Here’s a devastating refutation of Paul’s book:
part 1
part 2
Oh, come on, Ron Paul uses the original definition of inflation, which is the expansion of money and credit. Are you telling me that rising prices that cause the money and credit supply to increase?
It’s hard to watch Mr. Self Promoter on YouTube anymore. He’s become a bit of a parody of himself, earning subscribers for YouTube, and helping Google data mine people on the web. Like so many social network socialists, he is just a willing and eager foot soldier for the corporations seeking to exploit the masses.
Besides, his subscriber base can’t afford to buy new books anyway, so its a wasted effort. They were never the audience for Ron Paul’s book.
Devastating, or clueless?
You are linking to 1001 nights? SERIOUSLY?
None of you sensed the dripping sarcasm of the op…?
Apparently, a “devastating” review is one that merely confirms your own preferences, views, & assumptions, regardless of any possible counter-arguments.
Are you going to post more bait anytime soon?
No, he’s not. Ever.
Amidst his rambling, he gave me the impression that he did not read the book.
Or perhaps it’s a scathing refutation of any intellectual credibility you had left? Yeah. Run along now and play with the kiddies.
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.
/facepalm
Agreed. He doesn’t seem to have a really deep understanding of the business cycle; it always seemed to me like he just threw around words like “inflation” and “structure of production” without actually understanding the economics behind them. Then again, I could be wrong, since I’ve never read End the Fed or The Revolution: A Manifesto.
If the only people who talk about the Austrian school are academics then you can be certain that we’ll be lost to obscurity. It’s the same reason that I think ‘mythbusters’ is good for science: you need people to popularize the subject as a supplement to the academic work that’s done.
How many people do you suppose are interested in AE solely because of Ron Paul? I sure as hell wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for him. Is he a good economist? Not really. Is he good at introducing people good economists? Absolutely.
Just my two cents.
To whom it may concern
I listened to the first minute and a half. The speaker uses “inflation” to refer to price increases. He then fraudulently refers to these prices increases as a result of capitalism and then launches into a socialist tirade and class warfare rhetoric. Then he attributes the Fed to the capitalists even though credit is due to the corporatists/fascists.
I’ve stopped watching at the first three and a half minutes. The speaker is using false language, false premises,false history, and false reasoning in order to promote his own false and criminal ideology. A “devastating refutation” it is not.
To be fair, the speaker does have a good speaking voice and sounds well. So long as one has no knowledge of the language, economics, history, politics etc then at the most superficial of levels the speaker appears to no what he is talking about. To one who isn’t wholly ignorant the speaker is evidently an ignorant ivory tower academic sort, and to one who is enlightened it is clear the speaker is one of the well dressed savages who wish to destroy civilization in pursuit of their mad fantasies of power. I for one am quite familiar with this collective and see no reason to continue to spend my time listening to such insane dribble.
Sincerely,
Patriot Henry
Because we all know that:
-
You can’t talk about a subject unless you have a PhD in it (nope–not a strawman, kid).
-
Giles is vastly under-rated.
And you’re not an economist, so maybe you shouldn’t be critiquing it?
Ah.
Have you watched him debate FED officials?
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.
When you say ‘economist’ are you referring to the charlatans and parasites in the ‘academic’ world ? Or are you talking about people like, say, Frederic Bastiat ?
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.