McKinney: The economists I follow

During an interview at Break The Matrix tonight, I was able to have a question asked as requested by readers of Independent Political Report.

While the interviewer did not get it exactly right, he did ask her something along the lines of “Looking at economic thinkers on a spectrum from Ayn Rand on one side and Karl Marx on the other, where do you fall on that scale? Which economic thinkers do you follow?”

I did not mention Marx, but did mention Rand as well as E. F. Schumacher and Gandhi.

I am paraphrasing McKinney, just as I did the interviewer, but she referenced three things. She said that she had read a lot about the Federal Reserve System, it’s founding and the role it plays in our economy and was influenced by those who wanted that system changed. She said that she follows former Comptroller General David Walker. Finally, she said she looks to Ron Paul for his views on economic matters.

15 thoughts on “McKinney: The economists I follow

  1. songster7

    An interesting perspective she has, esp. for someone who IIRC has been branded a socialist by some on this blogsite (and by others actually running for POTUS?). An awareness about the FRS, and a desire to change it; a reliance on Ron Paul about economic issues … sounds far more like a “communalist” (perhaps even a voluntarist one?) than a socialist to me …

  2. Trent Hill

    LMAO.

    This is hilarious. McKinney was on BTM,so clearly she was pandering to the Ron Paulers, but she throws out the names of David Walker and Ron Paul and all of a sudden she isnt socialist? Has anyone looked at her policies?

  3. G.E.

    And democratic socialism threatens no greater control than the uber-Keynesianism of Bush/McCain/Obama.

    Keynesianism isn’t about “control” — it’s specifically about debt creation and inflation. McKinney has signed on AGAINST increasing the national debt; as has Nader.

  4. Gregg Jocoy Post author

    Actually, after McKinney left the interview the three who interviewed her had a sort of round-table, and all of them believed she was not pandering, that she had not dodged questions, and thought that she was not hearing their position on health care, but I think she and they simply have different opinions about what should happen vis-a-vis health care.

    I did not hear the entire discussion, but the part I report on here comes a few minutes after the group took a break and listened to Congresswoman McKinney grill Rumsfeld before the House of Representatives, and a video the BTM folks had produced more or less explaining why most alternative political folks believe the fix is in with the Demopublicans.

  5. songster7

    don’t get me wrong … I’m not voiting for the Greens this time around. I have my candidates, libertarians one and all, regardless of designation (I’ve also learned the hard way not to throw votes at Ds or Rs, no matter how “lesser evil” they might seem!).

    But the possibility of a Green or other “leftist” party supporting “voluntary socialism” or similar “consensus-based” society still does exist.

    As Daniel Lewis has shown in an excellent analysis of the GP’s statement of principles, there IS a commonality at least in potential between Green goals and libertarian ones; we share the disgust with foreign imperialism, we support the civil liberties of all, and most of us on both sides know how corporatist mercantilism has pissed in the chili of any semblance of free market (our term) or “community control” (theirs in some cases) …

    We disagree on economics, mostly on a rhetorical level … and far too many Greens still seem deluded enough to think that a change of emperor somehow matters in fixing what else is wrong.

    It’s not an impossible breach to close, IOW

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *