• Here is a link to the full explanation: https://rollitup.org/t/welcome-back-did-you-try-turning-it-off-and-on-again.1104810/

Ron Paul's answer to the President

diggitydank420

Well-Known Member
Dear Friends:
The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.

We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.

Still, at least a few observations are necessary.

The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?

We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).

Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."

Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?

Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibriate if government insists on propping them up.

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:

Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.

The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.

The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?


Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.


The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.


I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.


H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.


In liberty,


Ron Paul
Dr. Paul nails it again.
 

HotNSexyMILF

Well-Known Member
Ah.. and this was something I was just coming to post.. hadda mass send that everywhere..amazing letter...

I love his old man classy burns.. =)

"
The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days."
 

Doctor Pot

Well-Known Member
Seriously, Ron Paul would destroy the US if he were president. I'd probably vote for him anyway though. :mrgreen:

Notice how all of Ron's historical examples were all more than 50 years ago? The financial systems today are barely recognizable from how they were then. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Plus, back then, we had a gold standard and much less market regulation. And yet, we still had that thing called the Great Depression. Even though the federal reserve has done some shady things, one thing they can do very well is prevent deflation, which is actually worse than inflation. If Ron Paul had his way, what we call "The Great Depression" would now be called "World Depression I", and we'd be in the middle of World Depression III or IV. (heheh, gettit?)
 

VTXDave

Well-Known Member
Plus, back then, we had a gold standard and much less market regulation. And yet, we still had that thing called the Great Depression.
Read up on the Glass-Steigal Act and the bill that was passed in 1999 that effectively repealed that piece of regulatory legislation.
 

Da Kine 420

Well-Known Member
Greed is why we are where we are. I am in finance and I saw it first hand. loans i was getting last year are geting shot down like scuds. now, more than ever, americans need to stand up to there politicians and voice there concerns. we are slipping past the rest of the free world. once a super power, now just a lazy nation who is distracted by the evironments around them. and that is what the people in power want. distractions. i hope it will turn around as i am young and heard from a man i fel is wise, economy goes in cycles, ihope that man is right.
 

Da Kine 420

Well-Known Member
free market society, isn't that we are suppose to be?

if i fail at work i get fired, not a bailout from the people who got me he job?
 

Doctor Pot

Well-Known Member
Read up on the Glass-Steigal Act and the bill that was passed in 1999 that effectively repealed that piece of regulatory legislation.
That's the one where there was a law prohibiting the merging of certain types of financial institutions, right? And then part of that law was repealed in 1999. So what's your point?
 

HotNSexyMILF

Well-Known Member
That is correct.
Oh come now.. I expected more from you.. you need to do some more Austrian economic reading man..

We effectively went off the gold standard in 1933 when President Roosevelt outlawed the private possession of gold.

"On June 5, 1933, at the behest of the president, Congress took the next step, passing a joint resolution making it illegal to "require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby." Any provision in a private or public contract promising payment in gold was thereby nullified. Payment could be made in whatever the government declared to be legal tender, and gold could not be used even as a yardstick for determining how much paper money would be owed"

For the next six months President Roosevelt pursued an erratic monetary course. Every day a new gold price was declared, on a basis no one could figure out. Private lending in effect came to a halt, with the value of the dollar in constant flux amid the prospect of ongoing devaluation. As Senator Carter Glass (D-VA) put it, "No man outside of a lunatic asylum will loan his money today on a farm mortgage." And thus the government could triumphantly announce that since the private sector was cruelly depriving Americans of credit, it would have to step in and provide relief.
Meanwhile, Senator William Borah was assuring his countrymen that when it came to the nation's monetary system, "there is no limitation upon the power of Congress. It is not circumscribed in any respect whatever. It is given full and plenary power to deal with that subject; and therefore it is the same as if there were no Constitution whatever." Borah also tried to argue that "when an individual takes an obligation payable in gold" he does so "with the full understanding that the Government may change its monetary policy at any time and that he must accept whatever the Congress says at a particular time shall constitute money."


The general rule (to which there are occasional exceptions) that no senator should ever be listened to on anything holds here: the power of Congress over money is in fact very limited. It has the power to "coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."


Coining money simply refers to the process of taking a precious metal, converting it into coins, and stamping those coins with an indication of their metal content. The power to regulate the value of money does not involve a power to dilute the value of money by inflation, an absurd and self-serving rendering. Regulation of the value of money is a power of declaration and comparison, whereby some monetary standard is compared to other coins in circulation and an exchange rate for these various kinds of currency established according to the amounts of precious metals (with due allowance for the distinct values of different precious metals) in each. In other words, if Congress were to declare by statute what the prevailing market exchange rate between gold and silver was, and thus to "regulate" gold and silver coins vis-à-vis one another — or, more precisely, vis-à-vis the Spanish silver dollar that constituted the American monetary standard — then it would be properly exercising its constitutional power, which consists of nothing more than this."

The Great Gold Robbery of 1933 - Thomas E. Woods, Jr. - Mises Institute

This is why Ron Paul again and again points that Congress has the power to COIN money- they do NOT have the Constitutional power to just print money and make it worth however much they want. The Founders VERY well understood the problems that could happen because they lived through the inflation caused by this exact system in the colonies.

YouTube - Congressman Ron Paul Schools Bernanke on the Bailout Plan
RP just yest. interrupted and reminded Bernanke that Congress only has the authority to COIN money.
 

VTXDave

Well-Known Member
Well I thought we were talking about fixing the dollar to gold and not the private ownership of gold. Love the last youtube BTW. I always enjoy RP and Bernanke together. 8)
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
Actually it's a little more complicated (the gold standard)

in 1931 or 1934 FDR made it illegal for US Citizens to own gold, and all gold was confiscated, thus we (individuals inside the US) were forced off the Gold Standard during the Great Depression.

The United States abandoned the Gold Standard (Dollar Redemption by Foreign Nations) in 1971.

As far as the Fed, that was in 1913. I think Income tax was also constitutionalized in 1913 or 1914. The two most damaging policies to ever take place in this Republic happened back to back with each other.

Leaving the Gold Standard can only be viewed destructive due to the failure of the government to cease adding more and more dollars to the money supply.

If the government was not chronically inflating the number of dollars in circulation it wouldn't matter if we backed our dollars with pixie sticks, sawdust, or (like it currently is) our desire to believe that it must have value.
 

HotNSexyMILF

Well-Known Member
I hear you MAN..i'm sorry to anyone who gets offended by this- but god, most people are just straight up DUMB these days. lol..

These are rather simple to understand economics and history here..
 
Top