I will keep my first post short and sweet. I'm beginning to believe, or rather have always believed, that the more vigorous a politician defends himself the more likely it is that he is lying. Cain almost goes ballistic when Ron Paul pointed out his past statements about the Fed tonight. Granted, Cain didn't say the word "ignorant," but he did say that the people who are calling for an audit "don't know enough about it." Typical republitards are hilarious sometimes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/11/ron-paul-herman-cain-fed-audit-gop-debate_n_1006228.html
and one more just to demonstrate how much of a republitard this guy is. This one gives the whole context of what Cain said about the federal reserve.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTUseC3-Q8E
It sounds like he's trying to appeal to the Ron Paulites who might be inclined to vote Republican anyway. It seems to me though that a lot of Ron Paul's fans are not necessarily traditional (or in other words, are extremely traditional) Republicans. I'm still not sold he's going to get the nomination.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in that I don't think Cain will get the nomination (if that's who you were saying you weren't sold could win). He really has no substance. It's all catch phrases and slogans that make his inconsistencies easy to defend. He probably is trying to appeal to the more populist elements of the Ron Paul base, but I think that is getting him nowhere. Ron Paul won't win the nomination, but for the most part his core constituency holds together. And this constituency is pretty diverse. The older Ron Paulians are probably extremely traditional, they view him as pre WWII conservative, which is both true and false. His foreign policy is definitely pre-WWII, but I don't think his economic ideas are as identifiably pre-war conservative/republican as people think. He is also one of the more popular GOP candidates with younger people, which somewhat makes me more optimistic about the future of the right. The youth appeal is really what I want to get out of him, that's what has the potential to really shake up the republitards and maybe refocus the right. (in my dreams at least.)
ReplyDeleteHey Michael,
ReplyDeleteHere is a link to more coverage of the debate. It includes Cain praising Alan Greenspan. I somewhat like Paul's response, particularly what he says about Volcker, but overall it is an ok rebuttal.
http://www.ronpaul.com/
I watched the first few minutes. Thought it was funny how Ron Paul said all the people who were right about the bubbles were Austrian economists, except that's not even close to true.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/the-run-up-in-home-prices-is-it-real-or-is-it-another-bubble/
This paper was written by a Keynesian-liberal economist named Dean Baker. I'm still unconvinced by this ideologically driven idea that Keynesians got it wrong (Ron Paul's perspective) and Austrians have it right. I think elements of each perspective has some truth, but there is nothing in Keynesian economics that demands bubbles. They happen when money floods into the financial sector and then gets allocated in various narrow classes of assets. That seems more a result of the kind of banking system we have than the abstract notion of Keynesian economics.
Very true observation, many people predicted the housing bubble. At moments like this I think he needs to be more clear what he is saying. Many people predicted a housing bubble. What he needs to say is that Austrians are more consistent in the long run in predicting these things than Keynesians, and that they are more consistent because of certain elements of their theory. That would be a more truthful claim. If he got any more technical than he already does then he would lose his audience because people wouldn't be able to follow him. Keynesianism itself does not demand bubbles, but I think there is something to be said for it allowing money to flow to a narrow set of interests in the financial sector, which does create the bubbles. I think that is the larger critique that he does not consistently make, and it is one that will resonate with the left and the right. As much I dig the Austrian stuff where it is poignant, RP needs to stop saying they were right and using this as the basis of his argument and focus on what in my opinion is the stronger point. Which is that the Keynesianism he doesn't like is what sends supplements a narrow set of financial interests.
ReplyDelete