Oh, my bad, I should be more concrete like reducing Ron Paul's arguments by calling him a doctor (ignoring his work on economic and foreign affairs), and cut and pasting someone's education background like that makes a difference when their decades long assertions are devoid of logic, like the person I'm posting to isn't going to see right through that.
You must think people are really stupid. Carry on with the dog and pony show.
My bad (I mean it). I guess you missed my post last page:
The guy is a macroeconomist, not an investment analyst or business consultant. Though I find it hard to believe that he recommended Wall Street stocks, but even if he did, so did many others. I wasn't here to defend him to begin with so I'll stop at this.
On Keynesian Economics:
I don't know in which book Keynes says reckless investment in speculative assets is a good thing for the economy, so blaming the current recession on Keynesian Economics is completely wrong. Government spending and taxation did not put us into this recession. Reckless investment at all levels of the economy, from the average folks buying homes they cannot afford using balloon mortgages given to them by mortgage and loan companies, to Wall Street repackaging them as sound investments and buying and selling them with each other is to blame. The countries that did not suffer from the recession much, like the Scandinavian countries, and emerging markets like Brazil and India, steered clear of all of this, regardless of their tax levels and amounts of government controls.
One can argue that Fanny and Freddie were big players in all of this, but that's just bad business, not Keynesian Economics per se.
When China depreciates the RMB is called currency manipulation to gain competitive advantage. When the US Fed implements QE and the USD gets depreciated as a side effect, it's call 'erosion of American wealth'. You see the hypocrisy?
On Ron Paul,
If he does possess true expertise in economics, I have yet seen it in any speeches or videos. Everything about the economy he says can be categorized into one of the following categories:
1) plain obvious (Debt, bad. War, bad),
2) oversimplication / biased opinions / misinformation / propaganda (the first 5 mins of the Sun video, and many others)
3) matter of perspective (CPI vs PPI, price vs value of dollar)
4) completely ridiculous (calling a silver coin tripling in value over 4 years preservation of capital)
I beg you to post one video or speech where he states indisputable facts beyond the plain obvious. Whatever you post can be categorized in the above 4 categories and easily disputed with simple economics.
Speaking of indisputable facts, and thorough analyses, here is an example:
You cannot dispute this. This analysis came from actual micro/macroeconomic research and policy implementation experience. You may raise a proper question: how are we going to pay for all this after the economy recovers? That's a proper question, yes (the answer is cut spending and raise taxes when the economy booms). But his analysis and explanation of the recession, and the method to recover, are indisputable. I have yet seen Paul produce a thorough and factual thesis at this level to support his ideas.
I do not disagree with Ron Paul's principle of balancing spending with income. It makes perfect sense. But even you ought to know that we are not in the correct time in history to do this. What do you actually think would've happened if emergency loans weren't given to Wall Street in 2008? If Wall Street did collapse? Please tell me.
What Paul advocates on the surface level has little reality to what he thinks we should do to get there. One simply does not equate with the other.
And just for the record I have to agree with his idea of non-interventionism with foreign policy. Most of the hate coming from the rest of the world stems from America flexing their military and economic muscles. This is well documented and understood.