Watch @YouTube! | Follow @Twitter | Like @Facebook!
Brent Budowsky recently criticized Ron Paul supporters for being "8-year-old crybabies", which, honestly, is how some Paul supporters conduct themselves. For these Paulites every slight is a conspiracy by the NWO and the way to respond to these slights is to kick and scream with ad hominem attacks that would make Rick "Christian by faith, Darwinian by military right" Santorum proud.
To be fair, Brent, you do cover Ron Paul far more often than anyone else dares to, and you are very evenhanded while doing so, in your own economically-uninformed way. So, I do appreciate you pulling Ron Paul out of the media quarantine for the occasional update on his campaign and standings. However, in my experience, far more Paulites are rather lucid and methodical in understanding the issues and where arguments fall flat in their philosophic underpinnings.
Now, which of those respond to your column? No idea.
What I do know is that Brent Budowsky has clearly demonstrated his supreme lack of economic understanding of what Ron Paul represents.
First, Budowsky wrote: "The very bad news for Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Chris Christie and those Republicans who take big money from big bailed-out banks as donations, and then carry their water in Washington, is that they will be exposed again." If Ron Paul is a corporate shill this will be the first anyone has heard of it, and before you can be "exposed again", please refer me to your writeup that exposed Ron Paul for being in the pocket of corporations for the first time. Paul wanted banks to FAIL, as determined by the non-cronyist free market. By that same token he wants them to succeed. When the market chooses, that's the people who are choosing. This means no subsidies, no bailouts. A corporatist nightmare.
So, to then claim "The fact is that Ron Paul supports a very extreme version of laissez-faire economics that is God's gift to big banks." is absolute nonsensical at best, and punditry flatulence at worst. Austrian Economics, which is the school of economics that Paul subscribes to, does not allow for a housing bubble to occur. To understand this you have to know that financial bubbles come from pure credit expansion that leads to a gold-rush in speculation for a product the market isn't truly calling for, which means the prices are rising artificially (you can't pump in money and not see inflation, just ask Healthcare and Higher Education) and are destined for an implosion once the credit expansion stops or the resources are found to not be in supply as the market assumes.
What credit expansion? The Fed's credit expansion. In coordination with the CRA, Fannie & Freddie. In Ron Paul's view, banks would never have received their handout that led to the collapse.
May I recommend Thomas Woods' "Meltdown" for starters? As evenhanded as you do often come across, finish it up by gaining the economic view that actually predicted the housing bubble, as Ron Paul did.
Then you'd also see why your next statement is a non-issue: "The issue is that his approach is what let the banks get away with murder, which caused the bailout in the first place, and after the bailout he continues these same extreme laissez-faire policies that tolerate rip-offs like the new Bank of America fee."
Ridiculous. The only cause of the bailout were the politicians voting for it. That, and the Federal Reserve handing it out without any oversight whatsoever, because we all know that Ron Paul favors complete secrecy by the Federal Reserve. (That's sarcasm. For the uninitiated, Ron Paul has made it his 40 year crusade to topple the Fed.)
Oh, and you do realize no one is forced to stick with Bank of America, right? Leave the bank, and stop acting like an 8-year-old crybaby.