Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Perhaps Someone Should Tell Ron Paul

 Here are four things economists agree on almost unanimously.  I especially like the fourth one as Mr. Gold bug, himself, will be visiting us next week.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/4-politically-controversial-issues-where-all-economists-agree/255600/

4 comments:

  1. It was highly encouraging to see that economists all agreed that the Gold Standard is a terrible idea. Paul Ryan bases his belief in the Gold Standard because he thinks it promotes price stability and prevents the government from overspending. However, since the federal government did away with the Gold Standard, there has been 23 times less variance in prices (The Atlantic). Furthermore, there are times when it is beneficial for the government to put money into the economy to spark growth and pull themselves out of a recession. Issue number 3 in the article was an excellent example of the bailouts helping the economy by lowering the unemployment rate. Under Ryan's system, the government would never have had the ability to do this. While I understand Ryan's desire to decrease the ability for the government to overspend, the Gold Standard is the absolute wrong way to go about it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The global oil market calls for approximately 90 million gallons of oil per day. The fact that the majority of American citizens believe that the president in office can have a significant impact on the price of oil is not plausible. In fact, a major contributing factor to the price of oil is deep-rooted consumer habits. In addition, other facts influencing the price of oil are oftentimes political events outside of any one person's control. Economists unanimously agree that the president cannot control oil prices with any one piece of legislation or mandate. One way for consumers to control the price of oil is to drive less and to carpool with one another.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with the comment about oil prices. It's unfortunate that people think they can hold one person responsible for the price of oil. I also found it interesting that all economists agree that the benefits of free trade far outweigh the costs. Of course considering all I've learned in Micro it does make sense. I think free trade would be great for the economy. It's unfortunate that "voters lag economists in supporting free trade" and this seems to me to be another example of politics and economics not quite meshing well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Looking back at the 2012 election, 2 of the 4 issues that all economists agree on were heavily debated. Both parties twisted the facts in their own favor. To the public, President Obama's first term were deemed somewhat unproductive because he not only did not bring the unemployment rate down by much but also brought the oil prices up. For oil price,in particular, the amount of media attention given to the rising oil price is almost parallel to the amount of resentment Obama received. The idea of one person influencing the oil industry through fiscal and monetary policy is almost absurd in view of the supply and demand of oil. The public is only capable of moving the quantity demanded of oil, and an increase or decrease in the amount demanded directly corresponds to an increase or decrease in the price of oil.

    ReplyDelete