3 ms·

"Mr. Bernanke must have felt like his head was spinning like a top while Ron Paul gave him a tutorial in basic economics." Yeah, I'm sure the world's foremost

"Mr. Bernanke must have felt like his head was spinning like a top while Ron Paul gave him a tutorial in basic economics." Yeah, I'm sure the world's foremost economist just took a lesson on economics from a doctor. This is really just another hack job article.

kiba 17y ago
Wait a minute, isn't this an appeal to authority? Maybe you could substantiate how Ron Paul is wrong?
- joe_the_user 17y ago
  Indeed, an appeal to authority. Moreover, "Helicopter Ben" Bernanke's claim to authority comes from his various clever extensions and justifications to Alan Greenspan's financial regime. His most notably justification was his promise to fight deflation with Helicopters full of dollars (most of which seem to have landed on Goldman Sach's roof). But even Bernanke's "fundamental research" was basically fleshing out the claim that sufficient Fed accommodation could solve even a problem as extreme as the Great Depression. We are clearly getting a chance to see whether this is true and I'm with Paul Krugman in calling bullshit on it. So, "World's Greatest Economist" or fraud? The proof will be in the pudding and the pudding is certainly not done.
- steveplace 17y ago
  I'd say both matt's comment as well as the quote he was pulling from have similar logic problems.
- trevelyan 17y ago
  Ron Paul conflates two things (1) short-term Fed lending designed to ensure liquidity in the banking sector, and (2) the socialization of private debt that took place through the bailouts. The Federal Reserve's major function is adjusting the money supply to balance employment and inflation. Yes, it expanded the money supply quickly in response to a collapse in credit in the private market. This is not a problem. It can remove liquidity from the markets just as quickly when and if inflation returns. The second issue (saddling the government with large amounts of private debt) is a real problem, because it involves the redistribution of wealth. That has nothing to do with whether Central Banks should follow inflation targeting. Here as elsewhere, Ron Paul is marking an argument about whether banks or miners should control the money supply by making a moral claim about the unsustainability and unfairness of public debt (issue two).
profquail 17y ago
You say that like the "world's foremost economist" knows everything there is to know about economics, so it's a waste of his time to debate on them with others. Also, Ron Paul is pretty frequently put on cable business news networks (FOX Business, CNBC, Bloomberg, etc.) to discuss things...I doubt they would ask him to come on if he wasn't knowledgeable about the economy.

kiba 17y ago

Wait a minute, isn't this an appeal to authority? Maybe you could substantiate how Ron Paul is wrong?

joe_the_user 17y ago
Indeed, an appeal to authority. Moreover, "Helicopter Ben" Bernanke's claim to authority comes from his various clever extensions and justifications to Alan Greenspan's financial regime. His most notably justification was his promise to fight deflation with Helicopters full of dollars (most of which seem to have landed on Goldman Sach's roof). But even Bernanke's "fundamental research" was basically fleshing out the claim that sufficient Fed accommodation could solve even a problem as extreme as the Great Depression. We are clearly getting a chance to see whether this is true and I'm with Paul Krugman in calling bullshit on it. So, "World's Greatest Economist" or fraud? The proof will be in the pudding and the pudding is certainly not done.
steveplace 17y ago
I'd say both matt's comment as well as the quote he was pulling from have similar logic problems.
trevelyan 17y ago
Ron Paul conflates two things (1) short-term Fed lending designed to ensure liquidity in the banking sector, and (2) the socialization of private debt that took place through the bailouts. The Federal Reserve's major function is adjusting the money supply to balance employment and inflation. Yes, it expanded the money supply quickly in response to a collapse in credit in the private market. This is not a problem. It can remove liquidity from the markets just as quickly when and if inflation returns. The second issue (saddling the government with large amounts of private debt) is a real problem, because it involves the redistribution of wealth. That has nothing to do with whether Central Banks should follow inflation targeting. Here as elsewhere, Ron Paul is marking an argument about whether banks or miners should control the money supply by making a moral claim about the unsustainability and unfairness of public debt (issue two).

profquail 17y ago

You say that like the "world's foremost economist" knows everything there is to know about economics, so it's a waste of his time to debate on them with others. Also, Ron Paul is pretty frequently put on cable business news networks (FOX Business, CNBC, Bloomberg, etc.) to discuss things...I doubt they would ask him to come on if he wasn't knowledgeable about the economy.