Thursday, August 9, 2007

Ron Paul

Ron Paul
Beginning Score: 300

Score History:


10/31/07: Fred, Chris Jeffords & Dave
decide on a small punishment (-4 Points) for Paul's stance on the Federal Reserve (or rather, possibly, his lack of a better alternative). This matter is not necessarily closed, by the way (he might redeem himself or even cause more damage...)



NEW SCORE = 296



1/12/07:
Though it probably doesn't matter much, since we're coming up on mass-candidate-dropout time, I figured I'd point out some of the unresolved problems I have with Ron Paul:

1. I must be insane, because I can't seem to get a hold of any good argument for going back onto the gold standard (especially the kind of gold standard that we would/could probably revert to), and yet there are countless Ron Paul fans who think it's a great idea. The best and most readable argument against it that I've come across is right here.

2. The anti-Federal Reserve sentiment is basically the same thing: He wants to abolish the Fed because it is the evil manipulator, and a gold standard would solve the problem without the Federal Reserve, supposedly. What's annoying, though, is that people rally against the Federal Reserve because they don't understand economics... If there is a good argument against the Fed, Ron Paul doesn't know it, and neither do I.

3. Ron Paul acts like a big free trader, which is good, but he's against ideas that would lead us in that direction because, I assume, they're politically unpopular. Exhibit A: The supposed Nafta Superhighway. Technically it's a big effin' road that would run through the country. The easiest answer to Paul's criticism is this, I think: Would he be against it if it was a privately funded construction project? Of course not - you can't tell people they can't buy land and build stuff (even roads) on it. Paul's problem is that it represents a "loss of sovereignty." I find that to be a little juvenile, mostly because - really - who the hell loses political power if we happen to have a large, essentially private (or multi-governmentally-owned) road running from some point to another? If you think you've got an argument against the "Nafta Superhighway," you're missing something. (Unless you actually do believe that terrorists will suddenly blow us up if we have wider highways...)

4. He's been accused of being a major racist, or at least allowing someone to use his name to promote racist beliefs... Reading some samples of the newsletters, though, it seems pretty clear Ron Paul himself did not contribute to the writings - which means that he is instead, at the least, a victim of some elaborate, multi-year racist-hoax. I'm not sure if I believe that, though. Either way, it has little to do with economics... Figured I'd point it out (Curtsy to Chris Jeffords).

5.
He's incredibly anti-immigration. I honestly can't understand how someone with his "education" (he claims to be a student of the Austrians) doesn't see how diverting many, many more resources to preventing illegal immigration is not only useless and nearly unnecessary, but inefficiently puts the power of deciding which immigrant is "useful" to our society in the hands of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT... Depending on who we want to keep out of our country, shouldn't we at least give some weight to the fact that illegal immigration is implicitly endorsed by our economy itself?


So here's some arbitrary scoring (which I wasn't going to do, but then I figured it'd be nice to have a "numerical record" after the primaries are over):

1. -4 points for the gold standard thing
(If he's an Austrian, he must also have selective, temporary amnesia - ask for details.).

2. We already scored him on the Fed thing (-4 points).

3. Nafta Superhighway: -4 points for choosing politics over proper economics, though that's a pretty common mistake...

4. No comment, except that I actually think Ron Paul might not really be a racist... I'm sympathetic...

5. I took away eight points from Mitt Romney for a lesser offense, technically; I would take more, but I feel I'm being a little too harsh on Ron Paul - I'll do the same: -8 Points for, again, choosing politics over economics in immigration.

So that's -16 points, total. Anyone care enough about Ron Paul at this point to disagree?

(Don't worry, Ron Paul supporter(s): I'll finalize my distaste for all the other soon-to-drop-out candidates soon enough. It's just that Ron Paul's been on my mind a lot recently, since every freakin' blog I read won't stop talking about him...)




NEW SCORE = 280




[...Waiting for more...]

11 comments:

Unknown said...

As we discussed on the phone - I think we should bring to this forum the fact that Ron Paul wants to remove the Federal Reserve. I think we should deduct a minimum of 4 points for the fact that he has no alternative to what to do after the reserve is removed.

Disposable Info said...

I'm not actually positive he has no valid alternative - I've just never heard it, nor has he made it well known (possibly because nobody has given him much of a chance...)

This is going to require some hefty research... or some hefty knowledge...

Maybe Chris Jeffords will stumble upon this one and offer some insight...

(Posting the link is the Bat Signal... I hope...)

Chris Jeffords said...

Try here for a reasonably vague criticism of the Fed by Dr. Paul,

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/255/the-maestro-changes-his-tune/

Given my lack of patience with HTML, I will not try to make that a fancy link.

The argument, as far as my inchoate brain can comprehend it, is that the Federal Reserve is psychologically important to the stability of the economy. A libertarian argument or even Austrian Economic argument is perhaps that the Federal Reserve is governed by humans, like you and me. Humans, who are likely no better at running the Fed than say a private institution of elected officials; elected by some sort of popular vote or majority voting scheme. Issues of transactions costs and legitimacy are of concern here as well.

I think without an alternative "solution" to Dr. Paul's Fed issues, the point deduction is fair.

Check here for much better information,

http://www.umsl.edu/~whitelh/

Good stuff.

Disposable Info said...

Sweet - Never doubt the power of the Bat-Jeffords Signal.

Thanks, Chris - you've given more credibility to my conclusions that could have come from any link (and I was actually slightly wary of my conclusions, too...) Of course, it was you who convinced me to give any credence to the initial idea of actually abolishing [replacing] the Fed in the first place... So thanks for that, too.

So now we just need to figure out if threatening to remove the Fed is truly a punishable offense. And here's Chris's link again, since the very end got clipped...

Since Ron Paul has yet to lose any points in this game, I'll agree with Fred and say -4, just for continuing to act like an economist without the credibility, and thus threatening some form of "bad" economics. (The Fed issue is only a slight infraction along those lines, though - the bigger ones should come soon enough... As soon as I get the urge to start attacking his free trade stance...)


Any disagreement, people, let your text-voice be heard! Until then, the score has spoken...

Disposable Info said...

...Well then...

I take back what I said just now about attacking his free trade stance - Turns out he might have the right general idea after all; he likes lower tariffs but just hates NAFTA, CAFTA, et al...

Here's the link and the quote:

"We don’t need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so. As economist Henry Hazlitt explained, tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy as a whole."

Nice.

I'm starting to think all those statements I made about him being a "fake economist" might have gone too far. I've always just assumed he didn't like NAFTA/CAFTA/etc. because he was against free trade.

I'm prepared to eat my words...

Chris Jeffords said...

Don't be too harsh on yourself, anybody who picks up "Economics in One Lesson" by Harry Hazlitt has learned just that. It is a great book in my view, just like "Economics for Real People, An Introduction to the Austrian School," by Gene Callahan.

So, given the nature of this assumption, anybody could have something meaningful to say by simply reading somebody else's work and discussing it. (Depending upon if you value said work as meaningful to begin with).

Ahh, free trade...

Chris Jeffords said...

Isn't it time for Stephen Colbert to be in the game/

Disposable Info said...

I was thinkin' about it, but I'm not sure he'll ever actually say anything "score-able."

...If he does, though, he's totally in. It doesn't even really matter, because I think it's a given that if he makes past the South Carolina primary elections, I'll vote for him. (Regardless of past promises - We can't pass up the chance to vote for Stephen Colbert, can we?)

Disposable Info said...

That's kind of depressing - there goes Colbert...

Unknown said...

16 Points sounds fair, though, I don't think his campaign is doing him enough justice - seems he's slipping out of the race.

...but where is Huckabee in all of this Gamepaign stuff? He's a much larger supporter to rid the IRS than even Paul is!!!

Disposable Info said...

Oh yeah, you just reminded me what I was going to include in my critique: Ron Paul and others wants to revert to some version of less-progressive tax and abolish the IRS. I really was going to talk about that...

It sounds like we're going to have to overhaul the candidates included in Gamepaign pretty soon, dontcha think?

I suppose we'll know for sure who's really in this thing in a couple weeks...