Ron Paul Comments On QE2, Says Fed Will Self Destruct, Shocked That Krugman Has "Any Credibility Whatsoever"

Tyler Durden's picture

Your rating: None

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:11 | 707999 Fanatic
Fanatic's picture

Self-destruction, bitchez!

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:33 | 708062 johngaltfla
johngaltfla's picture

Hell, all you have to do is look at the charts up put up on my blog showing

The Fallacy of Quantitative Easing in Pictures

 The first bout did nothing to improve anything other than stabilize the S&P 500. Every economic indicator except for the S&P 500 and retail sales is still in the toilet. And without improvements in employment I don't care how much money you create, the breaking point in the curve has been surpassed and QE eventually DIMINISHES economic activity.


Self-destruction bitchez, indeed.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 13:07 | 708357 Duuude
Duuude's picture





Nice work.


Any charts to show how QE is funding the war on other economies, now that the US has been sucked dry...





Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:43 | 708092 Fish Gone Bad
Fish Gone Bad's picture

Ron Paul hit on the solution, create another money.  History buffs will remember that Abraham Lincoln in his fight with the banks, created the Green Back.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:15 | 708161 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

and that's why he and Kennedy both got capped

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:19 | 708768 sbenard
sbenard's picture

Your statement is literally true. I know a man whose grandfather is the global head of the central banking cartel. He told his grandson that they, they central bankers headquartered in Europe, did indeed "cap" both Lincoln and Kennedy.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:17 | 708166 Dr. No
Dr. No's picture

Careful.  Dont be a Greenbacker.  Only the markets can determine "money".  I am leary of anyone who thinks they can designate "money" by decree.  The Greenback you refer to died due to huge inflationary printing.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:44 | 708259 greyghost
greyghost's picture

no dr. no......the greenbacks were withdrawn from circulation over about a ten year period. withdrawn by paying the holder of the greenback in gold and or silver for their greenback notes. was their inflation during the civil bet. looks like lincoln did it right overall, by getting an interest free loan from the people of the united states and paying it back in gold and silver afterwards. so what is your answer to the problem of inflation and money.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 13:04 | 708344 Dr. No
Dr. No's picture

I am not a Historian, so I beg forgiveness on my lack on knowledge on the subject.  But I found this on lewrockwell by the author Dilorenzo:

"As soon as Lincoln took office the old Whig coalition finally controlled the entire government. It immediately tripled the average tariff rate, began subsidizing the building of a transcontinental railroad in California even though a desperate war was being waged, and on February 25, 1862, the Legal Tender Act empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to issue paper money ("greenbacks") that were not immediately redeemable in gold or silver. The National Currency Acts of 1863 and 1864 created a system of nationally chartered banks that could issue bank notes supplied to them by the new Comptroller of the Currency, and a 10 percent tax was placed on state bank notes to drive them out of business and establish a federal monetary monopoly. The government’s paper money flooded the banks so that by July 1864 greenback dollars were worth a mere 35 cents in gold. "

You indicate the greenbacks where purchased back with gold, it would appear it was done at a reduced rate (inflation).



Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:15 | 708745 Ckierst1
Ckierst1's picture

The Real Lincoln bitchez!

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:12 | 708005 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

Sanity is a frightening thing

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:13 | 708008 Mitchman
Mitchman's picture

Give 'em hell Ron!

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:41 | 708087 Lost My Shorts
Lost My Shorts's picture

Hell is right.  Who thinks that if Ron Paul wins, and the printing press is pried out of Bernanke's hands, it will be all fun and good times from then on?

Ron Paul is either a brave guy, or secretly glad he is not really in charge, since whoever is the last on on camera when TSHTF might well be the first in line on the scaffold.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:16 | 708159 Cruel Aid
Cruel Aid's picture

We will create another currency officially or local communities will come up with a currency to circumvent the corrupt one. The total collapse scenario won't happen.  There are leaders and followers at all levels of society.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:48 | 708279 greyghost
greyghost's picture

correct cruel aid.....already happening in several areas of the country.....take "ithaca hours" just for one example, this is also going on in north carolina, interesting stuff.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 13:28 | 708482 Cruel Aid
Cruel Aid's picture

Thanks Ghost,

That is where the split will come/if it comes, when regular people become the target of the IRS for not wanting to participate in the system of wealth distribution outside of their community or state.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:53 | 708113 whatsinaname
whatsinaname's picture

dont know how he can give em hell when the American voters dont know between right and wrong. Fact that Grayson is out and Bwaney is in is proof enough. Nada's gonna happen.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:59 | 708960 hbjork1
hbjork1's picture


Yep, therein lies the fundamental problem.  We have grown up a public that feels "entitled" to what ever it wants-now instead of thinking about the larger picture. 

Unfortunately, IMO, we will have to go through a period of re-education about how to have good governance. 

Ethical standards throughout society have slipped where money issues are involved.


Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:16 | 708013 trav7777
trav7777's picture

Ron Paul is still on the fringe, unfortunately.

If he wants to doubledose truth to the public, starting talking about the Oil Peak.  All this monetary bullshit is just a fucking SIDESHOW.

And we have how many topics whining about BB destroying the fuckin dollar?  Who cares about the gd DOLLAR?  It doesn't move your car down the road or grow food.

Underneath all this bitching about the Fed and QE is the unspoken presumption by nearly all that if BB would just do the "right" thing, be that the gold standard or austerity or deflation or whatever, that shit would get "back on track" and we could go back to the way things were after a brief readjustment, well, because we're Americans and we are #1 at bestness.

Ain't gonna HAPPEN.  The monetary shenanigans are a SYMPTOM, not a cause.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:23 | 708036 DeltaDawn
DeltaDawn's picture

Ron Paul is no longer fringe. I am sure he realizes the collapse of the dollar will lead to peak oil.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:00 | 708913 Ckierst1
Ckierst1's picture

If we have to migrate from peaking oil (but not peaking hydrocarbons???), I trust free markets to properly price out blends of alternative energy sources (particularly for personal transportation) rather than the government.  They would like to herd us in mass transportation to further our evolution as cattle, but I have no desire to celebrate a colonoscopy every time I want to board a train, bus or subway, and that is where TSA's head is (literally???).  Will some people start requiring DIFFERENT sex "enhanced pat down" technicians on an opt out?

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:26 | 708043 tmosley
tmosley's picture

They're a symptom, eh?  I guess oil peaked during every other hyperinflation that ever happened too.

Don't think that your pet topic is the only one that matters.  It isn't.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:48 | 708104 trav7777
trav7777's picture

we're not having hyperinflation and the root causes of our problems are DIFFERENT than other hyperinflations.

I know this is hard for you to get your head around that multiple causes can produce the same effect, but it's true.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:54 | 708114 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Right, "this time it'll be different".  Look, we are printing like mad, which has always caused hyperinflation, period.  You can rave and scream about peak oil all you want, but that won't change the fact that technology progresses.

trav777 in England, circa 1810: "Peak charcoal, OMFG!  Collapse of industrial society as trees are depleted!  How will we smelt steel?"

trav777 in the US Eastern Seaboard circa 1830: "Peak whale oil!  How will will we light our homes!?"

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:02 | 708136 GhershomsRevenge
GhershomsRevenge's picture

All had external energy sources as responses that those circumstances. It is the appearance that at present we don't that makes this so different. If you reply, as is typical, with the same old argument propounding alternatives, solar, wind, nuclear you better bring the charts comparitive to their net energy conversion with you. Then provide an example of what I asked for below. What will replace oil and gas necessary for our contemporary sources of agricultural production and long hauling.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:33 | 708221 CU1981
CU1981's picture

Atomic Element #1 - Hydrogen


Mon, 11/08/2010 - 13:42 | 708573 trav7777
trav7777's picture

from where, hydrogen mines?

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:18 | 709045 Scout Itout
Scout Itout's picture

How about sea water?

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 18:56 | 709857 PuppetRepubl1c
PuppetRepubl1c's picture

really?  please do some research into this topic before voting....


"Hydrogen isn’t an energy source – it’s an energy carrier, like a battery. You have to make it and put energy into it, both of which take energy. Hydrogen has been used commercially for decades, so at least we don't have to figure out how to do this, or what the cheapest, most efficient method is.


Ninety-six percent of hydrogen is made from fossil fuels, mainly to refine oil and hydrogenate vegetable oil--the kind that gives you heart attacks (1). In the United States, ninety percent of hydrogen is made from natural gas, with an efficiency of 72% (2). Efficiency is how much energy you get back compared with how much energy you started out with. So an efficiency of seventy-two percent means you've lost 28% of the energy contained in the natural gas to make hydrogen. And that doesn’t count the energy it took to extract and deliver the natural gas to the hydrogen plant.

Only four percent of hydrogen is made from water. This is done with electricity, in a process called electrolysis. Hydrogen is only made from water when the hydrogen must be extremely pure. Most electricity is generated from fossil fuel driven plants that are, on average, 30% efficient. Where does the other seventy percent of the energy go? Most is lost as heat, and some as it travels through the power grid.

Electrolysis is 70% efficient. To calculate the overall efficiency of making hydrogen from water, the standard equation is to multiply the efficiency of each step. In this case you would multiply the 30% efficient power plant times the 70% efficient electrolysis to get an overall efficiency of 20%. This means you have used four units of energy to create one unit of hydrogen energy (3)."


If you don't trust this source i just posted then do your own research and look for yourself, Hydrogen is not a fuel source, it is just an energy carrier.  And currently it cost an incredible amount of fossil fuel energy to 1 unit of hydrogen energy!


Mon, 11/08/2010 - 16:56 | 709462 BigJim
BigJim's picture

hydrogen is a medium, not a source

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:43 | 708257 fallingman
fallingman's picture

Zero Point Energy, bitchez!

Now roll that shit out from the shadows ...

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 13:02 | 708334 cocoablini
cocoablini's picture

Hyperinflation is nowhere to be seen. Money supply m3 fell off a cliff- we are nowhere near creating a hyper inflationary ecosystem. Credit and money supply are not growing, no matter what the Fed prints. The printed momey is just going into commodity speculation which creates the worst of 2 worlds. Price inflation during a deflationary cycle.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 13:40 | 708569 trav7777
trav7777's picture

It's idiots like you that make Peaks intractable.  Seriously.

Gold peaked, Helium peaked.

A wood supply peak helped kill the Roman Empire as's been studied and determined from the deforestation patterns.

If there's a more energy-dense supply out there than oil, hey man, I'M ALL FUCKING EARS.

Really, you have nothing...I realized that quite awhile ago.  All you can do is hope for deus ex machina.

Technology doesn't melt steel, does.

Like I said, if you have something SUBSTANTIVE to lend to this conversation other than "they will come up with something," then do so, otherwise, as previously advised, STFU

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:38 | 708076 GhershomsRevenge
GhershomsRevenge's picture

Admit Peak Oil. What do you think all the smoke and mirrors is for? I'll eat one of my kids shitty diapers the day a Western Government, Energy company, or MSM outlet consistantly spills the beans on that one. Not gonna happen. People will be approaching death by hypothermia on their doorsteps with their neighbours discussing the "local" maintainance shutdown...then maybe some fellow in white camos will show up and let them know they can find safety at the local hockey arena. This show is so well set up people won't have time to panic and get angry... msm is gonna take them right through....denial, anger, grieving, ...and into acceptance without them even knowing.  

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:33 | 708219 Rick64
Rick64's picture

What about natural gas? It seems there is still abundant quantities.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 13:29 | 708494 trav7777
trav7777's picture

Downing Effect, honestly.

I know smart people, really smart, who assumed if PO were real, they'd have known about it.

Likewise, I suffer from the flipside of Downing; I assume people around me know far more and are far more capable than they really are.  In many cases, this assumption makes me appear to be intentionally trying to confuse people because i want to avoid treating them as if they are knowledgeless.

PO is moonbat to a lot of people, even those in the know.  There's the whole potent directors "they" that will just figure something out.  Even among really intelligent folks who now understand PO, this is the fallback...denial.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 19:04 | 709882 PuppetRepubl1c
PuppetRepubl1c's picture

Peak oil is not only real, it is obvious!


Dr. James Schlesinger: "The Peak Oil Debate is Over"

Dr. James Schlesinger gave one of the keynote talks at the recent ASPO-USA Conference. Dr. Schlesinger comes with a wealth of experience: He was the first Secretary of Energy, from 1977 - 1979. Prior to that, he had been Chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission, US Secretary of Defense, and Director of Central Intelligence.


I personally have been pondering peak oil for years, but if a former Secretary of Defense and Director of the CIA will admit it publicly then it means everyone who matters has already accepted it as a foregone conclusion.  Of course you won't hear it on the MSM, they simply want you to buy stocks and shop on margin.  People need to wake the fuck up!



Mon, 11/08/2010 - 20:25 | 710032 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Just another IQ test that Humanity is FAILING!  Make some more disposable plastic bottles, do some more planned obsolesence, and keep wondering why the World Economy keeps going down!

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:41 | 708081 fearsomepirate
fearsomepirate's picture

Yes, money does move your car down the road and grow food, since it's the medium through which we obtain resources.  Money matters because the food you eat and the car you drive depend on exchange, unless you are some kind of master craftsman who makes everything for yourself and has a private little iron mine in your back yard.  Without money, exchange is much less efficient.  Economy as we know it doesn't happen, and society is reduced to barter.  Destroying the currency is an unmitigated disaster.  When raw sewage is flowing down the streets (because city repair personnel refuse to work for worthless paper) and dysentery breaks out (because doctors can't afford antibiotics), as has happened in Harare, you'll understand why we should give a damn about the dollar.

Peak oil wouldn't be so bad without the government intervening to direct research resources away from viable alternatives and into boondoggles like ethanol.  Not to mention their outright ban on new nuclear energy development.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:47 | 708099 GhershomsRevenge
GhershomsRevenge's picture

Won't even explore that argument until you can show me an example of a combine ...tractor....Dump truck...running on a battery.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:00 | 708129 BrerRabbit
BrerRabbit's picture

Not battery. Cellulistic ethanol.


And its not just for breakfast either.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:08 | 708146 GhershomsRevenge
GhershomsRevenge's picture

look at its' cost per gallon 

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:37 | 708237 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Idiot!  Ethanol is a crappy motor fuel, it's low energy, low return on energy, and CORROSIVE.



Mon, 11/08/2010 - 13:15 | 708412 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

+ and we kinda need to grow food on all the land it would take

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 13:35 | 708530 trav7777
trav7777's picture

Cellulistic???  LOL...u can't even spell it but it's gonna save us?

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:46 | 708267 kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

They run just fine on propane, and would do quite well on compressed nat gas.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 16:36 | 709366 Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

And there are methane hydrate deposits yet to be developed.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 13:37 | 708546 trav7777
trav7777's picture

it's possible assuming you have some nearby turbines and you hang an overhead wire over the entire farm, along tracks the combine would drive.  It'd be like a glorified city streetcar or electric bus.

Possible.  Obviously a PITA, but possible.

However, electricity won't replace the fertilizer.

The ONLY way this whole shebang can work is for example if we had a MASSIVE surplus of electricity.  IOW, no issues w/ Peak U238 anytime soon, no peak He, PBMRs everywhere, turbines everywhere, solar panels on every roof, etc.

Very obviously, we did NOT invest in that type of infrastructure in the 1990s when we had the strong dollar and surplus oil to do it.  Real R&D has been shoved aside because financial bullshit and housing and .com generate better real profits for "investors."

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:03 | 708687 GhershomsRevenge
GhershomsRevenge's picture

pPropane is a by product of Petroleum and NG processing and so price point is closely linked to oil and NG prices. CNG is economical right now no doubt. But after conversion, same problem.

World is now a closed thermodynamic system. Tmosley points were valid 100 years ago when the system was an open one.


Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!