Skip to main content

Paul vs Paul: Do You Support Libertarian Ron or Progressive Krugman?

Bloomberg TV had a fascinating interview face-off with economist and New York Times writer Paul Krugman vs Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. I've listed the ways they disagree. Which one do you more closely identify with?
I like to learn from both Paul Krugman and Ron Paul.  That's why I particularly liked the interview shown below.  First, though, here's the list of items they talked about:

Ron Paul Paul Krugman
Supports a small federal government. Supports a big federal government.
Free markets working in a natural way with minimal regulation. Likes free market but supports substantial regulation of it.
Governments are not supposed to run the economy. You can't leave the government out of monetary policy.  The Central bank will always be in business of managing the money.
Government manipulation of the economy causes great fluctuations. An unmanaged economy is subject to great fluctuations
The Great Depression was caused by Federal Reserve. The Great Depression was a result of a free market economy run amok.
Inflation is theft from people who are trying to save money. A little bit of inflation is healthy.
After World War II, the economy improved due to a return to freer market principles. After World War II growth the US economy money management, including mild inflation and strong government regulation. 
Ron likes some of the principles Milton Friedman stands for, dislikes others. Krugman thinks Milton Friedman would be on the left of the political debate today.
Wants to end the monopoly on money that the Federal Reserve has. Thinks the Federal Reserve does a great job managing the US economy.
Believes in the viability and healthiness of a gold standard. Thinks the gold standard is outdated.
Thinks the Federal Reserve was the primary cause of the 2009 Great Recession. Thinks private individuals were the primary cause of the 2009 Great Recession.
Thinks an economic catastrophe could happen at any time with our level of debt, particularly because other countries have less trust and respect for our dollar. Thinks US is nowhere near an economic catastrophe with our level of debt.
Federal Reserve and Central banks are ideas that came about in the modern era The idea of central money management has always been a good idea.

Below is a video of the full interview.


I think they both did a great job representing their own views.  I, however, identify more closely with what Ron Paul stands for. What's your opinion?

Comments

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

Red Clothing and Resurrection: Jesus Christ's Second Coming

The scriptures teach that when Christ comes again to the earth, that he will be wearing red apparel. Why red ? They also teach that at Christ's coming, many of the dead will become resurrected. Will this only include members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Not by a long shot, no matter what some Mormon might tell you.
2 comments
Read more

School Vouchers: "The Bramble Memo"

$429 million? What? Where? The legislative fiscal analyst for the State of Utah calculated the costs to the public schools over the next 13 years if school vouchers are implemented. It said the costs would be $5.5M in the first year, and $71M in the 13th year. Suddenly, the number I have started seeing thrown around was $429 million, the total costs for vouchers over 13 years. Where did that number come from? Enter the mysterious "Bramble Memo". In the past few days several of us (Jeremy, Utah Taxpayer, Craig, Sara, Urban Koda, Jesse, and me) have (sometimes?) enjoyed a lively discussion about school vouchers in Utah . Jeremy clarified to me the costs of the venture by linking to a copy of the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Impartial Analysis (LFA) of the costs of Vouchers , found on "The Senate Site". In my previous voucher article, I quoted some of Lavar Webb's article from last Sunday's Deseret News, wherein he stated that those total costs ...
66 comments
Read more

American Energy Independence: I Support "All of the Above"

Of course it will take several years to develop new domestic petroleum production. But it will take a lot longer to develop a lot of other alternative energy sources. I would LOVE to not have to rely on oil for anything, but that's a ways off. That's why I support the latest legislation in Congress that supports "All of the Above"--developing all energy sources, including oil, so that we can be energy independent. It really drives me nuts when people say we shouldn't develop domestic oil production because it won't be productive for 7-10 years. That would be a workable argument if we could have enough alternative energy by that time that we wouldn't need oil. I don't think, though, that anybody believes that. In congress recently, legislation was introduced to do encourage the development of all forms of energy. HR 6656, also known as " All of the Above ", will solve that problem, but apparently Nancy Pelosi thinks that at least two ...
54 comments
Read more