Ron Paul, does he stand a chance?

[Soriak]

The guy thought the fed was a federal agency... clearly he's the right guy to investigate this topic. He's reporting it like it's some well kept secret, too, which is kinda funny.

On another note: does anyone know who Ron Paul's economic advisor is? I've googled with no success. Found a couple statements from those of other campaigns, but nothing from him.

Is it possible he doesn't have one? I didn't see any economics in his background.

I found this from a speech of his in 2003: Sorry Mr. Franklin, We're All Democrats Now

The federal government will not improve on its policies until the people coming to Washington are educated by a different breed of economists than those who dominate our government-run universities. Economic advisors and most officeholders merely reflect the economics taught to them. A major failure of our entire system will most likely occur before serious thought is given once again to the guidelines laid out in the Constitution.

But that'd still leave economists at private universities. I wonder if nobody is willing to sacrifice their career for this

But maybe Paul spent a lot of time doing research on the internet and hence doesn't need an economics degree to know what's going on. Somewhat like a surgeon doesn't need to go to med school if he has access to google and wikipedia. Or maybe it doesn't work that way...

[Uncle Duke]

Originally Posted by Soriak

On another note: does anyone know who Ron Paul's economic advisor is? I've googled with no success. Found a couple statements from those of other campaigns, but nothing from him.

Is it possible he doesn't have one? I didn't see any economics in his background.

(snip)

But maybe Paul spent a lot of time doing research on the internet and hence doesn't need an economics degree to know what's going on. Somewhat like a surgeon doesn't need to go to med school if he has access to google and wikipedia. Or maybe it doesn't work that way...

As far as I know, Paul has been an avid follower of the Mises School of Economics with a strong emphasis on the "value" side of money versus supply side.

[Cadrid]

Originally Posted by Soriak

The guy thought the fed was a federal agency... clearly he's the right guy to investigate this topic. He's reporting it like it's some well kept secret, too, which is kinda funny.

I'm willing to bet the overwhelming majority of US citizens aren't aware of who runs the Fed, how it came to be and that private banks play a big role in its operation. This isn't so much due to people trying to keep it secret (not now that it's in place, at least), but because neither the government nor the private banking sector have any incentive to inform people about the Fed. Any rational person would take one look at what's going on and go "Wait, this isn't responsible or fair. Change it!"

[Aulirophile]

Originally Posted by Soriak

But maybe Paul spent a lot of time doing research on the internet and hence doesn't need an economics degree to know what's going on. Somewhat like a surgeon doesn't need to go to med school if he has access to google and wikipedia. Or maybe it doesn't work that way...

Considering the kind of economics taught at colleges (you will be failed for saying anything good about a commodities standard by roughly half of all economics professors) I'd say not having a degree makes him infinitely more qualified.

Seriously though, he's a bright guy, economics is NOT that hard. Sorting through all the bullshit fallacies people think up to justify giving themselves a better deal? Difficult, but since all of that stuff violates the Constitution anyway he doesn't need to understand it. Really, the guy went to school for being a doctor, why would he have a degree in economics? You can learn about something without going back to school and if you think he hasn't picked up an understanding from being passionately interested in and seeing first-hand how our economy really works for the last ~20 years, you're crazy.

Oddly enough, driving around in South Carolina, I've seen 6 Ron Paul signs in the town I'm in (pop. ~9,000) and 0 for any other candidate.

[Uncle Duke]

Originally Posted by Aulirophile

Oddly enough, driving around in South Carolina, I've seen 6 Ron Paul signs in the town I'm in (pop. ~9,000) and 0 for any other candidate.

Being a native South Carolinian, this doesn't surprise me one bit considering (at least the Lowcountry area) the history of distrust the state has with the Federal Level of government.

Still, I do find it odd that guys like McCain and Thompson don't have as many signs up around the area versus Paul.

[Eomer]

Seriously though, he's a bright guy, economics is NOT that hard.

Yeah, cause we've totally got that field of study figured out, and understand every little aspect of it so well that it's not like the US managed to dig itself into such a gigantic fucking hole with a mortgage crisis that the entire planet now has to deal with the ramifications.

I probably should just have said "orly?"

[Uncle Duke]

Originally Posted by Eomer

Yeah, cause we've totally got that field of study figured out, and understand every little aspect of it so well that it's not like the US managed to dig itself into such a gigantic fucking hole with a mortgage crisis that the entire planet now has to deal with the ramifications.

I probably should just have said "orly?"

Well, you have to put a large share of the blame on the banks and mortgage companies who created these whacked out mortgage products to increase their bottom line.

The Federal Government also shares a good bit of the blame as well because the banks and mortgage companies know the Fed will be there to rescue them from their fucking retardation.

[Soriak]

I'd put most of the blame on the rating agencies. They gave creatively structured debt AAA ratings, which lead investors to believe they were actually secure investments, not certain doom in a bottle. Of course rating agencies sell "consultation" on how to improve the ratings of your packages and they're not going to hold on to their clients if they don't lead them to good ratings.

This basically happened because the private groups supposed to do the oversight figured it was more profitable to charge for high ratings than to provide an accurate rating. The market is self-correcting now, with all the implications that come with that.

There are plenty of foreign central banks that also add tens of billions of dollars to prevent some massive damage - so this is a global challenge. (to avoid the word crisis)

Seriously though, he's a bright guy, economics is NOT that hard.

This is like saying math isn't hard because algebra 101 a joke... as you delve into the subject, it's not as easy as it appears. You tend to get bad results if people extrapolate from a little knowledge to policy decisions. For a wonderful example, take the Laffer curve: Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It represents the idea that there is an "optimal" point for taxes that is >0% and <100%. Clearly 0% would not raise any revenue and 100% meant all your income going to taxes, hence soon there'd be no tax revenue anymore either.

Now clearly the curve is only intended to show that point - even though it's a perfect bell curve, 50% taxation would NOT be the right amount, and in actuality it'd likely not be such a nice graph either. (one with multiple local maximums instead)

So common sense tells us that at 100% taxes, lowering them will increase the revenue. But this is used by people to argue for lower taxes in the medium as well. For example that lowering taxes from 30% to 28% would increase revenue. This is then backed up by showing a graph of the tax revenue after some tax break, ignoring both inflation and economic growth unrelated to tax policy. (the price of oil, for example, has little to do with taxes in the US, but certainly affects the economy and therefore also the tax revenue. The question would have to be if more money could have been raised at the old rate and that the lower rate was therefore not responsible for the higher revenue.)
This is entirely unrelated as to how high taxes actually SHOULD be though, the question in this particular instance is only about maximizing revenue.


Also a pretty good primer on what happens when the fed (or any central bank) helps with liquidity (ie a cash infusion) - I think this may not be clear and news reports certainly never explain it a little more in-depth:
Subprime 'crisis': FAQs (revised & updated) | vox - Research-based policy analysis and commentary from Europe's leading economists

It's not that the Fed just decides to give $100bn to their good friends and lets them run with it.

From the above article on why such money infusions are important:

Finally, note the rather amazing fact that during normal times the banking system uses $12 billion to engage in $4 trillion in daily transactions. That is, on average a dollar in a reserve account is used more than 300 times PER DAY. Because reserves do not pay interest, banks have a big incentive to economize on their use – this is pretty efficient. (This is also the reason that excess reserves are so low.) That banks do this every day suggests that they know how to do it; but the fact that they use the funds so many times means that if anyone starts hoarding reserves, there is the potential to disrupt the system.

[qLir]

lol, they got the blimp off the ground. I didn't think it was going to happen, and I still think it's a somewhat retarded idea, especially with the weather this time of year in NH and IA. It is amusing though.

The teaparty is this Sunday (16th), BTW. Don't forget to donate if you support Ron, and remind anyone you know that supports him to donate too. Even if you didn't pledge or don't want to donate $100, anything you can give will help. Every dollar donated has added value over cash donated any other time, since the event itself will generate free publicity proportionate to how successful it is. Ron Paul 2008 — Hope for America for the donations.

[Aulirophile]

Originally Posted by Eomer

Yeah, cause we've totally got that field of study figured out, and understand every little aspect of it so well that it's not like the US managed to dig itself into such a gigantic fucking hole with a mortgage crisis that the entire planet now has to deal with the ramifications.

I probably should just have said "orly?"

And if certain individuals had not been allowed to lie, cheat, and swindle people who are now losing out because of this crash, we'd be fine. Economists have been predicting this crash for a decade based on current policies, no one is shocked. Ron Paul predicted it, in fact, if you look at his voting record there were several early initiatives to prevent the major ramifications. None passed, but he voted for them.

Economics is not hard. Complex, at best, but not hard. It is only the retarded bullshit people make up to justify giving themselves a bigger piece of the pie that is difficult to explain to people, and only then because it doesn't make any real kind of sense. If you want to think it is hard (though I'd suggest you read Economics in One Lesson by Hazlitt (sp) first), you can go ahead and do so, but any reasonably bright person who has a passionate interest and 20 years of first-hand experience with the American economy will have it pretty much nailed.

[Eomer]

So all those people who've spent decades of their lives studying economics and theorizing about it were actually just jacking off, because they "nailed" it after a few years?

Someone call the Nobel commitee.

[Eomer]

My doppelganger posted after I had sex with it.

[Uncle Duke]

Originally Posted by Aulirophile

And if certain individuals had not been allowed to lie, cheat, and swindle people who are now losing out because of this crash, we'd be fine. Economists have been predicting this crash for a decade based on current policies, no one is shocked. Ron Paul predicted it, in fact, if you look at his voting record there were several early initiatives to prevent the major ramifications. None passed, but he voted for them.

Which is the reason why I really like the guy. He's got a good mindset when it comes to monetary policy - far beyond the other candidates so far. That's something this country desperately needs: someone with a clue who understands what makes a dollar worth a dollar.

Economics is not hard. Complex, at best, but not hard. It is only the retarded bullshit people make up to justify giving themselves a bigger piece of the pie that is difficult to explain to people, and only then because it doesn't make any real kind of sense. If you want to think it is hard (though I'd suggest you read Economics in One Lesson by Hazlitt (sp) first), you can go ahead and do so, but any reasonably bright person who has a passionate interest and 20 years of first-hand experience with the American economy will have it pretty much nailed.

There is so much win in that statement I don't know where to begin. Bravo, sir! You win the internets for the day!

[Tolanin]

the only reason i dont support paul is because his monetary policy is retarded... you guys who think economics is some shady shit thats just complicated because people are trying to screw you are 10 kinds of stupid.

[darksensei]

YouTube - Ron Paul on Mad Money

Ron Paul on Mad Money.