Jan

Ron Paul on the Morning Joe

Ron Paul was on MSNBC’s Morning Joe this morning, and he fielded questions about the state of the economy from about five different people at once. It is incredible to me how they fail to comprehend some of the most basic concepts of economics.

They tacitly assume that the solution to the financial crisis must involve greater government intervention than before! And furthermore, they take on faith that more government intervention will stop unemployment! This is unfathomably stupid, and if they would have listened to Paul in the first minute they could figure out how to answer their own question:

Government cannot do anything at all – it cannot build a road, arm a military, or start a post office – without taking money out of productive hands first. Thus, any unemployment they “solve” can only be accomplished by reducing employment in another sector – because capital has been swindled in the process. Moreover, productivity is further lost because the government will consume part of that which it takes in the process of redistribution. The government is like a vampire, it never can create wealth – it only consumes.

Ron Paul has been likened in recent days to the financial version of an Old Testament prophet. Seriously, what has he predicted at this point that hasn’t occurred? Like Peter Schiff, he has been consistently vindicated as events play themselves out. Take heed, America, take heed.

Norman Horn

Norman is the founder and editor of LibertarianChristians.com. He holds a PhD in Chemical Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin and a Master of Arts in Theological Studies from the Austin Graduate School of Theology.

Website - Twitter - Facebook - More Posts

Tags: economics, Ron Paul

Categories : Media

Baroness.fel

Ron Paul was not speaking Greek or French or Chinese, so what was so difficult for the 5 questioners to comprehend? His answers were straight forward and concise. I sense hostility. They know he is right, but they don’t want to admit how the government is run by complete idiots they helped put there.

The concept of getting out of this recession and avoiding a depression is not rocket science. However, we are bound and determine to have history repeat itself because think outside the box.
Baroness.fel

Ron Paul was not speaking Greek or French or Chinese, so what was so difficult for the 5 questioners to comprehend? His answers were straight forward and concise. I sense hostility. They know he is right, but they don’t want to admit how the government is run by complete idiots they helped put there.

The concept of getting out of this recession and avoiding a depression is not rocket science. However, we are bound and determine to have history repeat itself because think outside the box.
http://ContraDictum.blogspot.com ReACTIONary

The argument Ron Pual is using is one sided and tendentious. What he is pointing out is that economic decisions made by the government incur an opportunity cost: If government directs resources toward one enterprise or use, they must come at the expense of some other enterprise or use. The other uses are known as the “opportunity loss”.
However, each and every economic decision, regardless of who is making it, represents an “opportunity loss.” This applies to private economic decisions as well as governmental intervention. Ignoring the fact that the same holds true for privately made economic decisions is NOT an honest presentation of the actual economic dynamics.

To make the case that the government cannot possibly create wealth, one would have to maintain that the opportunity losses incurred by each and every government economic decision are always and without exception greater than the value obtained that decision. This case has not been made, and I doubt that it can be. And even if it is suspected that this is the net effect over all, there will always be specific cases where it will be reasonable to suspect that it isn’t so.

Let’s look at the specific case of unemployment: “any unemployment they “solve” can only be accomplished by reducing employment in another sector”. This is simply not true. Some economic activities are more labor-intensive than others, and it is not hard to identify those that are. By redirecting economic activity towards labor intensive investments and away from those that are less so, jobs, if not wealth, can indeed be created. In fact, when politicians promise to create jobs, they are speaking about jobs for Americans, not global jobs. Jobs created by government spending always end up in some Congressman’s district – not in China – and specifically benefit American job seekers, while private sector expansion does not necessarily do so. Public sector direction of investment intended to create American jobs at the expense of private sector investment in foreign economies is almost guaranteed to what it promises.
http://ContraDictum.blogspot.com ReACTIONary

The argument Ron Pual is using is one sided and tendentious. What he is pointing out is that economic decisions made by the government incur an opportunity cost: If government directs resources toward one enterprise or use, they must come at the expense of some other enterprise or use. The other uses are known as the “opportunity loss”.
However, each and every economic decision, regardless of who is making it, represents an “opportunity loss.” This applies to private economic decisions as well as governmental intervention. Ignoring the fact that the same holds true for privately made economic decisions is NOT an honest presentation of the actual economic dynamics.

To make the case that the government cannot possibly create wealth, one would have to maintain that the opportunity losses incurred by each and every government economic decision are always and without exception greater than the value obtained that decision. This case has not been made, and I doubt that it can be. And even if it is suspected that this is the net effect over all, there will always be specific cases where it will be reasonable to suspect that it isn’t so.

Let’s look at the specific case of unemployment: “any unemployment they “solve” can only be accomplished by reducing employment in another sector”. This is simply not true. Some economic activities are more labor-intensive than others, and it is not hard to identify those that are. By redirecting economic activity towards labor intensive investments and away from those that are less so, jobs, if not wealth, can indeed be created. In fact, when politicians promise to create jobs, they are speaking about jobs for Americans, not global jobs. Jobs created by government spending always end up in some Congressman’s district – not in China – and specifically benefit American job seekers, while private sector expansion does not necessarily do so. Public sector direction of investment intended to create American jobs at the expense of private sector investment in foreign economies is almost guaranteed to what it promises.
Norman

No, Ron Paul is using economic analysis to come to his conclusions. It is these unknowledgeable interviewers who are coming at it one-sided because they cannot see anything outside of more government as an option. Of course Ron Paul can run the analysis to figure out what the results would be if government continues to act – in fact he predicts it regularly and is overwhelmingly right.

Opportunity cost is always part of the equation, it’s a fact of life. Whenever we choose something, we choose not to do something else. And the fact that he didn’t present such things in the less than 6 minutes of time he had to speak shouldn’t negate the quality of analysis.

If government could create wealth, they would be self-funded and there would be no need to *confiscate* the products of other people’s labor and capital in order to do things. Since they must take to do anything at all, government cannot make any addition to savings and thus to the real pool of funding. Thus, government action inherently consumes wealth rather than creates.

For more on this: http://mises.org/story/3058
http://ContraDictum.blogspot.com ReACTIONary

RE: If government could create wealth, they would be self-funded

Do charities and not-for-profit educational organizations create real wealth and value in the world? Of course they do. Are they self funded? No, of course not. The fact that the benifit is not retained by the organization itself, but goes to others, does not mean it isn’t creating wealth.

When the goverment, though taxation, redirects society’s resources away from, well, whatever, and applies those resources towards educating our children, does it not create wealth and opportunity for all? Or do you think we would be a wealther people if we were ignorant?
http://ContraDictum.blogspot.com ReACTIONary

RE: If government could create wealth, they would be self-funded

Do charities and not-for-profit educational organizations create real wealth and value in the world? Of course they do. Are they self funded? No, of course not. The fact that the benifit is not retained by the organization itself, but goes to others, does not mean it isn’t creating wealth.

When the goverment, though taxation, redirects society’s resources away from, well, whatever, and applies those resources towards educating our children, does it not create wealth and opportunity for all? Or do you think we would be a wealther people if we were ignorant?

Welcome

Recent Posts

Most Popular

Ron Paul on the Morning Joe

Norman Horn

Subscribe to LCC

Sponsors

Recent Comments

Blogroll

Sponsors

Tags

Who is behind LCC?

Essential Reading