WEBVTT

NOTE Ron Paul and Contemporary Economics

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:07.740
Our next speaker earned his PhD in Intellectual History at UCLA. He's editor of the Mises

2
00:00:07.740 --> 00:00:14.040
Review, senior fellow at Ludwig von Mises Institute. He has a number of books, Resurrecting

3
00:00:14.040 --> 00:00:20.220
Marks, Filsovka Origins of Austrian Economics, Introduction to Economic Reasoning, which

4
00:00:20.220 --> 00:00:25.720
I believe we have out front. He teaches a number of courses in the Mises Academy. And

5
00:00:25.720 --> 00:00:31.960
And if you haven't have an experience in Mises Academy, please go to our website, Mises.org,

6
00:00:31.960 --> 00:00:35.640
go down to the bottom of the page and see what we're offering.

7
00:00:35.640 --> 00:00:40.800
Our next speaker has a number of very, very interesting courses that he teaches and it's

8
00:00:40.800 --> 00:00:43.040
a great way to learn economics.

9
00:00:43.040 --> 00:00:48.300
He's the editor of Succession, State and Liberty, author of The Essential Rothbard.

10
00:00:48.300 --> 00:00:55.300
He's speaking today about Ron Paul and contemporary economics and we always refer to him as the

11
00:00:55.720 --> 00:01:02.720
The smartest guy in any room. Please help me welcome David Gordon.

12
00:01:07.320 --> 00:01:13.580
I should say the reason I'm not standing behind the podium is I'm following the advice of

13
00:01:13.580 --> 00:01:20.580
my friend Walter Block, who's been kind enough to give me help on speaking over many years.

14
00:01:20.580 --> 00:01:28.460
You know, Walter is an amazingly prolific author. I understand he's working on a sequel

15
00:01:28.460 --> 00:01:38.220
to his famous book, Defending the Undefendable, which is going to be called Blocking the Unblockable.

16
00:01:38.220 --> 00:01:46.460
I have to speak to you today on Ron Paul and contemporary economics. When we talk about

17
00:01:46.460 --> 00:01:52.660
Contemporary Economics. Of course, there's a particular kind of contemporary economics

18
00:01:52.660 --> 00:01:59.660
that Ron Paul favors, and it'll come as no surprise that this is Austrian economics.

19
00:02:00.440 --> 00:02:07.440
Ron Paul has been a close student of the Austrian greats, including Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich

20
00:02:07.440 --> 00:02:14.440
Hayek, and Hans Senholtz. And particularly, he's been very close to Murray Rothbard, whom

21
00:02:14.440 --> 00:02:38.440
who he not only had read but had met personally. Rothbard thought very highly of him and Ron Paul tells the story that when he first met Rothbard, Rothbard was amazed that Ron had read one of his articles on monetary theory.

22
00:02:38.440 --> 00:02:44.200
So, Ron Paul is a real intellectual in politics.

23
00:02:44.200 --> 00:02:58.520
Now, Ron Paul uses Austrian economics to really resolve what I consider the most important

24
00:02:58.520 --> 00:03:01.520
issue facing economic policy today.

25
00:03:01.520 --> 00:03:03.960
It's a fundamental split.

26
00:03:03.960 --> 00:03:13.400
And the split is this, today there are very few if any economists who favor outright socialism

27
00:03:13.400 --> 00:03:20.160
since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

28
00:03:20.160 --> 00:03:27.720
Outright socialism is not really conceived as a viable option by anyone, perhaps the only

29
00:03:27.720 --> 00:03:34.800
The exception to that are to be found in members of English departments in various university

30
00:03:34.800 --> 00:03:36.800
faculties.

31
00:03:36.800 --> 00:03:44.760
But the real split is between those who favor relying on the free market entirely and those

32
00:03:44.760 --> 00:03:52.940
who say, no, although the market is good in its place, the market has to be guided and

33
00:03:52.940 --> 00:04:22.940
are being limited by the government. The government particularly is as advised by experts. So we have people who say the free market can people can operate on their own. They don't need the coercive so-called help of government to carry out their activities. And those who say no, no, we need the government to guide things. Ron Paul in his recent book defining

34
00:04:22.940 --> 00:04:44.980
In the remark by Oliver Wendell Holmes, probably the most famous of all American jurists, when

35
00:04:44.980 --> 00:04:50.220
he said that taxation is the price we pay for civilization.

36
00:04:50.220 --> 00:04:57.800
So we see Holmes was saying we need to have a government in order to run things people

37
00:04:57.800 --> 00:05:04.400
can't operate by themselves and taxation is the price we pay for this.

38
00:05:04.400 --> 00:05:12.100
When Tom DiLorenzo told that story about what Gary North had said about Alexander Hamilton,

39
00:05:12.100 --> 00:05:19.020
I couldn't help thinking that when Albert Wendell Holmes had been left for dead in the

40
00:05:19.020 --> 00:05:23.220
in the field of the Battle of Antietam when he was a very young man, and I can't help

41
00:05:23.220 --> 00:05:32.340
thinking it would have been better for American law had he not been found, but that's characteristically

42
00:05:32.340 --> 00:05:36.420
mean of me, so I won't go on along that line.

43
00:05:36.420 --> 00:05:46.660
Now we have a paradox, I said that Ron Paul uses Austrian economics to help resolve this

44
00:05:46.660 --> 00:05:55.820
question of which policy should we follow, should we rely on people operating by themselves

45
00:05:55.820 --> 00:06:02.500
on the free market or do we need government to advise us? So the paradox is how can Austrian

46
00:06:02.500 --> 00:06:11.020
economics help us answer that question if economics is, Mises and Rothbard characterizes

47
00:06:11.020 --> 00:06:18.300
is a value-free science, so how can we use Austrian economics to help us decide policy

48
00:06:18.300 --> 00:06:22.180
questions if it's purely descriptive science?

49
00:06:22.180 --> 00:06:27.780
I think the answer to this lies in a point that was made very effectively by Mises when

50
00:06:27.780 --> 00:06:37.500
he said that economists, without making value judgments of his own, can show that interventions

51
00:06:37.500 --> 00:06:42.360
in the market will fail from the point of view of their own advocates.

52
00:06:42.360 --> 00:06:50.700
So we can say that all measures of intervention in the economy won't succeed.

53
00:06:50.700 --> 00:06:56.140
So without the economists saying, well, I'm in favor of the free market, I like the free

54
00:06:56.140 --> 00:07:02.940
market, I don't like government, we can still make a scientific statement that these policies

55
00:07:02.940 --> 00:07:03.940
won't work.

56
00:07:03.940 --> 00:07:12.980
I think Ron Paul has very ably used the analysis of Austrian economics to show the manifold

57
00:07:12.980 --> 00:07:15.500
failures of government policies.

58
00:07:15.500 --> 00:07:23.180
I want to consider the most famous of his uses of Austrian economics, and this comes

59
00:07:23.180 --> 00:07:30.340
out in his long-standing crusade against the Federal Reserve system, probably found in

60
00:07:30.340 --> 00:07:33.700
most detail in his book, End the Fed.

61
00:07:33.700 --> 00:07:41.700
Now, what he, Ron Paul, follows the Austrian theory of the business cycle, which previous

62
00:07:41.700 --> 00:07:48.260
speakers have mentioned, and according to this theory, the cause of depression is an

63
00:07:48.260 --> 00:07:55.340
expansion of the monetary supply, expansion of bank credit, which drives the interest

64
00:07:55.340 --> 00:08:21.340
and the interest rate down, and as a result, investments are encouraged that don't really reflect consumer preferences, and so then these businesses, once the monetary expansion ceases, are bound to collapse, and that's the depression phase of the economy, when these businesses collapse.

65
00:08:21.340 --> 00:08:51.300
So, on this view, the government should not keep, needs to stay out of the inflation altogether and once these businesses do collapse, it should definitely not increase government spending because that will only delay the process of adjustment where these businesses that have been malinvestments need to be liquidated.

66
00:08:51.340 --> 00:09:08.340
So if that's the case, if the government shouldn't be in charge of the monetary supply, then the question actually arises, well, how should the money supply be run in a free market?

67
00:09:08.340 --> 00:09:21.340
And here, what Ron Paul says is, again, one of his most characteristic positions, is that we need to leave the money supply entirely to the free market.

68
00:09:21.340 --> 00:09:34.340
And in the free market, we find, historically, that money has been a commodity, particularly gold, and he's very well famous as an advocate of the gold standard.

69
00:09:34.340 --> 00:09:58.340
and then he's also suggested following Hayek that we should allow private competition in money and then whatever was the best money would be established on the free market and he leaves little room for doubt that what this money would be would be a gold standard.

70
00:09:58.340 --> 00:10:07.260
Now, given the cogency of Ron Paul's analysis of both the failures of the Federal Reserve

71
00:10:07.260 --> 00:10:14.100
system and the benefits of the commodity standard, particularly the gold standard, we need to

72
00:10:14.100 --> 00:10:27.020
face the question, why don't more politicians adopt this proposal? Why do they insist on

73
00:10:27.020 --> 00:10:33.100
Other theories, in particular the Keynesian theory, which says that what the government

74
00:10:33.100 --> 00:10:39.920
needs in times of depression to increase government spending, if the Austrian analysis shows this

75
00:10:39.920 --> 00:10:45.900
isn't going to work, it'll be counterproductive, why are they so anxious to increase government

76
00:10:45.900 --> 00:10:50.860
spending and why do they disregard the Austrian analysis?

77
00:10:50.860 --> 00:11:03.380
And what Ron Paul suggests is that the support for Keynesianism is very often motivated by

78
00:11:03.380 --> 00:11:10.140
the desire of those in government to gain power and to increase the role of the government

79
00:11:10.140 --> 00:11:12.660
in running the economy.

80
00:11:12.660 --> 00:11:20.060
It's not that they think in a disinterested way that Keynesian economics is better than

81
00:11:20.060 --> 00:11:27.620
in Austrian Economics. It's just that if you have a system where the government is told

82
00:11:27.620 --> 00:11:35.020
to spend a lot of money, this will produce an increase in power for the politicians who

83
00:11:35.020 --> 00:11:43.140
favor that policy. And in this connection he points out again in Defining the Liberty

84
00:11:43.140 --> 00:11:49.860
that when Keynes wrote his famous book, General Theory of Employment, Interest in Money in

85
00:11:49.860 --> 00:11:59.060
in 1936. He wasn't telling the government to do something that it hadn't been already

86
00:11:59.060 --> 00:12:05.020
doing. The government, say under Franklin Roosevelt, was already spending a lot of money.

87
00:12:05.020 --> 00:12:12.260
And what Keynes did was really give an intellectual rationale for what the government was doing

88
00:12:12.260 --> 00:12:24.780
Now, I think we can see one illustration of Ron Paul's excellent point that the advocates

89
00:12:24.780 --> 00:12:32.580
of Keynesian economics very often wanted to promote the role of the government in the

90
00:12:32.580 --> 00:12:35.380
economy simply to increase their own power.

91
00:12:35.380 --> 00:12:42.740
In a recent column by Paul Krugman, Krugman of course is the famous Nobel Prize winner

92
00:12:42.740 --> 00:12:51.780
and we're able to absorb his wisdom a few times a week in the pages of New York Times.

93
00:12:51.780 --> 00:12:59.780
Now what Krugman said in the column I have in mind was he was responding to the view

94
00:12:59.780 --> 00:13:19.780
I do that the policy, interventionist policy, such as those favored by the present administration really delay recovery because investors are reluctant to invest if they don't know what the government is intending to do.

95
00:13:19.780 --> 00:13:27.780
This, of course, is the famous notion of regime uncertainty that Bob Higgs will be talking about this afternoon.

96
00:13:27.780 --> 00:13:40.780
So, what was Krugman's response to this? Remember, the argument is that business people will not invest because they don't know what the government intends.

97
00:13:40.780 --> 00:13:51.780
They don't know. Maybe they'll think, well, if we invest, then maybe the government is going to tax away our profits, so we don't know what the government's doing, so we're not going to invest.

98
00:13:51.780 --> 00:13:57.020
So the argument then is that the spending policies won't work.

99
00:13:57.020 --> 00:14:03.080
So Krugman says, oh, this is really not a good argument at all, because what this argument

100
00:14:03.080 --> 00:14:11.220
neglects is that the government can simply create the jobs directly by spending the money.

101
00:14:11.220 --> 00:14:13.860
It doesn't have to depend on investors.

102
00:14:13.860 --> 00:14:18.420
And of course, what he's not mentioning is that if the government does that, then it's

103
00:14:18.420 --> 00:14:25.220
is going to be taking over those parts of the economy in which it's creating the job.

104
00:14:25.220 --> 00:14:33.420
So we can see here, just as Ron Paul suggests, that the Keynesian policies are designed to

105
00:14:33.420 --> 00:14:38.460
increase the power of the government.

106
00:14:38.460 --> 00:14:46.820
I must say after one reads Paul Krugman, he's certainly one of those professors that Oscar

107
00:14:46.820 --> 00:14:56.580
Mr. Wilde had in mind when he said that their ignorance is the product of long study.

108
00:14:56.580 --> 00:15:08.160
Now I think we can see in other areas of economics where Ron Paul has put the Austrian theory

109
00:15:08.160 --> 00:15:22.200
to Very Good Use. For example, in considering wage policy, he points out on minimum wages.

110
00:15:22.200 --> 00:15:29.960
He says, again, following standard Austrian here, also conventional mainstream economic

111
00:15:29.960 --> 00:15:40.800
Analysis. If you artificially increase the price of a good higher than the market price,

112
00:15:40.800 --> 00:15:49.880
then people will not want to, there will be a surplus of that commodity. So if you have

113
00:15:49.880 --> 00:16:00.560
minimum wage legislation that drives, results in certain workers. If you want to hire these

114
00:16:00.560 --> 00:16:09.800
workers you'll have to pay more than they're actually producing. They won't be hired. This

115
00:16:09.800 --> 00:16:14.840
is the point that Walter Block has emphasized a great deal. Ron Paul puts it this way, he

116
00:16:14.840 --> 00:16:21.840
Well, if a minimum wage is good, why not a minimum wage of $75 an hour?

117
00:16:21.840 --> 00:16:26.840
Wouldn't that be good? Then everybody could be earning a very high salary.

118
00:16:26.840 --> 00:16:32.840
But of course, the problem is, if people, if you had a minimum wage of that amount,

119
00:16:32.840 --> 00:16:40.840
then anyone who's not contributing to the product as much as that would not be hired by anyone.

120
00:16:40.840 --> 00:16:49.480
So here we see a perfect illustration of how the Austrian point that the intervention in

121
00:16:49.480 --> 00:16:58.960
the economy will fail of its own purpose. It's not going to be able to achieve the ends that

122
00:16:58.960 --> 00:17:05.680
people who favor it wanted because presumably when the people who favor minimum wages don't

123
00:17:05.680 --> 00:17:17.680
We don't want to produce unemployment for those who won't be employable at the minimum wage, but that's what's going to happen.

124
00:17:17.680 --> 00:17:31.680
And in like fashion, we can see that labor unions won't be able to raise wages beyond what the free market would have given them.

125
00:17:31.680 --> 00:17:37.480
only benefits certain workers at the expense of others.

126
00:17:37.480 --> 00:17:46.720
So in considering these various forms of intervention in the economy, I think Ron Paul makes another

127
00:17:46.720 --> 00:17:53.440
fundamental point in addition to analyzing the purely economic consequences of these

128
00:17:53.440 --> 00:17:55.800
various types of intervention.

129
00:17:55.800 --> 00:18:00.480
And this, I think, is one of his best insights.

130
00:18:00.480 --> 00:18:10.320
He thinks that there's a moral dimension to the various programs of government intervention.

131
00:18:10.320 --> 00:18:17.720
And here, when he says this, he's not speaking as an economist. Remember, economics is value

132
00:18:17.720 --> 00:18:25.680
free, but he's certainly free to give his own moral views when he's talking about economics.

133
00:18:25.680 --> 00:18:32.840
And he says, he talks particularly of moral hazard, which he takes in a rather wider

134
00:18:32.840 --> 00:18:36.680
sense than is usual among most economists.

135
00:18:36.680 --> 00:18:46.320
And what he suggests is that in a society in which the people rely on the government

136
00:18:46.320 --> 00:18:55.320
for their welfare, say, then we'll have a state of affairs where people don't act with

137
00:18:55.320 --> 00:18:57.120
with Individual Responsibility.

138
00:18:57.120 --> 00:19:00.640
They won't take responsibility for their own lives.

139
00:19:00.640 --> 00:19:07.680
They'll instead look for the government to help them out, to bail them out of difficulties.

140
00:19:07.680 --> 00:19:15.200
And he thinks that this, I think rightly, that this will lead to a collapse of the culture

141
00:19:15.200 --> 00:19:21.520
and society in which we live if people don't take individual responsibility.

142
00:19:21.520 --> 00:19:29.840
As an example, he talks in his latest book, Defining Liberty, refers to the famous case

143
00:19:29.840 --> 00:19:36.120
in 1979 of the bailout of the Chrysler Corporation.

144
00:19:36.120 --> 00:19:44.080
And since that time, we've had large companies and banks take very risky policies because

145
00:19:44.080 --> 00:19:50.680
they have good reason to think that the government won't let them collapse.

146
00:19:50.680 --> 00:20:07.720
doesn't always work, but it very often happens that the company will think, well, we're just too big to fail, so we don't have to worry about taking very risky policies, because then the government will just step in and rescue us.

147
00:20:07.720 --> 00:20:18.360
And I think he rightly suggests this is a very dangerous attitude to have, and he finds this really pervasive in society.

148
00:20:18.360 --> 00:20:26.600
And I think here we can compare him with another famous Austrian economist, Wilhelm Ruecke,

149
00:20:26.600 --> 00:20:36.320
who spoke of the moral dangers of inflation in encouraging people to disregard moral values,

150
00:20:36.320 --> 00:20:43.040
to not take responsibility, but just to take an attitude of only the present matters.

151
00:20:43.040 --> 00:20:50.760
We don't have to worry about the future, because that's, after all, a long way away, as Keynes's

152
00:20:50.760 --> 00:20:54.680
famous statement, in the long run, we're all dead.

153
00:20:54.680 --> 00:21:02.800
So people relying on the government tend to be improvident and not take account of their

154
00:21:02.800 --> 00:21:08.800
own, they don't take responsibility for what they're doing themselves.

155
00:21:08.800 --> 00:21:22.440
And I think in really in the way Ron Paul has applied Austrian economics to the various

156
00:21:22.440 --> 00:21:29.120
policy proposals today, he really counts as an outstanding intellectual in politics who's

157
00:21:29.120 --> 00:21:36.080
really made extremely good use of the lessons he's learned from Mises, Murray Rothbard and

158
00:21:36.080 --> 00:21:40.080
and the other great Austrian economists he studied so well.

159
00:21:41.080 --> 00:21:42.080
Applause