Matt Stoller rebuts his critics

[girl gone mad]

48. But wait a second..

"Liberal economists have dismantled Paul's loony economic theories. It's completely disingenuous to claim that no liberals have. As Krugman says (paraphrase), they keep insisting that they're right despite the evidence to the contrary."

I read the links you use to show that "Liberal economists have dismantled Paul's loony economic theories."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/paleomonetarism

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/opinion/gop-monetary-madness.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Okay. But, here's the problem: Obama essentially agrees with Paul's "paleomonetarist" views. Outside of bailing out the banks, Obama has consistently operated from the premise that deficit hysteria is a legitimate economic perspective. The reason we didn't get a big enough stimulus, he never pushed for a significant jobs program, he had to empanel the deficit commission, he argues for "shared sacrifice", he demanded cuts to federal worker pay, etc.? Obama is a "paleomonetarist".

You complain about Ron Paul's nutty Austrian views, the nuttiest of which must certainly be his plan to reinstate the gold standard, but the President designs economic policy for the masses as if we are on a gold standard now. His neomonetarist views are reserved for the wealthy, the war machine and the banks. That's the simple truth of the matter. Why else were banks gifted trillions after they wrecked the economy while the poor were told they had to make do with less money for heating oil?