Ron Paul's favorite economist won this debate in a Laffer

Newark Star Ledger via NJ.COM ^ | 11/22/2008 | Paul Mulshine

[Kid Shelleen]

This video of Peter Schiff debating Arthur Laffer back in 2006 has been making the rounds on the web. Schiff was Ron Paul's economic advisor during Paul's run for the Republican presidential nomination this year. Paul lost that race, but just about everything he predicted has come true in the interim.

Paul's most depressing - in both the emotional and economic senses - prediction was that the U.S. couldn't maintain an economy based on the easy money flowing out of the Fed.

[marshmallow]

One of the favorite arguments used to slime Ron Paul and Schiff is that they are perpetual doom and gloom mongers and that predicting a crash five or even two years ago doesn't count on the basis that if you're always predicting gloom sooner or later you're going to be right.

Well I don't know about that but it sure counts more than the opinions of Laffer and a number of Freepers who until September, were scoffing at and pouring scorn on anyone who suggested the US was in serious trouble. Some still are. Furthermore, this crash has been a long time in coming so I'm inclined to believe that a two year old prediction of crisis does indeed have validity. One thing I've noticed though, is that Paul's correct forecast of this crisis has earned him more, not less abuse. Strange.

Paul is not a "made for the media" construct. He reminds me of an old college professor who would show up late for class with his shirt done up on the wrong buttons and his hair in a mess. He looks kooky but he has it right, though.

The spiraling multi-trillion bailout costs + the cost of the Iraq war + our foreign energy dependence + the loss of our manufacturing base = financial ruin.

[AmericanHunter]

“wanna see the links? (evil grin)”

Yes please

[TeknoBeck]

I sure do like Ron, I really had high hopes for him this election.

[9YearLurker]

I’ve got to admit, for all of my being a small-government constitutionalist I only credited Paul with being right in some ways, a kooky extremist in others.

Now it seems that we were living in such an unreal reality before that the ‘kooky extremist’ was right all along. At the very least, the Republican Party should have given him a place of honor in the primaries for speaking necessary and Republican truths, rather than dismissing him as they did.

[murdoog]

I even agree with Ron Paul on his foreign policy views but I hate his foreign policy arguments using: Moral Equivalence.

Thank you. Those are exactly my thoughts, and I hope Dr.Paul is reading your post somewhere. He has some valuable points about foreign policy, but he undermines himself when he makes remarks like the ones he made about 9/11 at the GOP debate.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

One of the favorite arguments used to slime Ron Paul and Schiff is that they are perpetual doom and gloom mongers and that predicting a crash five or even two years ago doesn't count on the basis that if you're always predicting gloom sooner or later you're going to be right.

The reason that's not a valid argument is because they weren't merely predicting a downturn. The predicted the exact causes and effects correctly, and in Schiff's case he even got the approximate time correct.

[Upstate NY Guy]

Ping for later

[ovrtaxt]

http://www.europac.net/radioshow.asp

Schiff’s weekly live radio broadcast is coming up at 8pm Eastern. I’ve been getting the podcasts, he has great insight.

[traviskicks]

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=arEE1iClqDrk&refer=home

The money that’s been pledged is equivalent to $24,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. It’s nine times what the U.S. has spent so far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Congressional Budget Office figures. It could pay off more than half the country’s mortgages.

[GoodDay]

Thank you very much!

[ovrtaxt]

:)

[Kid Shelleen]

see the following thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2138562/posts

• Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion

• Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion

• Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion

• S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion

• Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion

• The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)

• Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion

• Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion • NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion

TOTAL: $3.92 trillion

[glorgau]

Yep, the anomaly of American History is the record of interventionism since WWII.

[elkfersupper]

By now, most of them have slithered back into their slime pits.

You may wish that, but it doesn't make it so.

[farmer18th]

no policing the world

On that, I'll agree with Ron Paul, but Ron Paul does a disservice to the west when he pretends Muslims will be happy if left alone.

[farmer18th]

I’m fascinated by the Schiff phenomenon. He got U.S. Equities and real estate spot on, but has he been right about foreign equities providing any wealth protection??

[alrea]

but has he been right about foreign equities providing any wealth protection??

Don't know of any place that was very safe recently other than the mattress. The best forecasters are often wrong. Think of all the commodity gurus who had loaded up on oil for the ride to $200 or those that had moved everything to China. China equities did worse than those in the US.

[ovrtaxt]

He’s a long term adviser, similar to Jim Rogers in his timeframe. Everyone’s stocks are taking a beating right now, Asian and otherwise, but that’s to be expected. Even gold has taken a temporary hit, mostly from the hedge funds unloading paper positions.

However, they both believe China will emerge strongest from this crash, since they have the factories and the reserves. We have neither anymore.

[Mr. Jeeves]

I think what’s REALLY amazing is the flack he catches from freepers.

That isn't an accident - the criticisms being expressed aren't personal or original. Like the liberal "seminar callers" on CNN, they are repeating slogans invented by powerful financial interests to denigrate Ron Paul. These slogans usually take the form of "I like what Ron Paul says about economics but I can't stand his weakness on Islamofascism" - when even a cursory overview of his positions would show that opinion to be nonsense.

[farmer18th]

Okay, I’ll bite. Where is Paul on Islamofascism? I do happen to agree with him, for the most part, on economics, but everything I’ve heard him say about Islam has been downright crazy. He’s a doctor who has shown himself to be well-schooled in economics, but he needs to crack a history book or two.