He said Dr Paul’s theory is completely false. I don’t have enough economics background to debunk those accusations. It’ll be great if somebody can show him the way.
He misrepresents Ron Paul’s positions because he doesn’t understand the Topic.
Of course, the USA had other central banks before the Fed Reserve. But its fractional reserve banking that causes Boom-Bust, central banking is merely an enabler. Plus, what recession was longer than the Great Depression that lasted nearly 2 decades?
That is a strawman, I’ve never heard Ron Paul say that. Americans don’t save because the Federal Reserve puts the interest rate artifically low. This encourages debt and discourages savings.
Another strawman. And he’s wrong, without the fiat dollar the world’s monetary system would be very different. If every currency but the Dollar inflated, what would you rather have?
Then how do bubbles happen? Inflation is what happens when the money supply increases, this in turn leads to increases in prices, a seperate phenomenon. But prices do not rise all but once, they rise unevenly causing bubbles.
An outright lie. Federal spending vastly outpaces revenue. What he really means is “Sure they print money to pay the bills, but I don’t care”
Translation: We had no Dollars before the Federal Reserve, the Treasury does not exist.
Yet another Strawman. Ron Paul likes to cite the Constitution.
I concur with the above responses. Isn’t this guy assuming that inflation is accurately measured, BTW, when he mentions expectations? Something Austrians would contest.
It is implicit in his assumption. A measure like ‘core’ inflation whcih exlcudes pesky things which might actually show inflation is a legitimate measure because… well because he says so. Plus the ‘stability’ argument is off and likely a reflection of the ‘stabilize the price level’ mentality. Prices may be stable as a practical matter, but they are not that way by nature. What’s important in a price, including the price of money, is not necessarily stability but that it be as honest a reflection of market conditions as is possible, which is achieved by letting the market alone. Just because prices tend toward stability over time doesn’t mean it’s a given, nor is it really necessarily the point in the end. If there are drastic changes in supply or demand you want an unstable price, one that can change suddenly.
But of course we already see the mentality that despises this in laws against price gouging. Many people are of the opinion that all is well so long as prices stay relatively constant and stable. In realty it means resources go not where they’re really valued most but to who gets them first, whether it’s the first ten hurricane victims to the convenience store to buy ice at enforced ‘stable’ prices, which they’ll then use to cool their beer rather than economizing and using it only to cool essential items, or the first bankers to the discount window who get to use new money to pick up a quick buck rather than taking an honest look at their reserves and lending more discriminately.