Friday, June 17, 2011

A "Sophisticated" Diss of Ron Paul

Some anonymous, but sophisticated, character just tweeted this about Ron Paul:
I think what annoys me most abt Ron Paul is that he thinks his views are so much more sophisticated than everyone else's. They're really not
And this:
Ron Paul's views have all the sophistication of a college freshman who just finished reading "Road to Serfdom" and "Free to Choose"
So what do we know about this anonymous tweeter? He runs a blog called Economics of Contempt, where he tells us:
I have an M.A. in Economics from NYU, and a J.D. from NYU School of Law.

In between grad school and law school, I worked on Capitol Hill. I worked for a little over two years as a legislative aide on the House side (Democratic), and then I worked for a political consulting firm for a year.
So what is really behind his qualifications to diss Ron Paul? Well, he tells us:
I used to specialize in derivatives and structured finance (you know, back when there was a structured finance market).
What was Ron Paul doing, when this sophisticated, connected poser was blowing up the financial world? Doing something real simple, which, I am sure, was absolutely beneath the dignity of our poser. He was buying gold stocks when gold was near $250 an ounce.

Hey, Mr. Anonymous, do you want to compare the performance of your sophisticated derivatives portfolio against Ron Paul's portfolio?

Aside from that, it appears, Mr. Anonymous, that Ron Paul's views are more sophisticated than yours.

You mention the works of Hayek and Friedman in your tweet, which means you are labeling Ron Paul a libertarian, and lumping in Hayek and Friedman as the top libertarian influences. While I don't think Ron Paul would say that he didn't learn anything from Hayek and Friedman, his view is much more sophisticated than that of the Beltarians,who are the only ones who would mention Hayek and Friedman first. Ron Paul's major influences are Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt and Murray Rothbard. Indeed, Milton Friedman wasn't in favor of the gold standard. He wanted some kind of mathematical steady growth in the money supply, which puts him a lot closer to your mathematical blow-up portfolios method of thinking than it does to Ron Paul's gold standard thinking.

16 comments:

  1. Nice. You work just as fast as Ron Paul does...he always has a bill ready when an unconstitutional piece of legislation passes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nailed it. Bravo.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh, that tweeter is so sophisticated!

    ReplyDelete
  4. NadePaulKuciGravMcKiJune 17, 2011 at 7:41 PM

    they project their insecurity

    ReplyDelete
  5. The reason I put little faith in politicians such as Ron Paul, while they may be principled, is that no nation has ever voted itself out of the type of mess we are in.

    It has always been decline and destruction. It is as if you expect Greece to vote against benefits and spending.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have to chime in and agree- beautiful breakdown of the idiocy of the "economist/lawyer" in question.

    I worry about these people once things start spinning completely out of control.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Beltarians"

    RW: Never heard it before, but I love it!

    ReplyDelete
  8. You see Mr. Sophisticated has moved on to being a sophomore now. Has been talking to all those dorm mates who expressed concern about his lack of understanding of social justice issues and now he has learned the sophisticated truth. A sophisticated moron for life.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wenzel wrote: "Hey, Mr. Anonymous, do you want to compare the performance of your sophisticated derivatives portfolio against Ron Paul's portfolio?"

    perfect question.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why do they always mention Hayek and Friedman but never Mises or Rothbard? Most likely, they have never heard of the latter. Or maybe it's that Hayek and Friedman, because of their considerable inconsistencies and deviations, are much easier to refute.

    Also, if Ron Paul sounds like a freshman who has just read Hayek, then what does that make most other politicians? Freshmen who have just read Keynes and Marx? What's more sophisticated about that?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Who really cares what people like this think? From my POV, they are irrelevant. The primary reason reason I am here and listening to people like Paul and the Austrians is that you guys have a track record of being right on the money more often the the mainstream hacks. If the mainstream were the ones right on the money then I would listen to them and ignore the Austrians, but history has demonstrated they are clueless. What good is it being an expert in your field, if your knowledge cannot help you see tomorrow? What I learned from the last two bubbles is that the mainstream has no more understanding of economics and what is going to happen next then the average guy in the street. Talk predictability track record with these guys, and they have no leg to stand on.

    ReplyDelete
  12. LOL. I emailed him your response. He wrote back: Ha. That was before most of the comments here, and so, he's got nothing to say in his defense.

    ReplyDelete
  13. ''In between grad school and law school, I worked on Capitol Hill. I worked for a little over two years as a legislative aide on the House side (Democratic), and then I worked for a political consulting firm for a year.''

    What sophisticated professional talks like that? These ''little over two years'' or ''for a year'' are words that some college punk would use. Just like it was very important for a kid to let you know that he is 12 and a half. Or 2 months away from 16. Does Ron Paul talks about every minor job he has ever had? Every minor position he has ever held? These 1-2 year jobs are nothing - nobody cares about them, so why still mention it? Well, if you're just out of college and that's all you got... okay.

    My point is that this Mr. Anonymous is just some stupid kid trying to get his attention. His fancy formulas and investment strategies... buuu. I'm a pro trader and investor myself and I don't use any complicated formulas, scripts or whateva - I trade what I see. I consider myself a next Jesse Livermore - he didn't have hundreds of quants working for him or any supercomputers trying to make it all so complicated. The key and money is in simplicity, as my performance is clearly pointing out.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Check out his posts containing the word "Austrian"

    http://economicsofcontempt.blogspot.com/search?q=Austrian

    In response to an Austrian critique of the housing bust, he writes:

    "You see? The problem was not enough market forces!"

    Just what the world needs. Another dim-witted Keynesian cement-head.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mr. Ron Paul for 2012.
    Regan said, “What to ask is am I better off now than 4 years ago. Is food cheaper now than 4 years ago? Are taxes lower now than 4 years ago? Is the job situation better than it was 4 years ago?”
    With Ron Paul’s 2012, You, it, and they would be.
    Constitutionally, legislatively, and morally, Ron Paul has no equal. His 22 year voting record speaks for itself.
    As Mr. Regan said, "You ain't seen nothin yet!"

    ReplyDelete