Ron Paul Economics

[Enginer]

Quote from Lethn:

Please show me a source to back that ridiculous comment up please.

We've had two recessions since the fed was established one global. Stop staying in bloody denial.

The only denial is that a stable currency would end the good life. Its the instability of currency policy that causes the bangs and busts that have totaled a whole lot more than 2 since 1917 and particularly 1876.

The FED was created (by Banksters) for their benefit, not ours.

The first hit from Rothschilds AND FED
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics ...the_Federal_Reserve/house_of_Rothschild-5.htm

 

[Lethn]

What you've got to bear in mind is that instability is terrible for the majority and I disagree that you need it in order to get the good life.

The only people this kind of thing benefits are the politicians who want to be able to have the power to create as much money as they want. I can guarantee that if they took power away from the banks and they didn't get so many favours from politicians they'd be pining as much as everyone else for a more solid and stable standard.

Everyone else is simply going to suffer because not only do WE have to pay for it in the long run but also it means that we have very little bearing on how a country is run as they would have us believe.

 

[drjekyllus]

Quote from stoxx4shortrun:

The man was on CNBC this am and Liesman was out to get him. I remember hearing him saying that Ron Paul economics left a lot to be desired.
So who is right ? Are Ron Paul idea's realistic ?

btw during the interview, while bashing fractional reserve lending, he said when you lend $100 to a bank they have $190 to use. That's not how I understand fractional reserve lending .

I didn't see the interview but Liesman routinely gets his clock cleaned by Rick Santelli. Liesman frequently comes across as a moron so I wouldn't put much stock in anything he says or does.

 

[Enginer]

This quote

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed)
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

is usually answered with the comment that the FED isn't a private bank. (in rebuttal, see my earlier post about the formation of the FED.)

The ability to change interest rates, and, separately, to extend credit has exactly the controlling effect that Jefferson was worried about.

 

[Tigerjaw]

Quote from gaj:

tigerjaw -here's the link:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1329475430&play=1

starts about 4:45 (then 5:24)

quick summary, he prefaces it with ending deposit insurance, but done with private insurance companies.

liesman: you're familiar with the 30s, when we had runson the bank, right?
paul: the fed's been around since 1913 {note: i didn't know that, thought it was a bit later}.

liesman: on to something else. it took about 1 minute of the interview.

so it wasn't a "there were no bank runs before 1913", but it sure didn't seem that way. if i was liesman, instead of limiting it to the 30s, i'd have asked about ALL bank runs (because there have been bank runs long before the fed was created).

btw, liesman is generally an idiot. there's a reason he's not a trader or anything close to it. i LOVED when paul said housing should crash.

and, yes, i was aware of morgan's influence. thanks for including it, though - many aren't aware of when he jumped into things.

Thank you for very kindly providing that link to the interview. - - You may be interested to know that these busts (created by bank fraud money printing) have been long standing in American history. They predate the Fed, and the Fed was created in order to extend the banksters ability to increase their profits by printing more paper - while passing off the risks to the public. It was also created so that those in the central govt could finance their schemes without going directly to the public for taxes. The cost is in the hidden tax of inflation and eventual economic bust. So, its a bankster/lawyer-liar-politician partnership. - - The first such instance of the creation of a paper money printing bust in our country occured in 1819. Here's a link to an outstanding book on the subject:

http://mises.org/store/Panic-of-1819-Reactions-and-Policies-P388C18.aspx

If you click on the Mises.org Home page link at the top left of the page, you can even find an online version of the book for free if this subject interests you. They have many excellent books on the Fed and on economics at the store.

Ron Paul has lectured several times at the Mises Institute and is very knowledgeable on economics and its history. Regards, - -

 

[gaj]

thanks tiger - my knowledge of such goes back only to the 1870s, and the manipulation of the rails... i'll definitely take a look at that site later..

appreciate the lead.

 

[bozwood]

Capitalism is fine but capitalism without that small nit-picky part of it that politicians, etc. don't like, namely failure, everything we do leads to bubbles.

Quote from sjfan:

What exactly didn't work? Capitalism? Leverage? Monetary Theory? Keynesian Theory? Anti-Capitalist Measures that distort economic incentives? Capitalist incentives that are not aligned with "societal welfare"?

Because all those things are contributors of the current problem. And the Austrian school is not the opposite of all of those things (since some of those are opposites of each other).

Finally, it's worth pointing out that I don't actually think Austrian is "bad" or "wrong" (nor do I agree with it entirely). But at the same time, to think that one school of fairly academic thinking is the ultimate answer is both simple minded, and having been demonstrated over and over again throughout history, extremely dangerous.

 

[Index piker]

Quote from Tigerjaw:

Thank you for very kindly providing that link to the interview. - - You may be interested to know that these busts (created by bank fraud money printing) have been long standing in American history. They predate the Fed, and the Fed was created in order to extend the banksters ability to increase their profits by printing more paper - while passing off the risks to the public. It was also created so that those in the central govt could finance their schemes without going directly to the public for taxes. The cost is in the hidden tax of inflation and eventual economic bust. So, its a bankster/lawyer-liar-politician partnership. - - The first such instance of the creation of a paper money printing bust in our country occured in 1819. Here's a link to an outstanding book on the subject:

http://mises.org/store/Panic-of-1819-Reactions-and-Policies-P388C18.aspx

If you click on the Mises.org Home page link at the top left of the page, you can even find an online version of the book for free if this subject interests you. They have many excellent books on the Fed and on economics at the store.

Ron Paul has lectured several times at the Mises Institute and is very knowledgeable on economics and its history. Regards, - -

Another link of interest might be

http://www.financialsense.com/fsn/main.html

See this weeks Hunter Lewis
Author

"Where Keynes Went Wrong" interview.

 

[Random.Capital]

Quote from Tigerjaw:

Is that your quote or not ?

Yes, that is my quote. Please pay more attention to what you are reading - nowhere is there a claim of causal relationship between Fed establishment and the wonderful developments since.

And it might be worth your while considering whether the lack of a causal link supports or attacks the broader point you are trying to make.

 

[Index piker]

Quote from Random.Capital:

Yes, that is my quote. Please pay more attention to what you are reading - nowhere is there a claim of causal relationship between Fed establishment and the wonderful developments since.

And it might be worth your while considering whether the lack of a causal link supports or attacks the broader point you are trying to make.

IOW you admit your post was nebulous but you are upset he used your line of reasoning and came to an equally nebulous but different conclusion.