Posts
Re: Money Bawl, by Ramesh Ponnuru
Dear Sirs:
Kevin D. Williamson needs to hold a few more classes in Austrian School Economics at National Review. For example, Ramesh Ponnuru gives a fine synopsis of the essentials of Austrian business cycle theory as caused by bank credit expansion, yet he still has confidence that some bank credit expansion is warranted under certain circumstances. He makes the same great mistake as that of Irving Fisher, noted early 20th century American economist, who advocated price level stability rather than money supply stability. Fisher considered the 1920s credit induced expansion as benign, since productivity increases offset money supply expansion (due primarily to bank fractional reserve lending), creating a fairly stable price level. The crash of 1929 came as such a surprise that he lost his considerable personal fortune in the mistaken belief that more money pumping by the Fed would cure all ills. Mr. Ponnuru also considers an increase in the demand for money to be a threat to recovery and prosperity. It is no such thing. An increase in the demand for holding money merely reduces the price level, which cures the very demand for which people hold money; i.e., an expectation of lower prices and a greater money-holding to price-level ratio which occurs in times of uncertainty. Why attempt to thwart the people's desire to become more liquid? Holding more money does not reduce investment, as long as people's time preference remains unchanged. What does reduce investment is consumer spending, for that which is spent cannot be saved and invested. Thusly, the government's stimulus programs spur the very thing that prevents capital accumulation--savings.
Patrick Barron
Saturday, February 18, 2012
My Letter to the NY Times re: What the Euro Has Wrought
Re: Germany Vs. the Rest of Europe
Dear Sirs:
The misconstructed euro indeed has incentivized its members to plunge themselves into unsustainable debt. Dr. Philipp Bagus has explained this phenomenon in The Tragedy of the Euro, a highly readable book for the general public as well as academics and policymakers. Dr. Bagus explains that the euro's structure allows the still extant national banks to print euros in a roundabout fashion, in effect setting the stage for seventeen counterfeiters to vie with one another to determine who can print money the fastest. This tragedy must be ended before Europe reverts to ancient animosities, trade wars, and violence. It is monstrous that, as an alternative to fixing the underlying problem of the euro's construction, demagogues call on Germany to place all of Europe on the backs of its hardworking citizens. German Chancellor Merkel aids and abets this animosity by attempting to strip Greece and others of their sovereignty. Neither unending bailouts or loss of sovereignty is the solution. The nations of Europe must abandon the euro as quickly as possible and revert to national currencies, but not succumb to beggar-thy-neighbor/race-to-the-bottom devaluations. They must reach an agreement to link their national currencies to gold or silver. Better yet, allow competing currencies, even private ones, to compete in the market.
Patrick Barron
20 McMullan Farm Lane
West Chester, PA 19382
Dear Sirs:
The misconstructed euro indeed has incentivized its members to plunge themselves into unsustainable debt. Dr. Philipp Bagus has explained this phenomenon in The Tragedy of the Euro, a highly readable book for the general public as well as academics and policymakers. Dr. Bagus explains that the euro's structure allows the still extant national banks to print euros in a roundabout fashion, in effect setting the stage for seventeen counterfeiters to vie with one another to determine who can print money the fastest. This tragedy must be ended before Europe reverts to ancient animosities, trade wars, and violence. It is monstrous that, as an alternative to fixing the underlying problem of the euro's construction, demagogues call on Germany to place all of Europe on the backs of its hardworking citizens. German Chancellor Merkel aids and abets this animosity by attempting to strip Greece and others of their sovereignty. Neither unending bailouts or loss of sovereignty is the solution. The nations of Europe must abandon the euro as quickly as possible and revert to national currencies, but not succumb to beggar-thy-neighbor/race-to-the-bottom devaluations. They must reach an agreement to link their national currencies to gold or silver. Better yet, allow competing currencies, even private ones, to compete in the market.
Patrick Barron
20 McMullan Farm Lane
West Chester, PA 19382
Thursday, February 9, 2012
My Letter to the NY Times re: Living Under a Delusion
From: patrickbarron@msn.com
To: letters@nytimes.com
Subject: Living under a Delusion
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:02:46 -0500
Re: Obama Imposes Freeze on Iran Property in US
Dear Sirs:
I do not know how America's action to freeze Iranian property and threaten even our allies' financial institutions with sanctions can be considered anything other than an act of war. Those who support this measure live under the delusion that Iran and our allies will humbly submit to whatever we demand, in effect demonstrating to the world that they are not sovereign nations. Iran will choose war, if it does not find another way out, and we will lose all of our allies.
Patrick Barron
To: letters@nytimes.com
Subject: Living under a Delusion
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:02:46 -0500
Re: Obama Imposes Freeze on Iran Property in US
Dear Sirs:
I do not know how America's action to freeze Iranian property and threaten even our allies' financial institutions with sanctions can be considered anything other than an act of war. Those who support this measure live under the delusion that Iran and our allies will humbly submit to whatever we demand, in effect demonstrating to the world that they are not sovereign nations. Iran will choose war, if it does not find another way out, and we will lose all of our allies.
Patrick Barron
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
My Letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Economic Ignorance
Re: US Lays Out Plan to Curb Overseas Tax Dodges
Dear Sirs:
The only means of increasing prosperity is to apply more capital goods to the production process. Taxing capital away makes us poorer than we would otherwise become. The US government is ignorant of this basic law of economic science, choosing instead to kill the goose that lays the golden egg in the name of...what?...it isn't a more prosperous future.
Patrick Barron
Dear Sirs:
The only means of increasing prosperity is to apply more capital goods to the production process. Taxing capital away makes us poorer than we would otherwise become. The US government is ignorant of this basic law of economic science, choosing instead to kill the goose that lays the golden egg in the name of...what?...it isn't a more prosperous future.
Patrick Barron
My Letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Maybe That's an Oncoming Train
From: patrickbarron@msn.com
To: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com
CC: kate.linebaugh@wsj.com; bob.hagerty@wsj.com
Subject: Maybe That's an Oncoming Train
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:01:05 -0500
Re: US Market Shines Brighter
Dear Sirs:
Perhaps that light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train. There is another interpretation to the report that some US companies are "bringing business home". It is that the worldwide economy is shrinking and is shedding layers of specialization as a result. Austrian business cycle and capital theory explains that an expanding economy--which, of course, does not recognize political borders--requires the establishment of new, more specialized stages of production, which can only be financed with new, real capital. If you became poorer and could no longer afford to pay the neighbor kid to mow your lawn, would you consider it a good thing that you were repatriating this toil to yourself?
Sincerely,
Patrick Barron
To: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com
CC: kate.linebaugh@wsj.com; bob.hagerty@wsj.com
Subject: Maybe That's an Oncoming Train
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:01:05 -0500
Re: US Market Shines Brighter
Dear Sirs:
Perhaps that light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train. There is another interpretation to the report that some US companies are "bringing business home". It is that the worldwide economy is shrinking and is shedding layers of specialization as a result. Austrian business cycle and capital theory explains that an expanding economy--which, of course, does not recognize political borders--requires the establishment of new, more specialized stages of production, which can only be financed with new, real capital. If you became poorer and could no longer afford to pay the neighbor kid to mow your lawn, would you consider it a good thing that you were repatriating this toil to yourself?
Sincerely,
Patrick Barron
Saturday, February 4, 2012
My Letter to National Review Magazine re: Why Is Everyone at National Review Anti-Ron Paul?
From: patrickbarron@msn.com
To: letters@nationalreview.com
Subject: Why Is Everyone at National Review Anti-Ron Paul?
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 09:37:12 -0500
Dear Sirs:
I just read the third anti-Ron Paul diatribe in your magazine in two days; this one by Mark Steyn, titled "Paul the Parochial". This follows Kevin Williamson's "Courting the Cranks" and Rob Long's insultingly titled "The Constitution and the Coot". It pains me very much to read these articles, especially since I find nothing in them to justify such an editorial policy. Frankly, when I saw Mark Steyn's piece I thought that perhaps I really was blind to something about Dr. Paul and/or his campaign that I should reconsider. But I found nothing. Instead I found this:
After criticizing the waste and futility of our endless wars, Mr. Steyn writes, "...if I truly mean what I wrote in the paragraph above, then Paul's my man." But, of course, Dr. Paul isn't his man.
Then he criticizes Dr. Paul for being hesitant to exact nuclear vengeance when he writes, "Does that sound like a president who'd drop the big one on Kandahar, never mind Beijing?" Well, I certainly hope our president is hesitant!
Mr. Steyn follows this by asserting that Dr. Paul's promise to end the wars will not really save the U.S. much money, that such a policy is isolationist, and we will be blamed for things we have nothing to do with just like the British are blamed decades after they intervened in these regions. Apparently Mr. Steyn's rationale is if we're going to be blamed anyway we might as well continue intervening.
I looked in vain for a consistent thread of logic or some overlooked trait that would be a deal killer for my support of Dr. Paul. Instead I found this confusing ending, which I quote:
"I wish I could like Ron Paul more, really I do. But libertarian narcissism is as banal as any other strain. Ten years of desultory, inconclusive, transnationally constrained warmongering is certainly a problem. But know-nothing parochial delusion is not the solution."
Now, if anyone can explain the thread of logic in such an ending statement, I'm all ears.
Patrick Barron
To: letters@nationalreview.com
Subject: Why Is Everyone at National Review Anti-Ron Paul?
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 09:37:12 -0500
Dear Sirs:
I just read the third anti-Ron Paul diatribe in your magazine in two days; this one by Mark Steyn, titled "Paul the Parochial". This follows Kevin Williamson's "Courting the Cranks" and Rob Long's insultingly titled "The Constitution and the Coot". It pains me very much to read these articles, especially since I find nothing in them to justify such an editorial policy. Frankly, when I saw Mark Steyn's piece I thought that perhaps I really was blind to something about Dr. Paul and/or his campaign that I should reconsider. But I found nothing. Instead I found this:
After criticizing the waste and futility of our endless wars, Mr. Steyn writes, "...if I truly mean what I wrote in the paragraph above, then Paul's my man." But, of course, Dr. Paul isn't his man.
Then he criticizes Dr. Paul for being hesitant to exact nuclear vengeance when he writes, "Does that sound like a president who'd drop the big one on Kandahar, never mind Beijing?" Well, I certainly hope our president is hesitant!
Mr. Steyn follows this by asserting that Dr. Paul's promise to end the wars will not really save the U.S. much money, that such a policy is isolationist, and we will be blamed for things we have nothing to do with just like the British are blamed decades after they intervened in these regions. Apparently Mr. Steyn's rationale is if we're going to be blamed anyway we might as well continue intervening.
I looked in vain for a consistent thread of logic or some overlooked trait that would be a deal killer for my support of Dr. Paul. Instead I found this confusing ending, which I quote:
"I wish I could like Ron Paul more, really I do. But libertarian narcissism is as banal as any other strain. Ten years of desultory, inconclusive, transnationally constrained warmongering is certainly a problem. But know-nothing parochial delusion is not the solution."
Now, if anyone can explain the thread of logic in such an ending statement, I'm all ears.
Patrick Barron
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
My Letter to National Review re: Damning Ron Paul for his supporters' beliefs
From: patrickbarron@msn.com
To: letters@nationalreview.com
Subject: Damning Ron Paul for his supporters' beliefs
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:54:53 -0500
Re: "Courting the Cranks", by Kevin D. Williamson
Dear Sirs:
Kevin D. Williamson unfairly tars Dr. Ron Paul for the opinions of some of his followers. In "Courting the Cranks"--an assessment of Murray N. Rothbard, an anarcho-libertarian who has been dead for twenty years--Mr. Williamson somehow gets around to attacking Dr. Paul, apparently because both Rothbard and Paul adhered to the Austrian School of Economics, which advocates a return to the principles of our Founding Fathers. Mr. Williamson admits that "Ron Paul promises to restore the American constitutional order". Yet in the same sentence he blames Dr. Paul for what he claims are the unconstitutional beliefs of his "most energetic partisans". How many, Mr. Williamson? Have you conducted a professional survey? Are any on his personal staff? I am a partisan, yet I do not hold unconstitutional beliefs. And, even if I did, how in the world can my thoughts be blamed on Dr. Paul? Further in his essay Mr. Williamson recounts the discovery of decades' old racist pamphlets that were disseminated under Dr. Paul's name and claims that they were written by Lew Rockwell, founder of the highly regarded Ludwig von Mises Institute. Dr. Paul disowns any knowledge of these pamphlets, and Mr. Rockwell denies writing them, yet both are condemned as guilty by Mr. Williamson. How can either man prove a negative? This is highly unfair.
Sincerely,
Patrick Barron
To: letters@nationalreview.com
Subject: Damning Ron Paul for his supporters' beliefs
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:54:53 -0500
Re: "Courting the Cranks", by Kevin D. Williamson
Dear Sirs:
Kevin D. Williamson unfairly tars Dr. Ron Paul for the opinions of some of his followers. In "Courting the Cranks"--an assessment of Murray N. Rothbard, an anarcho-libertarian who has been dead for twenty years--Mr. Williamson somehow gets around to attacking Dr. Paul, apparently because both Rothbard and Paul adhered to the Austrian School of Economics, which advocates a return to the principles of our Founding Fathers. Mr. Williamson admits that "Ron Paul promises to restore the American constitutional order". Yet in the same sentence he blames Dr. Paul for what he claims are the unconstitutional beliefs of his "most energetic partisans". How many, Mr. Williamson? Have you conducted a professional survey? Are any on his personal staff? I am a partisan, yet I do not hold unconstitutional beliefs. And, even if I did, how in the world can my thoughts be blamed on Dr. Paul? Further in his essay Mr. Williamson recounts the discovery of decades' old racist pamphlets that were disseminated under Dr. Paul's name and claims that they were written by Lew Rockwell, founder of the highly regarded Ludwig von Mises Institute. Dr. Paul disowns any knowledge of these pamphlets, and Mr. Rockwell denies writing them, yet both are condemned as guilty by Mr. Williamson. How can either man prove a negative? This is highly unfair.
Sincerely,
Patrick Barron
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)