Interesting discussion between Ron Paul and Paul Krugman... <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jEmKIRqz9AI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Just when I was beginning to forget just how bat**** crazy Ron Paul is... Wow. Milton Friedman would even think this guy is nuts.
Honestly wouldn't have expected that idiotically lopsided an intro from Bloomberg. One of those guys is a PhD with a ******* Nobel Prize.
Never mind the prize. One is a professor of economics who, though partisan, at least knows the field. The other is just a partisan crank who wishes he could have suckled on the nipple of Ayn Rand. That is not to say that Ron Paul can't destroy Krugman in a debate. It's very hard to argue with a disingenuous fool, especially one who can demonstrate moments of eloquence. So, when Ron Paul makes a statement that is so utterly outside the scope of reality so as to render it a faith based issue, there really is no rebuttal.
Paul publishing 11 books on Austrian economics or something makes me think debating economics with him is like debating religion with a scientologist. In any case, I'd love to see him struggle to debate Galbraith. That was a man who knew how to get a point down right.
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." "There can be few fields of human endeavor in which history counts for so little as in the world of finance. Past experience, to the extent that it is part of memory at all, is dismissed as the primitive refuge of those who do not have the insight to appreciate the incredible wonders of the present." “Milton’s [Friedman’s] misfortune is that his policies have been tried.” Oh, the good old Galbraith days.
Paul predicted the housing bubble as early as September 6, 2001. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KONpt9a6HrI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> This is what Paul Krugman said in 2002: Who are the ones living in reality here?...
I mean he is totally crazy.... <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9S3lXDOQ7ec" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Once agin, it's us and not you. Krugman calling a real estate bubble which he basically continued to warn about for the next few years is thought by Paultards to be something to be ashamed of. Reality is, it's obviously not. Of course, this doesn't have that much to do with basic economic competency, but even this you can't get right. ...the best line of the BB "debate" was when Krugman noted it's a sad day when people (the Ron Paul crackpotonomics brigade) actually reject Milton Friedman's ideas as those of a crazy leftist.
Yet his solution to our problem is more spending, inflation, lower interest rates, and debt (the very policies that led to the housing bubble). I don't understand that makes sense to Keynesians as yourself....
That's not even remotely what led to the housing bubble. And it's not even remotely what's relevant to the state of the eocnomy at large. The "solution" of reducing government expenditures in a misguided attempt to produce growth is being deployed right now overseas, the results are plain to see. 2 -1 is not > 2. Sorry.
Low interest rates contributed, but it's not why the housing bubble mattered. It was the deregulation of the housing & financial sectors that turned it into a global credit event. And honestly it doesn't ****ing matter what rates where in 2004 when we're talking about the vastly different situation in 2012. That's part of the stupidity of the Paultards in which they think taxes must always be cut, inflation is always evil, blah blah blah blah, regardless of circumstance. It's simply not true, and you deserve to be shouted down as an idiot for stating it.
Which is why I support getting rid the of the Fed. With a lender of last resort like the Fed around, Banks can and will treat people's money as casino chips (and will buy politicians as needed to do so)...
Umm.....did I say anything about tax cuts? Personally I would have a problem with tax cuts as we have a $1 Trillion dollar annual deficit...
They did it all the time before we had a federal reserve, and the results were just as bad or worse, with panics, bank runs and depressions being a common feature of life.
Hence the need for Banks to be required to have 100% reserve. As banks guarantee the money of their depositors, it should be considered fraud if they don't have it...
