Objective review of Republican candidates for President

[Todd]

he's certainly the real deal

What does this even mean?  Real deal in what?  Certainly not serious politics.  Certainly not serious economics.  Tell me, where is the support from the Chicago school for your preferred charlatan?  Has Robert Lucas come out and said that Paul is the man, for instance? 

By the way, the 'leading Austrian economists' are all long dead, and one of the them, Joseph Schumpeter, concluded that Socialism would ultimately triumph in democracies.  You should really pick up a book and read rather than rely on YouTube, and you should at least make an effort to know what the competing ideas in economics are today.  Tell me - no, tell all of us - what are you views on NGDP targeting?

[Karl Henning]

Paul being called the real deal has me wondering how long it will be before someone advises the prospective candidate that those aren't pillows . . . .

[Todd]

the Austrian School isn't long dead.

It pretty much is.  Its most sophisticated proponents are long dead.  Ron Paul is not among the most sophisticated proponents.  I know much can be learned from history.  That's why I read it regularly, and that's why economic history was one of my areas of specialization when I studied economics.

At this point, you are merely rambling.  Going on about "heart & psychology" (and you have mentioned "heart" at least twice now) shows that your knowledge on the subject is spent.  That is why you do not explain competing currencies; that is why you cannot answer where Chicago economists stand on Ron Paul's economic policies; that is why you cannot offer an opinion on NGDP targeting.  You don't know what it is, and you can't offer an opinion until Dr Paul chimes in. 

So, one more time, Ron Paul is a charlatan with 19th Century views (at best), who cannot win, and who knows he cannot win.  You're backing a loser.

[Karl Henning]

I fear the damage is done: now I may never hear of Ron Paul without thinking of curtain rings . . . .

[Karl Henning]

Oooh, the gift that keeps on giving:

Romney: 'I like being able to fire people who provide services to me'

Speech comes a day after GOP candidate says he had personally feared losing his job.

RTWT here.

[Karl Henning]

It pretty much is.  Its most sophisticated proponents are long dead.  Ron Paul is not among the most sophisticated proponents.  I know much can be learned from history.  That's why I read it regularly, and that's why economic history was one of my areas of specialization when I studied economics.

At this point, you are merely rambling.  Going on about "heart & psychology" (and you have mentioned "heart" at least twice now) shows that your knowledge on the subject is spent.  That is why you do not explain competing currencies; that is why you cannot answer where Chicago economists stand on Ron Paul's economic policies; that is why you cannot offer an opinion on NGDP targeting.  You don't know what it is, and you can't offer an opinion until Dr Paul chimes in. 

So, one more time, Ron Paul is a charlatan with 19th Century views (at best), who cannot win, and who knows he cannot win.  You're backing a loser.

Strangely appropriate here:

Paul supporters unique in steadfast devotion

[Tapio Dmitriyevich]

The strange thing about U.S. american candidates is, in a way they always look like Hollywood actors. Sometimes I don't understand the mentality of our amerian friends with their obsession for confetti I remember once I was in a Kibbutz in Israel and there were U.S. visitors, who all sat down on the meadow. The security officer of the Kibbutz was to be introduced by the visitors front man, a kind of clown. Which went like this:

Front clown: "Naaaaaaoooooooooow.."
Crowd: ***applause***
Front clown: "this is Ehuuuuuuuuuuuuuuudddd...."
Crowd: *yodl* *whistle* *clap clap* *applause*
Clown: "cooooooooooouuuuuuhhhhhäääään!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Crowd: *appplause****

I thought: "Eek! Aliens!?!" Honestly. Why did they make a biiiiig show about... nothing?

So my question is: In US american universities, does the professor only speak after a ton of confetti has been thrown?

Asks: A european

[ibanezmonster]

So, maybe Todd can help me out...

listening to NPR, and they say John Huntsman (is that his name?) has a "creative" plan to help the economy. From what I heard, it sounds like it amounted to punishing the banks for having too much power? (and as a side note- they added limiting the banks' power doesn't hurt).

I'm wondering... hasn't pretty much everyone thought of that before? But I mean this in a good way- let the wounds heal and make sure it doesn't happen again by doing this. Why hasn't this already been done? Isn't this the first thought that comes to mind or am I missing something? 

[Todd]

I simply disagree. So who are you voting for with your heart and conscious?

'Simply' is definitely the right word.

I don't vote with my "heart".  I also don't vote with my "conscious".  (I assume you mean conscience, but one can never be sure.)  I vote for the candidate best suited to do the job, and here the job is to defeat Obama.  Of the choices before the public, Romney is the best choice.  Ultimately, my vote won't matter.  By the time my state holds a primary, the candidate will be known.  And since I live in a blue state, my vote in the general election doesn't matter.  Obama will carry my state.  That written, if someone like Paul or Santorum were to somehow win the nomination, there's no chance that I'd vote for the Republican candidate. 

[Todd]

and they say John Huntsman (is that his name?) has a "creative" plan to help the economy.

I'm not familiar with Huntsman's latest ideas.  Given his 0% probability of being the nominee, I choose not to follow him much.  His web-site, and what he has been running on, mostly focuses on rejiggering the tax code, rolling back Obama's health care plan (whatever, precisely, that means), less regulation, energy independence (Ha ha), and enhanced trade (always good).  How some of these items will help job growth is a bit nebulous.  I know he's mentioned the 'too big too fail' issue with respect to banks before, and if that's what he and they are referring to, I must say that I agree.  It's decidedly out of fashion in Republican circles, but I'd like to see either more stringent regulation of banks than the financial reforms that passed offer, or better yet, a split between commercial and investment banking like existed in this country from FDR through Clinton.  In addition, if a bank, or any financial institution, presents systemic risk, it ought to be closely examined, and possibly broken up.  I don't think Huntsman would go that far, at least publicly, but it would seem he's concerned about similar issues.  I'm not sure how dealing with banking will create a lot of jobs, though.

As to whether everyone thought of a policy prescription before, the answer is yes.  There's really not too much new under the sun.

[ibanezmonster]

I think, in their words, it was "to impose a penalty on banks if they acquire enough power to damage the economy with loans that don't work out" or something like that (don't remember 100%, as I was driving).

I don't think the point of it would be creating jobs, but to prevent all of this from happening again, hopefully. Thanks for the info, Todd. 

[Todd]

I think, in their words, it was "to impose a penalty on banks if they acquire enough power to damage the economy with loans that don't work out" or something like that (don't remember 100%, as I was driving).

Oh, well, then all that is needed is to increase capital requirements for banks.  Easy enough.  Start by implementing Basel 2.5 and III, as the Fed largely is and will, and for more than banks, and then impose stricter standards if needed.  Of course, it's never that easy politically.

[ibanezmonster]

Oh, well, then all that is needed is to increase capital requirements for banks.  Easy enough.  Start by implementing Basel III, as the Fed largely is, and for more than banks, and then impose stricter standards if needed.  Of course, it's never that easy politically.

So do you think the reason why this hasn't been done yet is because of political reasons (or that this is just a restriction which hasn't been implemented so far)?

[Todd]

So do you think the reason why this hasn't been done yet is because of political reasons (or that this is just a restriction which hasn't been implemented so far)?

Further regulation is always contested by those being regulated, and rightly so.  It's always political.  Financial reform is a reality now, between Dodd Frank and Basel 2.5 and III, and the former was surprisingly hard to get through, and parts are watered down.  You'd think a major meltdown and Obama becoming president with the Democrats controlling Congress would have resulted in something even more substantive, but between Obama's weak leadership, and the fact that financial firms donate very generously to Dems, it was bound to be watered down.  (Obama is no FDR, that's for sure.)  Oh, wait, I forgot, any and all legislative failures of the Obama Administration are the Republicans' fault.  Sorry about that.

[ibanezmonster]

You'd think a major meltdown and Obama becoming president with the Democrats controlling Congress would have resulted in something even more substantive, but between Obama's weak leadership, and the fact that financial firms donate very generously to Dems, it was bound to be watered down.

Ugh... 

[Todd]

With the glaring exception of Ron Paul all the horses in this race are all the same and they are all owned by the same mafia

You keep on tilting at windmills.

[Mirror Image]

I like what James said, all of these Republican candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, are bought and paid for by the media. They're nothing in the world but a bunch of talking plastic people. None of them have any idea of what to do. They're as clueless as Obama. It also didn't help our country that we had 8 years of George W. Bush. Who, IMHO, was one of the dumbest presidents this country has ever elected. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that makes any kind of sense. Santorum is a big government spender who claims to have conservative values, but takes a ton of money from lobbyists. Mitt Romney is, as James said, a flip-flopper (reminds me of Republican version of John Kerry) and he simply doesn't have a shot in hell against Obama. Newt Gingrich is just a thief and liar who doesn't have any kind of common sense whatsoever. That pretty covers the Republican nominees. Oh, I knew I forgot Rick Perry, oh wait minute...no I didn't because he never had a shot anyway.

[Todd]

None of them have any idea of what to do.

You've described Ron Paul perfectly. 

[Mirror Image]

You've described Ron Paul perfectly.

You don't think Ron Paul has any good ideas, Todd?

[Karl Henning]

You don't think Ron Paul has any good ideas, Todd?

Setting the WayBAC machine for 1842 isn't really practical, is it? ; )