Matt Stoller rebuts his critics

[ProSense]

Last edited Tue Jan 10, 2012, 02:46 PM - Edit history (1)

via Daily Kos

A post I wrote two weeks ago, How Ron Paul Challenges Liberals, created something of a stir. It was the most commented article on Naked Capitalism, ever. And it kicked up a series of arguments among Democrats and civil libertarians. Glenn Greenwald, who has been talking about these problems in prominent forums, followed up with this remarkable post (and then this one), and has taken many insults as a result. This in and of itself is worth noting – the slurring of those who critique the structure of modern liberalism is an essential tool in the preservation of the status quo. I’m going to highlight a few of the reactions here without much of a rebuttal, because I think the reactions themselves illustrate the struggle that boxes in traditional partisan Democrats.

First, let’s go back to the idea of the piece. The basic thesis was that the same financing structures that are used to finance mass industrial warfare were used to create a liberal national economy and social safety. Liberals supported national mobilization in favor of warfare and the social safety net during the New Deal and World War II (and before that, during the Civil War and WWI), but splintered when confronted with a wars like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The corruption of the financial channels and the destruction of the social safety net now challenges this 20th century conception of liberalism at its core (which is heavily related to the end of cheap oil). Ron Paul has knitted together a coalition of those who dislike war financing, which includes a host of unsavory and extremist figures who dislike icons such as Abraham Lincoln and FDR for their own reasons. But Paul, by criticizing American empire explicitly and its financing channels in the form of the Federal Reserve, also enrages liberals by forcing them to acknowledge that their political economy no longer produces liberal ends.

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/10/1053278/-

(emphasis added)

I mean, Paul's kooky economic theories that drive his desire to end the Fed is supposed to now be hyped?

Ron Paul: We're All Austrians?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002117079

David Atkins, who Stoller's piece is intended to rebut, responds:

<...>

No, the danger to liberalism comes when individuals become so single-mindedly upset with the current state of affairs that they begin to make irrational arguments about the warlike nature of the Federal Reserve, or to put libertarian whackadoos on a pedestal.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/matt-stoller-takes-aim-misses-wildly-by.html

Krugman on Ron Paul's theories:

Paleomonetarism
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/paleomonetarism/

Johnny Reb Economics
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/johnny-reb-economics/

G.O.P. Monetary Madness
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/opinion/gop-monetary-madness.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Ron Paul is just another corporate tool, end the Fed and eliminate corporate taxes, keep oil subsidies and tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, and agree to whatever else is in Grover Norquist's pledge, which he signed it in 2010 and 2008:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/120111-federalpledgesigners.pdf

http://www.atr.org/rep-ron-paul-signs-presidential-taxpayer-a1489

Ron Paul on Cordray appointment: ‘The president is not a dictator or a king’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002124972

[Luminous Animal]

1. Your link does not work.

[ProSense]

3. Fixed. Thanks. n/t

[JackRiddler]

7. Here's the link to Stoller's column in original.

Surely the best option?

Naked Capitalism, “A Home for All Sorts of Bircher Nonsense”

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/01/naked-capitalism-a-home-for-all-sorts-of-bircher-nonsense.html

By Matt Stoller, "former Senior Policy Advisor to Rep. Alan Grayson and a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute."

It's well worth reading in full, as the writer intended it, before moving on to the predictable spin and misrepresentations.*

Hint: It's not really about Ron Paul.

In Stoller's words:

But Paul, by criticizing American empire explicitly and its financing channels in the form of the Federal Reserve, also enrages liberals by forcing them to acknowledge that their political economy no longer produces liberal ends.

I’ll be describing in much more detail the shifting of the social contract underlying this failure, which has nothing to do with Ron Paul and would exist with or without him. For now, I think it’s useful to chronicle the multiple reactions from partisan Democrats.

Stoller then proceeds to do both, admirably. (He does not touch upon Austrian economics, or Johnny Reb, or any of the other matters which the OP of this thread brings up as a way to distract from Stoller's thesis and falsely associate him with Bad Things.)

To see for yourself, just follow the link to the original article. (Don't worry, even if you disagree it won't bite and it won't magically turn you into a Ron Paul supporter, or lose the election for Obama.)

But thanks to ProSense for drawing attention to this important and excellent piece.

[ProSense]

9. Yes,

"Here's the link to Stoller's column in original."

...it's discussed here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100287685

[JackRiddler]

11. So? People should read an article before letting you "discuss" it.

Naked Capitalism, “A Home for All Sorts of Bircher Nonsense”

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/01/naked-capitalism-a-home-for-all-sorts-of-bircher-nonsense.html

By Matt Stoller, former Senior Policy Advisor to Rep. Alan Grayson and a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

.

Readers! It's well worth reading in full, as the writer intended it!

[banned from Kos]

16. Stoller has now teamed up with the Paul people - he is forever tainted.

But I am glad he found a blog that will print his nonsense.

[ProSense]

18. Why?

"So? People should read an article before letting you 'discuss' it."

Are you afraid that my opinion is going to prevent anyone from reading the article? It was linked to in the thread.

[JackRiddler]

20. Great. Just in case anyone missed it, the correct link to the article by Stoller...

Naked Capitalism, “A Home for All Sorts of Bircher Nonsense”

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/01/naked-capitalism-a-home-for-all-sorts-of-bircher-nonsense.html

By Matt Stoller, former Senior Policy Advisor to Rep. Alan Grayson and a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

Thanks, everyone!

[MrCoffee]

24. Thanks for the direct link. That is a fascinating read!

Much obliged

[JackRiddler]

28. Why you are welcome, sir, it's my pleasure to provide said link...

in the service of full disclosure and vibrant debate. Which was, wait a minute...

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/01/naked-capitalism-a-home-for-all-sorts-of-bircher-nonsense.html

That.

Here's another interesting one, by the way:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/01/gao-goes-after-administration-tarp-made-money-claim.html

[Luminous Animal]

13. Actually, you linked to your link of Stoller's original article. Jack Riddler linked to

his rebuttal.

[ProSense]

2. Kick! n/t

[leveymg]

4. Stoller & GG are right about the illiberal ends of the modern economy and state finance. Krugman

is right that the Austrian School and paleoconservatives such as Paul offer no realistic alternative as to the means of running a modern state financial system.

But, it is wrong of you to continually attack Stoller and GG on the grounds that the Austrians are unrealistic, and that Paul is a paleocon in some of his social policy. I don't read either Stoller or GG as so much endorsing Paul's candidacy as in pointing out the apparent flaws in Obama's conventional neoliberalism.

You have not made your case in your accusation that Stoller and GG are Paulists simply because they employ a libertarian critique of the ends of state finance embraced by Obama, Geithner and the other neoWilsonian Institutionalists running the federal government, which is an essentially reactionary and upwardly distributive system that disproportionately benefits the One Percent.

[JackRiddler]

6. Correct, but some people are all about the labels, you know?

[ProSense]

8. Well

"Stoller & GG are right about the illiberal ends of the modern economy. Krugman is right that the Austrian School and paleoconservatives such as Paul offer no realistic alternative as to the means of running a modern state financial system."

...I don't think the two are right. They're taking a problem associated with people and failed policies, including the lack of oversight, and attributing it to a structural one. The FDIC isn't a failed idea because the banks are too big to fail or because Glass-Steagall was repealed.

"You have not made your case in your accusation that Stoller and GG are Paulists simply because they employ a libertarian critique of the ends of state finance embraced by Obama, Geithner and the other neoWilsonian Institutionalists running the federal government, which is an essentially reactionary and upwardly distributive system that disproportionately benefits the One Percent."

Good grief, ignoring the arguments, doesn't mean they weren't made. I repeat: "Ron Paul is just another corporate tool, end the Fed and eliminate corporate taxes, keep oil subsidies and tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, and agree to whatever else is in Grover Norquist's pledge"

As to the larger point of libertarianism, it doesn't work: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100287685

To quote:

People like Stoller ask others to ponder ridiculous hypothetical choices: civil rights vs. the drug war. They don't consider the real impact of choosing the latter over the former because all is fair in theory.

They don't consider the despair associated with an ideology that has "nothing to do with creating a more socially just and equitable society." All that matters is their phony progressive postulating that Democrats are the bad guys and the cause of everything wrong with the country. They ask you to overlook the Republicans' flaws and lunacy, either by creating false equivalencies or by claiming that Democrats haven't done enough to change things for the better.

If the likes of Paul were to create the kind of society he envisions, what would Stoller do? Where would he fit in? Where would blacks, gays and the poor fit in? How would the lives ruined compare to expanding "healthcare to children"?

[Luminous Animal]

12. You continue to misrepresent Greenwald and now Stoller...

You said...
"People like Stoller ask others to ponder ridiculous hypothetical choices: civil rights vs. the drug war. They don't consider the real impact of choosing the latter over the former because all is fair in theory."

Neither one pit civil rights against the drug war. They posit that both (as well as a host of other issues) are important and yet issues that are essentially off this Admins and the liberal government elites radar AND these issues which are important to progressives do not get a public airing from these self-same elites; and that, unfortunately, these topics are solely being promoted (on a national platform) by a flawed Republican candidate.

It is the simplest of concepts.

[ProSense]

15. What?

You continue to misrepresent Greenwald and now Stoller...

You said...
"People like Stoller ask others to ponder ridiculous hypothetical choices: civil rights vs. the drug war. They don't consider the real impact of choosing the latter over the former because all is fair in theory."

Neither one pit civil rights against the drug war. They posit that both (as well as a host of other issues) are important and yet issues that are essentially off this Admins and the liberal government elites radar AND these issues which are important to progressives do not get a public airing from these self-same elites; and that, unfortunately, these topics are solely being promoted (on a national platform) by a flawed Republican candidate.

It is the simplest of concepts.

Really? Stoller:

Paul is deeply conservative, of course, and there are reasons he believes in those end goals that have nothing to do with creating a more socially just and equitable society. But then, when considering questions about Ron Paul, you have to ask yourself whether you prefer a libertarian who will tell you upfront about his opposition to civil rights statutes, or authoritarian Democratic leaders who will expand healthcare to children and then aggressively enforce a racist war on drugs and shield multi-trillion dollar transactions from public scrutiny. I can see merits in both approaches, and of course, neither is ideal. Perhaps it’s worthy to argue that lives saved by presumed expanded health care coverage in 2013 are worth the lives lost in the drug war. It is potentially a tough calculation (depending on whether you think coverage will in fact expand in 2013). When I worked with Paul’s staff, they pursued our joint end goals with vigor and principle, and because of their work, we got to force central banking practices into a more public and democratic light.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100287685

[MrCoffee]

22. Yes, really. Luminous Animal is correct

You emphasized the direct point. The hypothetical is not "civil rights vs. the drug war".

[ProSense]

27. OK

"The hypothetical is not 'civil rights vs. the drug war'"

...maybe I misread it. What's the hypothetical here:

Paul is deeply conservative, of course, and there are reasons he believes in those end goals that have nothing to do with creating a more socially just and equitable society. But then, when considering questions about Ron Paul, you have to ask yourself whether you prefer a libertarian who will tell you upfront about his opposition to civil rights statutes, or authoritarian Democratic leaders who will expand healthcare to children and then aggressively enforce a racist war on drugs and shield multi-trillion dollar transactions from public scrutiny. I can see merits in both approaches, and of course, neither is ideal. Perhaps it’s worthy to argue that lives saved by presumed expanded health care coverage in 2013 are worth the lives lost in the drug war. It is potentially a tough calculation (depending on whether you think coverage will in fact expand in 2013). When I worked with Paul’s staff, they pursued our joint end goals with vigor and principle, and because of their work, we got to force central banking practices into a more public and democratic light.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100287685

[MrCoffee]

30. The question asked in the article is which type of politician is preferable

Not which type of politics are preferable.

It's an interesting question, and, like Stoller, I too can see merit in both.

[Luminous Animal]

26. Actually, he is defining a hypothetical dilemma and then elaborates in the following paragraphs...

as to why that "choice" is the wrong question to debate. In other words, he is saying, it might be worthwhile to posit that choice but the issue goes deeper than that.

"But this obscures the real question, of why Paul disdains the Fed (and implicitly, why liberals do not), and the relationship between the Federal Reserve and American empire. If you go back and look at some of libertarian allies, like Fox News’s Judge Napolitano, they will answer that question for you. Napolitano hates, absolutely hates, Abraham Lincoln. He sometimes slyly refers to Lincoln as America’s first dictator. Libertarians also detest Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt."

[ProSense]

29. And

"Actually, he is defining a hypothetical dilemma and then elaborates in the following paragraphs..."

...what did I say?

You said...
"People like Stoller ask others to ponder ridiculous hypothetical choices: civil rights vs. the drug war. They don't consider the real impact of choosing the latter over the former because all is fair in theory."

Neither one pit civil rights against the drug war. They posit that both (as well as a host of other issues) are important and yet issues that are essentially off this Admins and the liberal government elites radar AND these issues which are important to progressives do not get a public airing from these self-same elites; and that, unfortunately, these topics are solely being promoted (on a national platform) by a flawed Republican candidate.

It is the simplest of concepts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=148295

You may consider there is a distinction in context between "choices" and "dilemma," but I don't, and that was my point.

[Luminous Animal]

32. He presents the hypothetical dilemma and then dismisses it as immaterial...

You keep pretending that the hypothetical is the point of his article. It is not.

[ProSense]

33. No,

"He presents the hypothetical dilemma and then dismisses it as immaterial..."

...it's not "immaterial," it's absurd. Stoller:

I can see merits in both approaches, and of course, neither is ideal. Perhaps it’s worthy to argue that lives saved by presumed expanded health care coverage in 2013 are worth the lives lost in the drug war. It is potentially a tough calculation (depending on whether you think coverage will in fact expand in 2013). When I worked with Paul’s staff, they pursued our joint end goals with vigor and principle, and because of their work, we got to force central banking practices into a more public and democratic light.

Anything for a false equivalency. Does he really believe that Paul's vision of ending the drug war will result in fewer deaths?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002135956#post19

Paul's position on everything is anti-federal goverment, and then you're on your own. His position on the war on drugs is no different, and as for any help for people affected by his decisions, well like his opposition to health care there is always charity.

Still, maybe Stoller should ask his former boss Alan Grayson about the number of deaths related to being uninsured: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/20/937697/-What-I-Didnt-Hear

[Luminous Animal]

34. You illustrate precisely why it is important to read the entire article...

"Perhaps it’s worthy to argue that lives saved by presumed expanded health care coverage in 2013 are worth the lives lost in the drug war. It is potentially a tough calculation (depending on whether you think coverage will in fact expand in 2013)"...

Then, his next paragraph begins with this:

"But this obscures the real question, of why Paul disdains the Fed..."

In other words, perhaps this is worthy but this is why I think it isn't.

[ProSense]

37. Really?

You illustrate precisely why it is important to read the entire article...

"Perhaps it’s worthy to argue that lives saved by presumed expanded health care coverage in 2013 are worth the lives lost in the drug war. It is potentially a tough calculation (depending on whether you think coverage will in fact expand in 2013)"...

Then, his next paragraph begins with this:

"But this obscures the real question, of why Paul disdains the Fed..."

In other words, perhaps this is worthy but this is why I think it isn't.

Stoller's argument is bullshit!

But this obscures the real question, of why Paul disdains the Fed (and implicitly, why liberals do not), and the relationship between the Federal Reserve and American empire. If you go back and look at some of libertarian allies, like Fox News’s Judge Napolitano, they will answer that question for you. Napolitano hates, absolutely hates, Abraham Lincoln. He sometimes slyly refers to Lincoln as America’s first dictator. Libertarians also detest Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

What connects all three of these Presidents is one thing – big ass wars, and specifically, war financing. If you think today’s deficits are bad, well, Abraham Lincoln financed the Civil War pretty much entirely by money printing and debt creation, taking America off the gold standard. He oversaw the founding of the nation’s first national financial regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which chartered national banks and forced them to hold government debt to back currency they issued. The dollar then became the national currency, and Lincoln didn’t even back those dollars by gold (and gold is written into the Constitution). This financing of the Civil War was upheld in a series of cases over the Legal Tender Act of 1862. Prior to Lincoln, it was these United States. Afterwards, it was the United States. Lincoln fought the Civil War and centralized authority in the Federal government to do it, freeing slaves and transforming America into one nation.

<...>

This is why Ron Paul can critique the Federal Reserve and American empire, and why liberals have essentially no answer to his ideas, arguing instead over Paul having character defects. Ron Paul’s stance should be seen as a challenge to better create a coherent structural critique of the American political order. It’s quite obvious that there isn’t one coming from the left, otherwise the figure challenging the war on drugs and American empire wouldn’t be in the Republican primary as the libertarian candidate. To get there, liberals must grapple with big finance and war, two topics that are difficult to handle in any but a glib manner that separates us from our actual traditional and problematic affinity for both. War financing has a specific tradition in American culture, but there is no guarantee war financing must continue the way it has. And there’s no reason to assume that centralized power will act in a more just manner these days, that we will see continuity with the historical experience of the New Deal and Civil Rights Era. The liberal alliance with the mechanics of mass mobilizing warfare, which should be pretty obvious when seen in this light, is deep-rooted.

Liberal economists have dismantled Paul's loony economic theories. It's completely disingenuous to claim that no liberals have. As Krugman says (paraphrase), they keep insisting that they're right despite the evidence to the contrary.

[Luminous Animal]

40. Again, he is laying out what libertarians believe...

nowhere does he state that he agrees.

And you pretend that the last paragraph is addressing the previous one before it. Which it does not. You are also pretending that Krugman's critique of Libertarian economic theories have anything to do with Matt's thesis... That being addressing and finding solutions for big government and war vs big government and civil rights and social justice that isn't being led by the right wing.

[ProSense]

43. I'm

"And you pretend that the last paragraph is addressing the previous one before it. "

...not pretending anything. I'm saying it's bullshit to claim that the reason "why Ron Paul can critique the Federal Reserve and American empire, and why liberals have essentially no answer to his ideas, arguing instead over Paul having character defects."

Liberal economists have dismantled Paul's loony economic theories. It's completely disingenuous to claim that no liberals have. As Krugman says (paraphrase), they keep insisting that they're right despite the evidence to the contrary.

[girl gone mad]

48. But wait a second..

"Liberal economists have dismantled Paul's loony economic theories. It's completely disingenuous to claim that no liberals have. As Krugman says (paraphrase), they keep insisting that they're right despite the evidence to the contrary."

I read the links you use to show that "Liberal economists have dismantled Paul's loony economic theories."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/paleomonetarism

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/opinion/gop-monetary-madness.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Okay. But, here's the problem: Obama essentially agrees with Paul's "paleomonetarist" views. Outside of bailing out the banks, Obama has consistently operated from the premise that deficit hysteria is a legitimate economic perspective. The reason we didn't get a big enough stimulus, he never pushed for a significant jobs program, he had to empanel the deficit commission, he argues for "shared sacrifice", he demanded cuts to federal worker pay, etc.? Obama is a "paleomonetarist".

You complain about Ron Paul's nutty Austrian views, the nuttiest of which must certainly be his plan to reinstate the gold standard, but the President designs economic policy for the masses as if we are on a gold standard now. His neomonetarist views are reserved for the wealthy, the war machine and the banks. That's the simple truth of the matter. Why else were banks gifted trillions after they wrecked the economy while the poor were told they had to make do with less money for heating oil?

[ProSense]

50. Yeah

"Okay. But, here's the problem: Obama essentially agrees with Paul's 'paleomonetarist' views."

OK, Obama = Paul.

[girl gone mad]

52. I don't think it's fair of you to state that "Obama=Paul"

One wants to put everyone back on the gold standard, the other only pretends that the poor and middle classes must be subjected to an imaginary gold standard.

Paleomonetarist v. semi-paleomonetarist

[ProSense]

54. OK

One wants to put everyone back on the gold standard, the other only pretends that the poor and middle classes must be subjected to an imaginary gold standard.

Paleomonetarist v. semi-paleomonetarist

...that's simply nonsensical. Also, the constant defense of some of Paul's views in contrast to Obama isn't because Obama is Paul lite.

[girl gone mad]

55. Can you be more specific here?

Please elucidate the ways in which you believe my point to be "nonsensical".

Clearly Obama shares Paul's concern over deficits, albeit less so when crafting policy relating to bank bailouts, corporate giveaways or war financing.

I'm not defending Paul's views. Both Paul and Obama have a very poor grasp of economics as far as I'm concerned. You call Austrian economics kooky, but I've been trying to tell you as much for years now. Gold standards, real or imagined, are indeed kooky.

[girl gone mad]

57. Can we agree then?

Pretending that the poor and middle classes must make hard sacrifices so that we can "reduce the deficit" because of a quasi-Austrian economic outlook which chains the productive economy to a fantasy gold standard (as Obama has done) is just as kooky as wanting to put everyone back on a real gold standard.

OK?

I feel like we got somewhere, don't you?

[leveymg]

17. Past a point, "failed policies, including the lack of oversight" is structural failure.

You seem to ignore it that it is the conventional economic wisdom held by Obama and the radical centrist leadership of both parties that has created America's present economic, political, and social crises. Neither GG nor Stoller have said "that Democrats are the bad guys and the cause of everything wrong with the country. They ask you to overlook the Republicans' flaws and lunacy." That's a straw man, a rhetorical device you use a lot of.

The Austrians have a valid point that the financial system is massively distorted because trading in financial derivatives based in state debt instruments -- the Repo and Public Debt Markets -- dwarfs trading in private stocks and bonds. It isn't just the economic primatives who warn of the dangers of such a system that depends upon the expectations of private profits from public debt and public bailouts of markets. Krugman's great early contribution to the field was his analysis of the '97 Asia Crisis, in which he observed that such a system that includes state guarantees of profits is prone to market bubbles and blowouts because of the Pangloss Value (Krugman's term) that results from traders expectation of bailouts in interconnected markets.

As for the Paleocon welfare economics and some of his social policy, neither Stoller nor GG endorse Paul. So, why do you continue to post stuff that makes it seem that they do, unless you are simply confused?

[ProSense]

25. Wrong

"Past a point, 'failed policies, including the lack of oversight' is structural failure."

There is nothing wrong with the structure of the FDIC. Regulators who turn a blind eye to enforcement is a people failure. Of course, it may be endemic of structural failures elsewhere, as in money in politics, but it's not a structural failure of the FDIC.

By that logic, past failure to enforce under the NLRB would be considered a structural failure of the NLRB.

"As for the Paleocon welfare economics and some of his social policy, neither Stoller nor GG endorse Paul. So, why do you continue to post stuff that makes it seem that they do, unless you are simply confused?"

Yeah, my continuing to post stuff is why Stoller continues to write stuff, right?

You may want to ignore his writing, but I choose not to. Is that OK?

[girl gone mad]

58. "Regulators who turn a blind eye to enforcement is a people failure."

When it happens on a large scale because the regulators have been replaced by banking industry sycophants, it's regulatory capture. That's a structural failure. The system has failed.

"You may want to ignore his writing, but I choose not to. Is that OK?"

It's not necessary to resort to these types of silly tactics. leveymg has clearly read Stoller's writing. Have you? I mean, really, have you actually read it?

[girl gone mad]

10. Stoller is correct.

If you ever tire of trashing liberals long enough to take the time and effort required to truly understand the points he's making, you might find that you stand on common ground.

Austrians are wrong, but they are no more kooky than neoclassical economists on the whole. Each school clings to illogical and unscientific ideas. At least Krugman is, at long last, stepping away from some of the dogma.

Stoller acknowledges the only economic model that has proven itself useful and right over the last few years and that puts him ahead in my book.

[ProSense]

14. You

"If you ever tire of trashing liberals long enough to take the time and effort required to truly understand the points he's making, you might find that you stand on common ground."

...may want to try acknowledging my arguments instead of spending all your time trying to attack me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=148214


"Austrians are wrong, but they are no more kooky than neoclassical economists on the whole. Each school clings to illogical and unscientific ideas. At least Krugman is, at long last, stepping away from some of the dogma."

You can't be serious? You're taking an kooky theory and equating it with a theory that liberals do not subscribe to, and then claiming that Krugman is moving away from it?


You know, I read enough to know where a lot of this bullshit is coming from. Libertarians support libertarians, and they don't give a damn about the Democratic Party, even the most liberal people associated with it.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1053278/44545154#c47

There is a reason Stoller is peddling his ideas at Naked Capitalism.

[girl gone mad]

19. You really should work toward getting better reading comprehension.

>> "Austrians are wrong, but they are no more kooky than neoclassical economists on the whole. Each school clings to illogical and unscientific ideas. At least Krugman is, at long last, stepping away from some of the dogma."

> You can't be serious? You're taking an kooky theory and equating it with a theory that liberals do not subscribe to, and then claiming that Krugman is moving away from it?

How am I doing that, precisely?


> There is a reason Stoller is peddling his ideas at Naked Capitalism.

Care to to tell us what this reason is?

[ProSense]

21. OK

"Care to to tell us what this reason is?"

...because they both believe Ron Paul's message on the Fed, war and the war on drugs challenges liberals.

I believe Ron Paul is a kook and his message has nothing to do with liberal positions.

>> "Austrians are wrong, but they are no more kooky than neoclassical economists on the whole. Each school clings to illogical and unscientific ideas. At least Krugman is, at long last, stepping away from some of the dogma."

> You can't be serious? You're taking an kooky theory and equating it with a theory that liberals do not subscribe to, and then claiming that Krugman is moving away from it?

How am I doing that, precisely?

So you didn't equate "Austrian" to "neoclassical economists" and suggest that "Krugman is, at long last, stepping away from some of the dogma"?

That's how I read what you wrote.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. So the President agrees with Paul on marriage equality. And they state the same religious

'reasons' for that opposition. .Seems they both believe Ron Paul's message on the rights of others. They each speak of State's Rights controlling human rights.
So they agree. On a huge issue, for the same daft 'reasons'. Dogma and rhetoric. So it seems Paul is the sort that agrees with most people on one thing, just not on others. Or, is it fair to insist that since the each shout 'Sanctity' and oppose equal rights that they are in other ways associated, that they agree on other things? If agreeing with Paul on A thing is an indictment, all who oppose marriage equality are indicted in their agreement with him.
Or is it ok to agree with him on teh gay? Is that it?

[ProSense]

47. Here's

"So the President agrees with Paul on marriage equality. "

...what Ron Paul doesn't agree with Obama on:

Ron Paul Condemns Obama's Decision to Abandon DOMA

Congressman Ron Paul issued the following statement in response to Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement that the Obama Administration will cease to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) against legal challenges.

“The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 to stop Big Government in Washington from re-defining marriage and forcing its definition on the States. Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected.

“I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state. I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/ron-paul-condemns-obama%E2%80%99s-decision-to-abandon-doma/

[girl gone mad]

41. "because they both believe Ron Paul's message on the Fed"

That statement is more than a little bit disingenuous, don't you think?

Paul wants to end Central Banking altogether. Naked Capitalism supports having a strong Central Bank.

The only thing the two camps would agree on is that the Federal Reserve is a deeply corrupted institution. Can you argue that it is not?

Austrians like Paul and Neoclassicists like Krugman each believe in certain economic ideas not supported in any way by reality. You cite Krugman's critiques of Austrian economics in your OP, intending to attack Stoller. Stoller is not an Austrian or a Neoliberal Neoclassicist. He's a progressive who generally writes from the perspective of someone with a good understanding of Post-Keynesian economics and MMT.

[ProSense]

49. No

"'because they both believe Ron Paul's message on the Fed' That statement is more than a little bit disingenuous, don't you think?"

...because I think you knew you took it out of context.

Full comment: because they both believe Ron Paul's message on the Fed, war and the war on drugs challenges liberals.

I specifically used the word "challenges" because Stoller used it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/100287685

[girl gone mad]

53. I'm still confused about why you think this means Stoller has to post..

on Naked Capitalism.

I don't get what you think the connection is.

[ProSense]

59. Because

"I'm still confused about why you think this means Stoller has to post..on Naked Capitalism. "

...he posts there. Do you disagree that he posts there? I mean, seriously, what are you arguing?

[banned from Kos]

23. they are consumed with destroying the Federal Reserve and Ron Paul is their ally

Their new motto should be "We're all Birchers Now". They have a misguided notion that the Fed is funding war and oppressive banks.

Great work. I missed all this but the original Stoller article.

[girl gone mad]

42. Congrats, Prosense!

"banned from Kos" is on your side.

Winning!

[banned from Kos]

45. you are jealous, aren't you?

I want a new name - "guy gone mad".

peace.

[MFrohike]

56. Haha, misguided

Two wars exclusively financed by deficit spending relied heavily on low borrowing costs. Greenspan especially held interest rates abnormally low for an extended period which made financing those wars far less expensive than it would have been without his intervention.

Those low interest rates played quite a large role in the subprime crisis or hadn't you heard? A virtually unlimited source of cheap funds with no restrictions attached? When in history HASN'T that resulted in a speculative boom? So, yes, the Federal Reserve has played a large role in aiding the banks in the creation of the crisis and is currently propping up a few of the big ones because they are essentially insolvent. The hope is that they'll grow their way out of their problems, but the most on point scenario, Japan, suggests that that will not happen.

[jefferson_dem]

35. I just came across Stoller's stupid screed this am and literally laughed out loud.

How anyone takes this fool seriously is beyond me... Yes, fool... for all the obvious, self-evident reasons.

[MrCoffee]

36. I honestly don't understand the bile

That article raises legitimate, valid questions that (to my mind) deserve to actually be discussed, rather than to just dismiss casually as the "stupid screed" of a "fool".

You found some obvious, self-evident reasons to ignore and dismiss the article out of hand. I did not. Would it be too much to ask what those reasons are?

[JackRiddler]

38. Reasonable question - good luck looking for an answer.

What, are you defending Stoller and/or feeding puppies into a Cuisinart? You're either with us or with the terrorists! Ooga booga! Enemies and defeatists! Deviationists! Ron Paul! Catchphrase!

[banned from Kos]

44. Monetary policy is not a scheme for liberals to wage large scale wars.

Stoller is claiming Lincoln (greenback), Wilson (Federal Reserve) and FDR (breaking the gold link) all expanded money supply to start wars and enable the direct big bank financing of the war machine. He is saying we are puppets to the banking/war cabal.

Wars have been prevalent throughout history with or without a central bank.

[JackRiddler]

46. Good thing your title line has nothing to do with what Stoller said.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. I wish you all would laugh out loud at Paul and the President on marriage equality on

which they agree, they oppose it and speak of State's Rights in regard to human rights. Oddly, I do not see the dogma spouted out of each of their mouths decried as 'stupid screeds' and I don't see straights laughing out loud when either of them starts in on God and State's rights and Sanctity and all. I mean, Sanctity? Seriously? Y'all listen to them say that stuff, and none of your laugh out loud and say 'stupid screed' although it is funny stuff, stupid stuff.
I long for the day that straights laugh out loud at the agreement of Paul and the President on equal rights for all.

[stevenleser]

51. EarlG has it right when it comes to Ron Paul. nt