about 10% of what we currently spend, at least for new expenditures. We're in awfully deep for the cost of taking care of our injured soldiers. That will exceed the cost (so far) of our misadventure in Iraq by several times.

Honesty is important. Consistency isn't. When the facts change, policies need to change to keep up. One politician can rarely do anything on their own. If a presidential candidate say's he's going to push for something if he's elected, that doesn't mean it's going to happen. If he worked in opposition to it, or did nothing, and the facts that made it a good idea earlier are still in effect, then it's a problem.

With the Hegemonic Stability Theory in mind, I think the designers of defense policy have more of a desire to defend the international system, and not just the homeland---which is an argument that's easier to sell to the public. To be sure, defense allocations need to shrink appreciably, but I would be more comfortable if reductions coincided with increased contributions by emerging states.

Additionally, this gold standard fetish has no basis in reality, and could not possibly be put into place---and sustained---in the absence of a binding international agreement---which will never happen. Because in the absence of an international agreement, and a powerful hegemon, the relative gains and policy flexibility of other states would make the temptation to leave the standard irresistible. At present, there is not the slightest enthusiasm for such an agreement, and in depressed conditions,
gold standard countries have a record of performing worse---by all measures---than those outside of the standard. In the Great Depression for instance, everyone left the standard, because those that remained faced a rate of deflation of over 10% more, and more generally, were forced to reconcile themselves with the paradox of thrift.

Edited by Rational Madman, 03 January 2012 - 05:37 AM.

[Rational Madman]

I'm Canadian but if American would vote for him. His economic and foreign policies jive with me (however I do not know how the transition to the gold standard would work and if needed, thus I'm still iffy here). However his social policies I don't agree with (e.g. pro-life). But I'm glad Ron Paul showed up, because so much in politics today we are voting for different forms of socialism, not true differences in ideals (maybe this is the only way a democracy could work I don't know).

Politics is the art of the possible, and if Ron Paul became President by some miracle, how on earth do you think he'd be able to lead a party that is alien to him---by his own admission.

Edited by Rational Madman, 03 January 2012 - 07:27 AM.

[rwac]

Austerity would certainly be appropriate in inflationary conditions, and following a recovery of aggregate demand, but the austerity programs that you cite have had regressive effects in both countries.

And I was making the exact same point, you need to do something before the crisis, or you will be forced into anti-growth austerity like Greece.

Edited by rwac, 03 January 2012 - 06:21 AM.

[rwac]

Politics is the art of the possible, and if by some miracle, Ron Paul became president, how on earth do you think he'd be able to lead a party that is alien to him---by his own admission.

1. Veto everything (ok, mostly), raising the bar for legislation
2. Foreign affairs is strictly under the executive branch

Edited by rwac, 03 January 2012 - 06:24 AM.

[Rational Madman]

David's statement about the US being Libertarian was a real head-scratcher until I figured out that he was using that term to mean Neo-Liberal economics. I had to look that one up. It more or less means "Reaganomics", as we commonly think of it. And yeah, we are probably deeper in that failed ideology than any other developed nation. I'm not using the term 'failed ideology' as a cheap insult. We have three decades of experience with it, and the facts are there, if we can wade through the bumper sticker propaganda and actually look at them. (consider GDP growth, national debt, job creation, economic stability, wealth distribution)

Not really, because in terms major pieces of deregulation, like the repeal of Glass-Steagall, we followed the Europeans because of a fear of capital flight and competitive disadvantages. Indeed, the situation in Europe was much more precarious in terms of private sector debt, the average leverage ratios, and exposure financial services sector. In terms of economic performance, I suggest taking a close look at some of the major European economies during the last two decades---France and Germany especially. Additionally, in the last recession, many of the Euro Zone countries suffered a loss of output that exceeded our adjusted 5.1% drop:

Country

Total GDP loss

Recession length (number of quarters)

United States

-4.14%

6

United Kingdom

-6.15%

6

Turkey

-12.82%

4

Switzerland

-3.25%

4

Sweden

-7.43%

7

Spain

-4.89%

7

South Africa

-2.65%

3

Slovenia

-9.71%

3

Slovakia

-7.62%

1

Russia

-10.86%

4

Romania

-10.00%

9

Portugal

-3.68%

4

Poland

-0.40%

1

Norway

-3.44%

11

New Zealand

-3.45%

5

Netherlands

-5.29%

5

Mexico

-8.47%

4

Malta

-3.37%

4

Luxembourg

-8.34%

5

Lithuania

-16.95%

6

Latvia

-25.14%

8

Korea, South

-4.58%

2

Italy

-6.76%

7

Israel

-1.21%

2

Ireland

-12.24%

13

Iceland

-15.07%

11

Hungary

-8.32%

6

Greece

-8.95%

9

Germany

-6.62%

4

France

-3.87%

4

Finland

-9.96%

4

Estonia

-20.33%

7

Denmark

-8.06%

6

Czech Republic

-4.94%

3

Cyprus

-2.85%

4

Croatia

-7.41%

8

Chile

-4.11%

4

Canada

-3.36%

6

Bulgaria

-7.05%

5

Brazil

-6.14%

2

Belgium

-4.23%

3

Austria

-5.44%

4

Australia

-1.00%

1

Argentina

-1.69%

2

GDP growth: The annual rate was 3.6% in the 90s, and about 2.5% during the 2000s.

National debt: Between 2001 and 2007, and before the onset of the crisis, the national debt grew by about 8% of GDP, or from 57% to 65%. Whereas now, it's hovering around 100% of GDP.

Job creation-Pre-crisis, close to 40 million were created over the last two decades, but nearly all of these were in the non-tradable sector. But the net creation was around 28 million.

Economic Stability-There is much nostalgia for the years that preceded 1980, but this was also an era of frozen equity markets, stagnant rates of growth (only in the 70s though), high inflation, and still, fairly serious recessions---e.g. 1958, and 1973-74. But even during the relatively successful periods of growth in the first decades following 1945, this rate was inflated by the aggregate losses that the international system experienced during the Great Depression and the Second World War. Indeed, in cases of severe contraction, the initial rate of growth will be unnaturally high, and will continue to diminish as a country approaches its natural growth potential.

Wealth distribution-It really depends on how you measure "wealth." Usually wages and household income are considered---the latter of which experienced healthy pre-recession gains. But it should be noted that the present median value of household assets would be a better measure, and is rarely used for the purpose of measuring the relative economic health of households---the median value has returned to pre-crisis levels, being 10 trillion higher than the crisis' lowest point, and 5 trillion lower than the 2007 high. Additionally, we should remember that the top 1% of earners have suffered a greater loss of income in this recession than the median household, and that much of the unusual gains that they enjoyed had more to do with financial innovations and market liquidity---nearly everyone was sending their capital to the United States for investment. E.g. the Chinese, the Russian, the Indians, the Gulf Arabs, and the Europeans. So if a household had more money to risk, they could expect a greater level of return. At present, we still have the most liquid financial services sector, so expect the trend to continue.

Look, I'm not denying that the present situation is terrible by some measures, but we should take solace in the fact that it's awful everywhere, and that throughout history, we have proven to be an exceptionally resilient state.

Edited by Rational Madman, 03 January 2012 - 03:51 PM.

[Rational Madman]

Austerity would certainly be appropriate in inflationary conditions, and following a recovery of aggregate demand, but the austerity programs that you cite have had regressive effects in both countries.

And I was making the exact same point, you need to do something before the crisis, or you will be forced into anti-growth austerity like Greece.

I know, I was just making a generalized point that supplemented your post, because I realized what your position was about half-way through writing, and didn't change my statement accordingly.

Edited by Rational Madman, 03 January 2012 - 07:18 AM.

[niner]

David's statement about the US being Libertarian was a real head-scratcher until I figured out that he was using that term to mean Neo-Liberal economics. I had to look that one up. It more or less means "Reaganomics", as we commonly think of it. And yeah, we are probably deeper in that failed ideology than any other developed nation. I'm not using the term 'failed ideology' as a cheap insult. We have three decades of experience with it, and the facts are there, if we can wade through the bumper sticker propaganda and actually look at them. (consider GDP growth, national debt, job creation, economic stability, wealth distribution)

Not really, because in terms major pieces of deregulation---like the repeal of Glass-Steagall---we followed the Europeans for fear of capital flight and competitive disadvantages. Indeed, the situation in Europe was much more precarious in terms of private sector debt, the average leverage ratios---and exposure---of the Euro Zone financial services sector, and in terms of economic performance, I suggest taking a close look at some of the major European economies during the last two decades---France and Germany especially. Additionally, in the last recession, many of the Euro Zone countries suffered a loss of output that exceeded our adjusted 5.1% drop:

Glass-Steagall was one of the later props to fall. We preceded Europe on most aspects of neoliberalism by a long way. In the main, they never went as far as we did.

GDP growth: The annual rate was 3.6% in the 90s, and about 2.5% during the 2000s.

Corresponding to Clinton era and Bush era tax rates, respectively, which makes my point.

National debt: Between 2001 and 2007, and before the onset of the crisis, the national debt grew by about 8% of GDP, or from 57% to 65%. Whereas now, it's hovering around 100% of GDP.

Rose during Reagan Bush, slowed then fell under Clinton tax rates, then rose, ultimately a lot, under Bush and the aftermath of credit crisis.

Job creation-Pre-crisis, close to 40 million were created over the last two decades, but nearly all of these were in the non-tradable sector. But the net creation was around 28 million.

Nearly all of which occurred outside of Bush tax cut era

Economic Stability-There is much nostalgia for the years that preceded 1980, but this was also an era of frozen equity markets, stagnant rates of growth (only in the 70s though), high inflation, and still, fairly serious recessions---e.g. 1958, and 1973-74. But even during the relatively successful periods of growth in the first decades following 1945, this rate was inflated by the aggregate losses that the international system experienced during the Great Depression and the Second World War. Indeed, in cases of severe contraction, the initial rate of growth will be unnaturally high, and will continue to diminish as a country approaches its natural growth potential.

Yes, it's never been serene, but considering the post WWII era, the recent credit crisis, which swamps them all, was the culmination of a great deal of financial deregulation, both de jure and de facto through de-funding of regulatory agencies and placement of ideologically non-regulators in regulatory positions.

Wealth distribution-It really depends on how you measure "wealth." Usually wages and household income are considered---the latter of which experienced healthy pre-recession gains. But it should be noted the present median value of household assets greatly exceeds the median income---the median value has returned to pre-crisis levels---10 trillion higher than the crisis' lowest point, and 5 trillion lower than the 2007 high. Additionally, we should remember that the top 1% of earners have suffered a greater loss of income in this recession than the median household, and that much of the unusual gains that they enjoyed had more to do with financial innovations and market liquidity---nearly everyone was sending their capital to the United States for investment. E.G. the Chinese, the Russian, the Indians, the Gulf Arabs, and the Europeans. So if a household had more money to risk, they could expect a greater level of return. At present, we still have the most liquid financial services sector, so expect the trend to continue.

I'm defining wealth as household wealth; net worth. That shows the skew in distribution much more starkly than wages. Wages are a poor metric, since wages become essentially irrelevant at the high end of the income distribution. The top 1% took a hit in the market, but their fortunes have recovered to a much greater extent than those of the 99%, who are still beset by unemployment and underwater properties.

Look, I'm not denying that the present situation is terrible by some measures, but we should take solace in the fact that it's awful everywhere, and that throughout history, we have proven to be an exceptionally resilient state.

I hope that we will retain that resilience, which has been a powerful asset. Some of the engines of our resilience, like our manufacturing sector, have been shipped to Asia, but others, like our creative national character, remain. Our present state of political dysfunction is very worrying. It remains to be seen how we will fare in a world where other nations begin to surpass us in some very fundamental ways, like scientific publications and new patents. China is moving beyond the point of building a better life by stealing IP. They're now doing it the hard way.

[Rational Madman]

When discussing household wealth, I probably shouldn't have given an aggregate figure, but at the time, I couldn't remember the figures for the median household. So here's some charts from the St. Louis Federal Reserve:









For most measures, like wealth, I suppose it's a matter of when the period of measurement begins.

Edited by Rational Madman, 03 January 2012 - 03:54 PM.

[Link]

I didn't really want to post too much stuff on this thread because i didn't want to make it a Ron Paul propaganda thread but one thing that i really can't understand is the hostility that Ron Paul gets when discussing foreign policy. I find it incredible that people honestly buy into the "they hate us for our freedoms" crap.

As a non-American i have to say that seeing Ron Paul getting booed for suggesting that Americans should treat other nations as they want to be treated, it just puts America in such a bad light.

This sort of thing really feeds the stereotype that Americans are ignorant, bloodthirsty, self righteous warmongers who have no empathy for the suffering of others.

Obviously not all, or even most, Americans are like that but this vocal minority and the politicians who pander to them by telling them what they want to hear are just fanning the flames of hatred towards America in my opinion.

[rwac]

As a non-American i have to say that seeing Ron Paul getting booed for suggesting that Americans should treat other nations as they want to be treated, it just puts America in such a bad light.

The Golden Rule doesn't apply to countries because they are amoral. The international community is more Hobbesian than anything else, and unprovoked attacks are fairly commonplace in history.

Unfortunately, the developed world depends on certain resources available in the middle east (for ex.). So we are forced to maintain certain stability. If we didn't someone else would do it.

[Link]

I realize that America needs to protect their oil interests but in 2001 world oil prices were aroung $25 - $30/barrel and are now close to $100/barrel.

So at a cost of several trillion dollars, nearly 5000 American troops dead and over 30000 wounded, i don't think anyone could seriously propose the Iraq war a success on that front.

[rwac]

I realize that America needs to protect their oil interests but in 2001 world oil prices were aroung $25 - $30/barrel and are now close to $100/barrel.

So at a cost of several trillion dollars, nearly 5000 American troops dead and over 30000 wounded, i don't think anyone could seriously propose the Iraq war a success on that front.

But it's more than just that war right. Now if Iran wants to block the straits of hormuz, there isn't anyone else who can handle that situation ...

Besides, it is possible to argue that the iraq war was folly without implying that we need to withdraw from the world.

[maxwatt]

The price is high because the commodity is scarce. We have passed the point of peak oil. To extract what remains grows more costly. Tar sand oil is now economical to extract at $100 a barrel. The US imports 2/3 of its oil from Canada now. The Iraq war was unnecessary, but the price of oil would be the same with or without that stupid Bush-Cheney war.

[maxwatt]

Iraq threatened to block the straits of Hormuz to raise the price of oil to improve their revenue stream.

[Rational Madman]

I realize that America needs to protect their oil interests but in 2001 world oil prices were aroung $25 - $30/barrel and are now close to $100/barrel.

So at a cost of several trillion dollars, nearly 5000 American troops dead and over 30000 wounded, i don't think anyone could seriously propose the Iraq war a success on that front.

But it's more than just that war right. Now if Iran wants to block the straits of hormuz, there isn't anyone else who can handle that situation ...

Besides, it is possible to argue that the iraq war was folly without implying that we need to withdraw from the world.

The proposal to block the Straits of Hormuz is an idle threat, and shouldn't be taken seriously. But even if they attempt to brazenly block the straits, we should welcome such a tactical error. Because by doing so, they'll completely alienate themselves from what "friends" they have left: Russia, China, South Korea, Japan, and Qatar.

[Rational Madman]

The price is high because the commodity is scarce. We have passed the point of peak oil. To extract what remains grows more costly. Tar sand oil is now economical to extract at $100 a barrel. The US imports 2/3 of its oil from Canada now. The Iraq war was unnecessary, but the price of oil would be the same with or without that stupid Bush-Cheney war.

I'm not sure I would go as far as to say that the commodity is becoming increasingly scarce, because there isn't sufficient evidence to make a conclusion either way. Instead, I think the problem has more to do with the unusual surge of demand over the last two decades, and the unfortunate failure of the "industry" to accommodate this rise in demand. I think the latter problem is most critical, and I would attribute it mostly to the growing public ownership of energy products, and the inevitable conflicts of interest that become worse with state control.

[Sillewater]

Ron Paul said in an interview that the price of oil in terms of gold hasn't changed that much.

[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?

Edited by Rational Madman, 22 January 2012 - 09:36 PM.

[Link]

I realize that America needs to protect their oil interests but in 2001 world oil prices were aroung $25 - $30/barrel and are now close to $100/barrel.

So at a cost of several trillion dollars, nearly 5000 American troops dead and over 30000 wounded, i don't think anyone could seriously propose the Iraq war a success on that front.

But it's more than just that war right. Now if Iran wants to block the straits of hormuz, there isn't anyone else who can handle that situation ...

Besides, it is possible to argue that the iraq war was folly without implying that we need to withdraw from the world.

It's not Ron Paul's policy to withdraw from the world, but rather to use military force as a last resort and not without the approval of congress.

At this point however it's extremely unlikely that he has any chance of getting the nomination let alone the presidency, so i would be putting my money on another four years of Obama.

[Austin Diablo]

It's not Ron Paul's policy to withdraw from the world, but rather to use military force as a last resort and not without the approval of congress.

At this point however it's extremely unlikely that he has any chance of getting the nomination let alone the presidency, so i would be putting my money on another four years of Obama.

Yay! So basically we have martial law, internet shutdowns, forced inoculations, vitamin/supplement/raw milk bans, assasination & indefinite detention of American citizens to look forward to. Not to mention a possible third world war resulting in nuclear armageddon all because we're too fucking lazy to use our own resources. My country deserves what ever it gets because the majority of it's citizens are fat, lazy, border line retarded sheep being lead to the slaughter! We have tons of oil we just aren't drilling for as well as the largest deposits of natural gas in the world & we're over in the middle east killing innocent civilians as well as military targets while sacrificing our nations youth for the profit of the very few...Oh, don't forget, we need our troops to guard the poppy fields in Afghanistan - wouldn't want to slow the billions of dollars a year heroin profits the CIA are raking in.

[PWAIN]

We have tons of oil we just aren't drilling for as well as the largest deposits of natural gas in the world

If you are really so sure that this is true, then why don't you personally get a rig and go and drill for it. You should become very rich......or poor!

[Austin Diablo]

If you are really so sure that this is true, then why don't you personally get a rig and go and drill for it. You should become very rich......or poor!

Rigs cost a lot of money...I live pay day to pay day, so I'm not the one to be an entrepreneur at this point!

[rwac]

If you are really so sure that this is true, then why don't you personally get a rig and go and drill for it. You should become very rich......or poor!

Except that federal law blocks much of that drilling. Heck, Obama won't even allow a pipeline from Canada, let alone new drilling!

[Austin Diablo]

Except that federal law blocks much of that drilling. Heck, Obama won't even allow a pipeline from Canada, let alone new drilling!

Exactly! Once again, Washington criminals & special interests sodomize America...

[maxwatt]

If you're talking about the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, that has enough oil to fuel the US for about a day. The offshore areas on the gulf coast of florida have a little more, but not enough to make more than a few months' difference. Tar shale in Canada, parts of the northern US have more oild than Saudi Arabia. But if we do extract an burn it all we will have substantially changed the chemical balance of our atmosphere.

[rwac]

If you're talking about the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, that has enough oil to fuel the US for about a day. The offshore areas on the gulf coast of florida have a little more, but not enough to make more than a few months' difference.

Details aside, it seems that Obama doesn't want new drilling, which negates PWAIN's comment.

[maxwatt]

Large swaths of O's constituency do not want new drilling. Fact is there's not much left to drill for in the US. To dig for and crush the oil out, there is a hell of a lot in Alberta and the Dakotas. They are destroying their topsoil. Not that it was much good for farming anyway. The US is fast becomming a net energy exporter. I am benefiting from it personally, owning stock in certain companies involved in the process. But it is terribly short-sighted, and has nothing to do with Ron Paul.

The law doth punish man or woman
That steals the goose from off the common,
But lets the greater felon loose
That steals the common from the goose.

[Rational Madman]

Although I don't foresee anything beyond skirmishes occurring in the straits, I think the EU should be faulted for its lack of foresight and moderation. Because given the incendiary nature of the region, and the likely projections on Iran's nuclear program, there is no need to exacerbate already simmering tensions. Rather than Iran, a "preemptive strike" from Israel is the greatest---and most credible threat---to regional security. And rather than the existential threat of Iran, the fear of an Israeli strike might have been the the primary motivation of policymakers. But realistically, even a strike from Israel doesn't seem to be very probable. This is because they would have only one opportunity, don't possess capabilities sufficient to neutralize the likely targets, would have to violate the airspace of regional allies that they depend on dearly, and for dubious reasons, would risk making themselves a pariah. I mean there's a reason why Israel's military brass is deeply skeptical of a sustained air campaign, and even with the sentiments of Netanyahu, I don't think he would be willing to risk destroying his Prime Ministership over a military campaign with such an uncertain outcome. Of course, I could be wrong, but I can't help but think that much of this nonsense is just face-saving posturing.

Edited by Rational Madman, 23 January 2012 - 07:00 PM.

[JChief]

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.

Edited by JChief, 25 January 2012 - 09:24 AM.