Here's a devastating refutation of Paul's book:
part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZqtjb8LIbU
part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGOdozLEyxQ
GilesStratton:To be honest, Paul isn't an economist so I'm not sure he should be writing books like End the Fed. I've not read it so I can't really comment, but I think Paul often steps out of his league when he discusses economics. Especially when he references the Austrian school. Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against Ron Paul and I appreciate the work he does, especially in regards to my own views, but I think he should cut down on his economic rhetoric. To be honest, to some extent I'd say the same things about a lot of the LvMI policies.
To be honest, to some extent I'd say the same things about a lot of the LvMI policies.
Because we all know that:
1. You can't talk about a subject unless you have a PhD in it (nope--not a strawman, kid).
2. Giles is vastly under-rated.
GilesStratton:To be honest, Paul isn't an economist so I'm not sure he should be writing books like End the Fed.
And you're not an economist, so maybe you shouldn't be critiquing it?
GilesStratton:I've not read it so I can't really comment
Ah.
GilesStratton:I think Paul often steps out of his league when he discusses economics.
Have you watched him debate FED officials?
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Koolaid-drinker: Here's a devastating refutation of Paul's book: part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZqtjb8LIbU part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGOdozLEyxQ
He's completely confusing causality; monetary injections into private banks from central banks increases their reserves, as if there was an increase in the savings rate, arbitrarily suppressing the market rate of interest, and therefore increasing the demand for credit. The demand for credit (exchange between present goods and future goods) is a function of the interest rate; when the interest rate is set above time preferences, credit will not be demanded. Furthermore, he, for whatever reason, believes that Ron Paul and Austrians are monetarists. Ron Paul does not support central banks targeting monetary growth, but rather wishes to end fractional reserve banking (100% reserve rate), and the protection of fractional reserve banking by central banks. This is just another example of confusion demonstrated by the backward Marxists and Keynesians, void of actual meaning.
But I appreciate the sarcasm Mrs. Koolaid-drinker.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
GilesStratton: To be honest, Paul isn't an economist so I'm not sure he should be writing books like End the Fed. I've not read it so I can't really comment, but I think Paul often steps out of his league when he discusses economics. Especially when he references the Austrian school. Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against Ron Paul and I appreciate the work he does, especially in regards to my own views, but I think he should cut down on his economic rhetoric. To be honest, to some extent I'd say the same things about a lot of the LvMI policies.
To be honest, Paul isn't an economist so I'm not sure he should be writing books like End the Fed. I've not read it so I can't really comment, but I think Paul often steps out of his league when he discusses economics. Especially when he references the Austrian school. Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against Ron Paul and I appreciate the work he does, especially in regards to my own views, but I think he should cut down on his economic rhetoric.
I think the problem with this line of thought is many non-economist politicians are running our economy and many non economist populist figures write books/movies on how to run the economy (Michael Moore, Naomi Klein, etc) that sometimes are called "intellectual", "must reads", "serious", and may even be part of school literature.
Ron Paul may not be an economist and may be stepping out of his league, but he is probably better than most of The Congress or populist authors when it comes to economic issues.
Let us look then and see, how they manage their concerns- they for whose cause we are to labor, devote ourselves, and grow enthusiastic
-Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own
obvious question: What has Ron P. said about the economy that is wrong? And if the answer involves an intellectual critique on how best to centrally plan the economy, then obviously there will be disagreement. Of course if any number of people want to simply focus on a badge/status, then that's not an intellectual debate - it's an emotional, political opinion.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
wilderness: obvious question: What has Ron P. said about the economy that is wrong? And if the answer involves an intellectual critique on how best to centrally plan the economy, then obviously there will be disagreement. Of course if any number of people want to simply focus on a badge/status, then that's not an intellectual debate - it's an emotional, political opinion.
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
wilderness:obvious question: What has Ron P. said about the economy that is wrong?
He has said that fiat money is "made out of thin air". This is a common fallacy. Fiat money is made out of the value of existing money. Were it made out of "thin air" then it would be money made by magic instead of money made by the criminal fraud of counterfeiting. Central bankers are criminals; they are not magicians.
It's called "a figure of speech".
They are also not counterfeiting.
scineram: They are also not counterfeiting.
Fine. They are enforcing a monopoly with force.
Now, let's count the mistakes by mr10001nights.
I don't think there's enough time in each of our lifetimes to do that.
I don't know why you guys are even paying attention to this guy, when there's a video of his that has substance I've found that he is essentially just reading from the anarchist faq. If you've read the anarchist faq, you've heard every argument he'll ever use. His "critique" of Rothbard was him taking somebody else'e critique and splicing it up, just search the first phrase he says "Murray Rothbard thundered against the state..." regardless of views on IP, if I've used something, I usually give the original writer all the credit.
Similarly, I'm guessing that this review comes from somebody else.
1. And here I thought the central bankers had surpassed the alchemists of old and instead of trying to make gold out of nickel or iron, they leaped to the new alchemy advancement of making it simply out of thick, I mean, thin air.
2. "He has said that fiat money is "made out of thin air". This is a common fallacy." - surely you jest or have had to convince some other people for some time, as it is a "common fallacy" that money is not simply made out of air.
all in good fun!
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap