Monday, 2 January 2012


I have tweeted about this ad nauseam over the last few days but with Iowa about to yield its secrets to the adoring public I'm ready to shut up. Just not before this little official endorsement, which will come as a surprise to precisely none of my regular readers.

Please Republicans, choose Ron Paul.

What is it to you, Americans might ask, and who asked you?

I would argue that Americans are the second most likely people after Greeks to visit my blog, and I feel it might interest them to hear of what one concerned Greek has to say. Sadly #Greeks4RonPaul is basically just me and the occasional friend, but that does not really negate the point.

Moreover, whoever the GOP chooses might end up becoming president, and in so doing will have some modicum of power over my country too. I have an interest in you choosing someone that, on the issues, I actually agree with and, given that the GOP's other candidates  are power-hungry brushed aluminium sleazeballs they may want to consider someone that their fellow Americans do not hate quite so much.

On the issues then, why should you go for Ron Paul?

This is why:

And this is why:

And this is why:

And this is why:

And this amazing omission is why:

And this amazing admission is also why:

And the sheer amount of balls it takes to say this, is also why:

Mind you he needs to seriously reconsider his views or at least his rhetoric on abortion and contraception. If he does, he'll get a wee little donation from me too. Come on.

UPDATE: Since I hear veteran readers object, I should at least respond in passing:

Regarding central banks and the business cycle, I believe RP is not saying that the business cycle is, in principle, a matter of monetary policy. I believe he is referring to this: http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2011/12/16/803431/deutsches-reid-on-shorter-business-cycles/

Regarding the independence of the Fed, while I agree that if Central Banks exist they should be fiercely and impeccably independent, I also believe that Central Banks are responsible, through both monetary policy and capital regulation, for a great deal of the credit bubble and the crisis that followed. My advice to Ron Paul would be to give up on auditing the Fed and focus on ending its role in monetary policy. Lender or last resort? Yes. Setter of interest rates? Nope. Source of QE? No. Etc Etc Etc.

Now hate away, usual crowd, hate away.


  1. I don't think Ron Paul is that good. To be more specific, I am surprised to hear that he thinks that the FED creates the business cycle (what??) and is the cause of inflation (what??). Firstly, business cycles as being largely caused by real, supply—side shocks to the economy. The observed relationship between money and the business cycle reflects causation going
    from real activity to monetary conditions, and not the other way around. Secondly, the independence of the FED is a considerable factor for the low inflation observed in the US (see Alessina & Summers 1993*). Ron Paul claims the the FED should be abolished or strictly audited. But it is know that "politically controlled central banks are more likely to pursue policies that lead to high and variable inflation". Hence, I feel he is totally ignorant.


  2. Do forgive my silly typing mistakes ;)

  3. "Setter of interest rates? Nope"

    Why not? Inflation seems to be a function of the output gap (actual - potential gdp) and of (usually forward looking) inflation expectations. Central banks influence those expectations by setting a target interest rate. Society is actually better off by appointing Central bankers who are conservative on inflation. See for example Rogoff (1985)* and Svenson (1997)**. Commitment to a strong nominal inflation (or output gap/ price) target is central to producing good monetary policy outcomes. Bear in mind that there is a complete agreement on these points in academia and the central banks. "There should be a strong credible commitment to stabilize inflation in the long run by having an explicit inflation objective, and there should be flexibility to pursue policies to stabilize output around its natural rate level in the short run."

    Finally Central Banks can not really cause bubbles themselves. What they can be accused of is that they may tend to follow the "Greenspan Doctrine" (i.e. to clean after the bubble bursts generally accepted)


  4. Let's also not forget that other than the Fed lunacy, Ron Paul is an ardent supporter of the Gold Standard, who Keynes had dubbed a barbarous relic. Under the various forms of the Gold Standard, policy was procyclical and so crises much more frequent and much deeper. Furthermore, even though long term inflation was lower, the short term price variation was much (much) higher compared to fiat regimes. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GoldStandard.html (by Michael Bordo, the pre-eminent Gold Standard expert).

  5. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/iowa-the-meaningless-sideshow-begins-20120103?utm_source=dailynewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

  6. Although I agree with many things RP is saying, on foreign policy I am with Colonel Allen West: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkGQmCZjJ0k&feature=BFa&list=FLQOX8niRagNOEfcK4mfp6KQ&lf=mh_lolz

  7. He is ultra conservative. He is against abortion, (for marketing purposes they call themselves pro life). Where is the freedom of choice then, when a goverment will decide for each individual. How come you are liberal/libertarian and you support someone who has made racist and homophobic comments? Not to mention his surreal economic proposals, eg in favour free trade, but against NAFTA and his fetichism with inflation.

  8. He is not against abortion as a politician. He actually says that the federal government should stay out of this issue and let the states regulate it. Nevertheless, his argumentation regarding abortion is ultra-solid and I would like to see someone trying to break it:

    He argues that once a human comes to life, he/she should be free to choose whether he/she will continue to live or not. If we accept that a human fetus is alive, then it is the government's job to protect his right to live. Therefore the only remaining question is when do we consider a fetus as being an alive human being. His view is upon conception but he has said that he doesn't consider that a universal truth.

    I think that this guy's ideological solidity is to be admired. I don't remember any politician ever being so consistent in his views.

  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

  10. I would be a bit more careful with assessments of Paul. Racist, homophobic and sexist proclivities aside (and this is too big an aside to brush off casually), and factoring in that he has demonstrated no ability whatsoever to legislate, which means that his more interesting ideas on foreign policy and the drug war have no chance of ever moving forward, the man has a vision of society according to which "freedom" is so much better than the pursuit of happiness that it becomes a fetishistically invoked mantra rather than anything meaningful.

    Paul looks at history and instead of seeing the increase of prosperity (and a somewhat greater degree of equality and opportunity) through the inexorable path that takes people out of the caves and into a modicum of civilization via effective government and instead sees... well I am not sure what he sees. The fetishization of freedom by Paul is totally against what the fathers of liberal thought, be that Adam Smith or Mil,l would ever accept. Modern liberals tend to forget that those two individuals actually supported public education (Paul wants to abolish the department of education) and were of course anti monopolist, seeing the inevitable concentration of power that stems from the absolute freedom in the markets as a distortion of the freedom of markets. So I am afraid I will have to call you on that posting and ask you to reflect more carefully on US politics. Youtube soundbites do not a political position make.

  11. So, when you're a fetus the government should keep you alive, but if you're in a coma then the government shouldn't give a toss.

    (I think Ron Paul is sensible compared to the rest of the GOP field, but, as things are, I'm very happy to see none of them in office.)

  12. Manos Rep Ron Paul's stance on abortion will not affect the federal legislature if elected President. He will leave the decision to the states and will not interfere. I don't think it's possible to run as a pro-choice candidate and win the GOP nomination especially if you have delivered over 6,000 babies as an obstetrician. I'm sure this issue will not be a centrepiece of his administration.

  13. You may be interested this post - a libertarian critique of Paul.



Please remember that I am not notified of any comments and will not respond via comments.

Try to keep your criticism constructive and if you don't like something, do tell me how to fix it. If I use any of your suggestions, you will be duly credited.

Although I'm happy to entertain criticism of myself in the comments section, I will not tolerate hate speech. You will be given a written warning and after that I will delete further offending comments.

I will also delete any comments that are clearly randomly generated by third parties for their own promotion.

Occasionally, your comments may land in the spam box, which may cause them to appear with a slight delay as I have to approve them myself.

Thanks in advance for your kind words... and your trolling, if you are so inclined.