Ron Paul's Economic Qualifications.

[Jake Ralston]

Does he have any? Any official schooling or qualifications that back his understanding of Economics? A degree, perhaps?

And please don't take this the wrong way, as I am saying the above in a mocking fashion. We have our arrogant Keynesian's with their expensive and prestigeous degree's that get this country nowhere.

So how did Ron do it? We live in a country where you need to present "evidence" and documentation in order to "prove" you hold an understanding and high level of intelligence in a certain field.

Does Ron prove the above statement wrong by being a Doctor with a precise and accurate understanding of economics? Please discuss.

 

[wgadget]

Truth is, 100% of "bonafide economists" are usually wrong.

Look at the Consumer Confidence data that came out today, for example. They were predicting confidence would rise...WRONG.

 

[Travlyr]

Thirty or more years of research, serving on the U.S. Gold Commission, debating Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, personally questioning three Federal Reserve Chairmen in an official capacity, sitting as a Chairman of Domestic Monetary Policy Subcommittee in the U.S. House of Representatives along with authoring several economic papers & books qualifies Ron Paul immeasurably.

http://www.youtube.com/misesmedia#p/search/0/kcm8VvBcUdE

 

[Krugerrand]

Thirty or more years of research, serving on the U.S. Gold Commission, debating Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, personally questioning three Federal Reserve Chairmen in an official capacity, sitting as a Chairman of Domestic Monetary Policy Subcommittee in the U.S. House of Representatives along with authoring several prophetic economic papers & books qualifies Ron Paul immeasurably.

http://www.youtube.com/misesmedia#p/search/0/kcm8VvBcUdE

mind if I add "prophetic? It's one thing to write the book ... it's another that he was RIGHT!

 

[hazek]

I think most of his theoretical knowledge was derived from reading Austrian economics books.

 

[Travlyr]

mind if I add "prophetic? It's one thing to write the book ... it's another that he was RIGHT!

Absolutely. Predicting future events is virtually impossible unless one is an expert.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Does he have any? Any official schooling or qualifications that back his understanding of Economics? A degree, perhaps?

And please don't take this the wrong way, as I am saying the above in a mocking fashion. We have our arrogant Keynesian's with their expensive and prestigeous degree's that get this country nowhere.

So how did Ron do it? We live in a country where you need to present "evidence" and documentation in order to "prove" you hold an understanding and high level of intelligence in a certain field.

Does Ron prove the above statement wrong by being a Doctor with a precise and accurate understanding of economics? Please discuss.

I've also had people say to me, he's a doctor so he won't know about economics, etc Where were Obama's credentials? Bush's? Reagan's? Of course, a president should be capable of understanding economics but here we've a man who PREDICTED the bubble & many other things YEARS IN ADVANCE, what more can you ask of a president? After looking at the video, no RATIONAL person should doubt Ron Paul's "credentials", economic or otherwise, we've'd MUCH LESS qualified presidents than him I'm sure.

Thirty or more years of research, serving on the U.S. Gold Commission, debating Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, personally questioning three Federal Reserve Chairmen in an official capacity, sitting as a Chairman of Domestic Monetary Policy Subcommittee in the U.S. House of Representatives along with authoring several economic papers & books qualifies Ron Paul immeasurably.

http://www.youtube.com/misesmedia#p/search/0/kcm8VvBcUdE

mind if I add "prophetic? It's one thing to write the book ... it's another that he was RIGHT!

Absolutely. Predicting future events is virtually impossible unless one is an expert.

^^

 

[jdowns]

There's no such thing as an economist. There are only students of economics. Schools generally teach theory and history because economies don't function as an established pattern or concept. Kinda like having a degree in art, it doesn't have any bearing on how it benefits the degree holder today in terms of creating art.

 

[hugolp]

There's no such thing as an economist. There are only students of economics. Schools generally teach theory and history because economies don't function as an established pattern or concept. Kinda like having a degree in art, it doesn't have any bearing on how it benefits the degree holder today in terms of creating art.

Actually, this is how it should be, not how it is in most places. I trully believe econmics students should learn a lot more economic history than they do now.

 

[AFPVet]

This is why perhaps history degrees are important! One thing that we have to understand is that universities teach a majority of the course from the text books. Therefore, if Ron reads some of the same text books and understands the concepts, he has the equivalent knowledge. Now many classes also introduce information which is shared by the professors though their own personal research; however, anyone reading the academic papers and texts could come up with their own conclusions.

 

[liverty]

I made this video precisely to show he has more economic qualifications than anyone

 

[Teaser Rate]

The biggest problem I have with Ron Paul's economic policies is that he refuses to change his mind about something even when 30 years of conflicting results continue to prove him wrong. Here's something he said on the house floor when introducing the Monetary Freedom Act.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to appear before your subcommittee this morning to discuss the feasibility of establishing a gold standard.

As you know, I have introduced, and other members have cosponsored, H.R. 7874, which is a comprehensive bill to place the United States on a full gold coin standard within two years of the date of its passage.

I believe such a standard to be not only desirable and feasible, but absolutely necessary if we aim to avoid the very real possibility of hyperinflation in the near future, and economic collapse.

Now this sounds like something Ron could have said yesterday. But it wasn't, he said it in 1981. He's been warning of an imminent economic collapse and hyperinflation for over 30 years and is still nowhere close to being proven right. While I really like a lot of Ron's economic policies, I have to question whether his reluctance to admit that he was wrong on this issue might affect his leadership in other areas. There's nothing worse than a President who can't admit that he made a mistake and refuses to change direction at all costs, see George W. Bush in Iraq.

 

[Travlyr]

The biggest problem I have with Ron Paul's economic policies is that he refuses to change his mind about something even when 30 years of conflicting results continue to prove him wrong. Here's something he said on the house floor when introducing the Monetary Freedom Act.
id it in 1981. He's been warning of an imminent economic collapse and hyperinflation for over 30 years and is still nowhere close to being proven right. While I really like a lot of Ron's economic policies, I have to question whether his reluctance to admit that he was wrong on this issue might affect his leadership in other areas. There's nothing worse than a President who can't admit that he made a mistake and refuses to change direction at all costs, see George W. Bush in Iraq.

Frankly, I am with you on this one...

Raise the debt ceiling to $120 Quadrillion! Tomorrow! August 2nd is fast approaching.

 

[Seraphim]

I think you will find that monetary cycles last roughly 40 years (plus or minus a year or two generally).

1971 is when the world was put onto the fiat standard.

I think you will get your answer sooner, rather then later.

The biggest problem I have with Ron Paul's economic policies is that he refuses to change his mind about something even when 30 years of conflicting results continue to prove him wrong. Here's something he said on the house floor when introducing the Monetary Freedom Act.



Now this sounds like something Ron could have said yesterday. But it wasn't, he said it in 1981. He's been warning of an imminent economic collapse and hyperinflation for over 30 years and is still nowhere close to being proven right. While I really like a lot of Ron's economic policies, I have to question whether his reluctance to admit that he was wrong on this issue might affect his leadership in other areas. There's nothing worse than a President who can't admit that he made a mistake and refuses to change direction at all costs, see George W. Bush in Iraq.

 

[Travlyr]

I think you will find that monetary cycles last roughly 40 years (plus or minus a year or two generally).

1971 is when the world was put onto the fiat standard.

I think you will get your answer sooner, rather then later.

1971 + 40 = 2011

What day? Wednesday or Friday?

 

[Seraphim]

I think that this time next year, the world will be a very different place.

1971 + 40 = 2011

What day? Wednesday or Friday?

 

[Travlyr]

I think that this time next year, the world will be a very different place.

I totally agree.

Perhaps December 21?

 

[Seraphim]

We'll see.

My realistic inclinations tell me the worldwide depression will come full circle, much the way it did in 1933.

A year from now, the price of oil might be 2-3 times higher then it is today. IN REAL TERMS, that is. Nominal fiat "value" is tough to gauge (by design, as you know).

Those of us with real precious metal savings will probably come out bruised and cut, but otherwise intact.

I totally agree.

Perhaps December 21?

 

[Travlyr]

We'll see.

My realistic inclinations tell me the worldwide depression will come full circle, much the way it did in 1933.

A year from now, the price of oil might be 2-3 times higher then it is today. IN REAL TERMS, that is. Nominal fiat "value" is tough to gauge (by design, as you know).

Those of us with real precious metal savings will probably come out bruised and cut, but otherwise intact.

Bruised for sure, perhaps cut, maybe even killed.

Oil is only a step in the right direction. There are far greater resources available.

If the assholes hadn't killed 260 million of our ancestors last century, and destroyed our resources, then we would likely already be living in warm, well lit, comfortable homes as we speak. We would be riding around in comfortable flying vehicles (motor homes) and playing with our friends instead of fighting with them.

Those counterfeiting warmongering assholes have to go. Jail them or do away with them. Do whatever is necessary to end their reign of terror, ASAP.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

The biggest problem I have with Ron Paul's economic policies is that he refuses to change his mind about something even when 30 years of conflicting results continue to prove him wrong. Here's something he said on the house floor when introducing the Monetary Freedom Act.



Now this sounds like something Ron could have said yesterday. But it wasn't, he said it in 1981. He's been warning of an imminent economic collapse and hyperinflation for over 30 years and is still nowhere close to being proven right. While I really like a lot of Ron's economic policies, I have to question whether his reluctance to admit that he was wrong on this issue might affect his leadership in other areas. There's nothing worse than a President who can't admit that he made a mistake and refuses to change direction at all costs, see George W. Bush in Iraq.

The problem is that you can't predict everything in economics, if you'll talk about 1980, US had seen massive inflation after going off the gold-standard & hyperinflation could've been a scenario but it's difficult to predict beforehand & Ron has said over & over again, every time interviewers ask him "How did you know collapse would happen so many years in advance?" & he ALWAYS says stresses the point that it's not possible to predict it but you know that when certain things are done, certain results are definite but it's difficult to predict the EXACT TIME in the future it'll happen so anyone who's studied Austrian Economics would've known that once we went on a COMPLETE toiler-paper standard, it wouldn't last long & it'd eventually crash somewhere down the line but the thing is that Fed & other central banks haven't just sit there, they've actively tried to prevent unraveling of the economic stupidity they've enforced on people but they can't do that forever but it's impossible to tell WHEN that's why he's been warning for years, it hasn't happened YET but that does NOT mean the warnings are wrong or that he's wrong.