As you know, I like to post alternate viewpoints on this blog. This following is from a reader and fan. I much appreciate the input. I will not be posting counters this time, I'm just going to let this one stand.
Please note that this is way different than what I think personally. I don't have time today to speak to it.
To create jobs, a central bank would fuel the economy with money relative to the inflation rates. Now you may think that inflation is a bad thing, but that is not necessarily the case. You see, inflation is the amount of money for a good. An expanding economy has more and more goods, and therefore more and more money has to be printed (in a way, it is a sign of an expanding economy). But the big businesses did not like this policy as it meant that banks had less power than before, and so monetarism took over in the 70s, and acted as a balance between classical economics and Keynesian economics. Monetarism is very similar to classical economics (which remember brought the Great Depression), yet insisted on stable inflation rates to keep up with the expanding economy, which is a Keynesian idea.
National Debt at this point is completely irrelevant, because the government's role is to support the people, and not itself. By bringing the economy back by spending more than they have, they are securing the country's future, as once it is back to normal the debts can be paid off. This is where I think Ron paul got it wrong; you see printing money is actually helping the economy as it encourages banks to invest once again. And the argument that Keynesian policies brought the country into the deficit is completely invalid, as it is currently bringing the country out of the deficit.
So you could blame it on monetarist ideals and the private sector, since they would have let the economy simply die. I think Obama's administration should spend money to help instead of watching the economy drown any day. I am not saying Ron Paul should not be trusted, but before you decide which side to root for, take a look at the true, unbiased, whole story. To do that, I would avoid Fox news...
And while we're taking a walk on the wild side, let's hear from Rachel Maddow