Objective review of Republican candidates for President

[Karl Henning]

And how did Dixville Notch break, you ask?

[Todd]

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

I think I've made that clear in my prior posts.  He has no good ideas.  He's a man of the 19th Century and a charlatan. 

I've previously asked Paul supporters to explain how competing currencies are a good idea and would benefit the economy.  None of his supporters offered an explanation.  To that request I will add the following: Explain how returning to the gold standard - or any other "hard money" arrangement (ie, bimetallism, a most Bryanesque policy) - would improve the economy or help the Average Joe.  Of particular interest to me is how the resultant deflation will benefit ordinary people, and how the increased relative debt burden would help anyone other than creditors.

[Mirror Image]

I think I've made that clear in my prior posts.  He has no good ideas.  He's a man of the 19th Century and a charlatan. 

I've previously asked Paul supporters to explain how competing currencies are a good idea and would benefit the economy.  None of his supporters offered an explanation.  To that request I will add the following: Explain how returning to the gold standard - or any other "hard money" arrangement (ie, bimetallism, a most Bryanesque policy) - would improve the economy or help the Average Joe.  Of particular interest to me is how the resultant deflation will benefit ordinary people, and how the increased relative debt burden would help anyone other than creditors.

I don't know much about Ron Paul or what his ideas are. I was really just reacting to his responses in the Republican debates which seemed pretty level-headed compared to the other candidates.

[Mirror Image]

2 can play this game .. why is Romney "the best choice" with regards to the economic situation.

Because he is a good old-fashioned flip-flopper, duh. 

[Todd]

.. this is one thing he wants to do, he wants to make this transition  .. but there is LOTS ELSE he talks about. Is he wrong on everything else? Like for instance following the constitution, protecting civil liberties, auditing Fed (more govt transparency), voting against tax increases, reducing all the govt waste, or his anti-war stance?

2 can play this game .. why is Romney "the best choice" with regards to the economic situation.

Correct, Paul wants to do a lot of things.  Pretty much all of them bad.  (I listed six of them previously.)  Now, let's look at your list. 

* Following the Constitution.  Sounds nice.  Appeals to lots of people.  Unfortunately, it's a hollow statement.  See below. 

* Protecting civil liberties.  Again, nice sounding.  Oh, wait, Paul has come out for disallowing citizenship for people born in this country if the parents are immigrants not to his liking.  Shucks, that neither follows the Constitution (14th Amendment), federal law, or any plausible definition of civil liberties.  And what was his stance on abortion again?  Wait, that's a different issue, right?   

* Auditing the Fed.  Yes, yes, the evil Fed.  It already has twice yearly hearing with Congress, and will start publishing the voting records of all members at FOMC meetings.  Transparency is increasing, and will continue to do so, but it is essential to remember that the Fed was set up to be as independent as possible from electoral politics.  (Hence the long terms for the governors.)  Nothing is more frightful than monetary policy dictated by bi-annual elections. 

* Voting against tax increases.  Huh?  Sometimes they may be needed.  Are you seriously saying that taxes should never be raised?  If so, you're flat-out wrong.

* Reducing all government waste.  Huh?  When did he accomplish this?  If he hasn't, how would he do so?  And I suppose you will also tell us that all of the money he brought back to his district was efficiently deployed.  It's another nice sounding but hollow argument.

* Anti-war stance.  This is probably his most significant and useful stance.  Sometimes, though, war may be necessary to stave off even bigger calamities or problems.  Take the two Gulf Wars.  The first was fully justified to prevent the rise of a regional hegemon that would have been able to use the oil markets to extract all manner of concessions from the wealthy world.  (I concede it would be nice if oil was not so critical as to lead to war, but we aren't there yet, and more drilling in the US, while a decidedly good idea, will not get us to that point.)  The second was ill thought out, poorly executed, and could have been avoided.  Being staunchly anti-war sure sounds nice, but do remember there were staunch anti-war politicians while the Nazis were marching across Europe slaughtering millions.  That's not to say that there is anything like a Nazi threat today, because there isn't, but rather to illustrate that sometimes pacifism ain't all it's cracked up to be. 

Now, to Romney, and why he is better.  His flip-flopping is actually part of the reason.  Rather than establishing extreme or goofy positions like Paul, he has always changed direction with the political winds.  Conditions change.  Political responses should as well, at least some of the time.  He was also a governor of a state where the Democrats controlled the legislature.  He can work with the opposition party.  This is crucial.  He's a policy guy.  He loves details.  Hell, I haven't read all of his policy positions, and I'll bet no one else here has either, given how lengthy they are.  He works with people who've been around, like Glenn Hubbard (perhaps you like him, perhaps you don't – I mean, he worked with Bush, so he must be evil), but he does not work with crackpots.  He's not out to change the world.  Given the economic and fiscal situations facing the country, we need less of a visionary, and more of a policy guy.  Romney is not my ideal candidate, but compared to the doofus Ron Paul, he's downright great.

Part of the problem with the Republican primaries is that the candidates either have no clue about economics or are forced into ridiculous positions because of buffoons like Grover Norquist and other far right figures or groups.  The US economy needs greater employment in the short to medium term – which means more demand – and sane fiscal policies in the long term.  This does not mean a balanced budget amendment and iron-clad promises to never, ever, ever raise taxes again, nor does it mean eliminating government programs en masse.  Alas, many Republicans don't get this, or at least they don't profess to publicly.  And then there are fruitcakes like Paul who offer "solutions" that would make things much worse. 

Again, Paul has no chance of winning, and he knows it.  He would deny that he's a charlatan.  But he is.

Now, Ron Paul supporters, how are competing currencies economically valuable, and how does reverting to the gold standard help the average American?

Now it's time for one of my crazy ideas: Gerrymandering needs to be squashed.  This is one of the biggest long-term political problems facing this country.  It has created a situation where districts are too safe and thus more extreme elements of both parties start driving their respective parties to far too the right and left.  Hell, there are districts, both Republican and Democratic, where the winner gets 80, 90, or even 95% of the vote.  (Check the last several election results by district.)  Even dictators in Central Asia and the Middle East don't skew things so much.  Such electoral safety is bad and ultimately undemocratic.  A side benefit would be fewer nutjobs like Paul holding office.

[Lethevich]

Now, Ron Paul supporters, how are competing currencies economically valuable[...]?

I don't know enough about his policies, nor am I a supporter, so don't know exactly what he proposes here, but it would be nice to see if this can be resolved if nobody else is picking it up:

Wouldn't pre-Euro currency Europe work in the same way as a US with competing currencies? Or wouldn't individual states have enough power to regulate them as properly as individual countries under his proposals? I assume that he is going for some Darwinian winners and losers kind of deal, with the losers adapting to fill gaps in the wider requirements? It sounds kind of like the late Deutschmark (or current Euro) vs. weaker currencies in the south and east of Europe - they have less buying power, but more selling power.

I am not sure why such a change would be seen as good by Paul, but also don't know why it would be considered obviously bad either.

[Todd]

I don't know enough about his policies

The scenario you describe is bad enough, but Paul advocates allowing banks (and other financial institutions?) to issue their own currency. 

[jowcol]

reducing all the govt waste

That I would like to see, but it is not clear how.  If it were easy enough, it would be done already!

One of the problems is that some Govt waste creates jobs, and many large defense programs spread the work out over all 50 states.  This is not efficiency, but every congressman and Senator that votes against a program is jeopardizing their reelection.   I'm not saying their isn't waste-- far from, but much of this talk about slashing the govt doesn't address the NEW unemployment that would result.  It will take time for the private sector to create the new positions= particularity those that can be filled more efficiently by outsourcing abroad.  At least most government contracts require work to be done by US Citizens.  There is no guarantee that a private company would opt to employ citizens if they could save $$ farming the work abroad.

"Letting the states handle it" is not promise of greater efficiency-- I've worked with state governments, and typically find them less motivated and accountable than the Fed (although there are some wonderful exceptions I've encountered) ,A sking 50 different organizations, weakly funded, to provide the same capability on their own can result in reinventing 49 wheels.

And the private sector?  I am totally behind stimulating it, and encouraging innovation-- but the result of most of our degregulation sprees have been bailouts.  Prior to the recent meltdown, check out the S&L crisis in the 80s.   Private businesses are out to make money-- but this doesn't mean their decisions will be for the long term public good.

I don't see any of these approaches alone working-- there will always need to be a balance and tension

I don't think that any simple, idealistic dogma will address a complicated issue that needs to be resolved in stages, and smaller, calculated steps.   But neither party can offer a realistic, phased approach without risking loss of votes and alienating the special interests which make it impossible for either party (or both in concert) to address ALL of the contributing issues in a systematic fashion.

And, on tax increases-- assuming that lower taxes will solve, but itself, the current economic puzzle seems to ignore what has been going on over the last two decades.  (Techincally, with our current tax rates, we should be growing?  ANd why did the economy grow under Clinton? And, for the other side of the  fence, why doesn't Obama let the tax cuts expire?  He's more concerned with getting elected than addressing the deficit. )  Once again, a very simplistic model doesn't solve problems, but it is good to get votes. 


I would say, in Paul's favor, that he may have more integrity to his beliefs (and Romney is on the opposite end of the specturem) , but that still doesn't mean his beliefs are going to fix anything.   If a person is sincere about something that won't work, does that make it better? 

The sad news is we deserve exactly what we get from both parties-- we want to be lied to, and be told simple fairy tale good/even stories, and don't want to have to think hard, or challenge our existing assumptions.

[Karl Henning]

The scenario you describe is bad enough, but Paul advocates allowing banks (and other financial institutions?) to issue their own currency. 

Question to the Paulies: This is an economic benefit how, exactly?

[Lethevich]

The scenario you describe is bad enough, but Paul advocates allowing banks (and other financial institutions?) to issue their own currency.

Oh, I see, danke. That would seem to have so much opportunity for fraud and incompetence that it would require a big government just to compensate all the people ruined by it.

[Karl Henning]

I don't even know what a guy is thinking who wants banks to operate their own currency.  Maybe he's thinking something like, You know what the problem with the banks is?  Their operations right now are just too efficient.  Let's put the brakes on that efficiency by having them open their own proprietary currency boards.

[Todd]

I don't even know what a guy is thinking who wants banks to operate their own currency.

The below is straight from the ronpaul.com.  I can't say if it is "legitimate," but then given how he managed his newsletter in the 90s, could Dr Paul?

"Ron Paul believes that the first step towards monetary freedom is to allow open competition in currencies. Once gold and silver are allowed as legal tender and can be sold without sales tax, everyone can use them to store their wealth and to pay for the things they want to buy. The Federal Reserve will finally have a very compelling motivation to stay honest and maintain the value of the dollar because if they don't, they will simply lose all their customers."


You see, Karl, it will force the Fed to stay honest.  And by the same token (presumably a gold token), it would force all other players to stay honest.  If gold or metal were used allowed as legal tender, no one would ever debase the gold and silver they posses.  Such a thing is unthinkable, and without historic precedent. 

Of course, when one thinks of the gold standard, that seems a bit too new-fangled.  Why not use big stone slabs as money?  It has been used as money before.  It's much harder to debase big stone slabs.

[Karl Henning]

I'm for going back to bricks of tea for currency.

[Karl Henning]

"... Once gold and silver are allowed as legal tender and can be sold without sales tax, everyone can use them to store their wealth and to pay for the things they want to buy."

Starting with a safe and alarm system.  Americans won't really be economically free until each home is a miniature Fort Knox!

[Todd]

Oh, and the esteemed Dr Paul is all in favor of the new "digital" currencies, like Bitcoin.  Another brilliant idea! 

[Karl Henning]

I want to watch Goldfinger again before making a decision w/r/t Dr Paul.

[Karl Henning]

. . . Honestly, he strikes me as unprepared.

And yet, (a) he's a Congressman (and how proud are his supporters of his record of Congressional accomplishment?) and (b) it isn't the first time he has run for the Republican Party presidential nomination.  If he's not prepared now . . . .

Rick Perry, now he's got an excuse not to be prepared. Congressman Paul?  None, really.

[Todd]

Read my post a page back or two; or if you did just give me a re-post on it, please.

I missed your original post.  There are some little problems with Paul's prescriptions.  The first is that reverting to a so-called "hard money" - ie, gold and silver backed money - would reduce the money supply and result in deflation.  This would be bad for anyone who has any debt and earns wages, which would fall.  It would be good for creditors, assuming that contracts are enforced, which I'm certain Paul would support.  Allowing gold and silver to be used as legal tender would result in debasing of said gold and silver, rather reducing the efficacy of Paul's plan.  And that's before the good money (ie, the hard money) disappeared, to be hoarded by those with the means to buy it up.  Allowing private issuance of money based on precious metals, or anything else, would cause all manner of money mischief.  How would one know, for instance, that Bank X (or Currency Issuer X) really had said gold or silver?  That would require independent verification.  That would drive up transaction costs.  That would make finance less efficient.  And it still wouldn't eliminate fraud.  Some type of overriding authority - a central bank, perhaps - would still be needed to monitor currency.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where someone explained how Paul's policies helped average Americans.

[Todd]

He's the only one that really knows what is going on with great clarity and proposes substantial solutions. He's a real patriot.

Wow, this is some heavy duty propaganda.  Looks like you're writing about Kim Jong-un.

Even if that is how you perceive him 'on the surface' .. you'd probably agree that that is a highly superficial way of looking at things and we must to look past that and really listen & think about the message being delivered.

I agree.

[Florestan]

Abolish political parties completely

How can it be done, pray tell?