This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Ron Paul: "What The Federal Reserve Still Fails To Realize Is That Intervention In The Economy Is Always Harmful"
As part of yesterday's hearing with Ben Bernanke before the House Financial Services Committee, Ron Paul provided the following statement in which he blasts the Fed's ever-increasing cluelessness over monetary policy and its disastrous Catch 22 implications: "the Fed only sees what is seen, the superficial results of its policies, and not what is unseen, the effects of its monetary intervention throughout the economy. Monetary inflation leads to malinvestment and causes the boom phase of the business cycle. Once the malinvestment is realized the bust phase occurs, and these malinvested resources need to be liquidated in order for the economy to recover. But the Fed actively works to prevent this liquidation and does everything in its power to continue inflating in order to prolong the boom. The first act of intervention begets the second and subsequent interventions, each bigger than the first, as each economic bust gets larger and more severe." As the only thing that currently matters for the economy, for LBO rumors, and for stock picking in general is the overabundance of liquidity, one wonders to what rabbit holes the Fed's push for central planning of the US economy will eventually lead us: "The Soviet Union's economy failed because of its central planning, and the United States economy will suffer the same fate if we continue down the path toward more centralized control."
Full Ron Paul statement:
Statement for the Record
Congressman Ron Paul
Mr. Chairman, today the Federal Reserve finds itself in an unprecedented and unenviable position. It has boosted the monetary base by nearly $1.5 trillion since September of 2008. Excess bank reserves remain at historically high levels, and the Fed's balance sheet has ballooned to over $2 trillion. If the Fed pulls this excess liquidity out of the system, it risks collapsing banks who rely on this newly created money to boost their balance sheets. However if the Fed fails to pull this excess liquidity out of the system we risk hyperinflation.
The Federal Reserve has never had such an inflated balance sheet, nor has it ever pumped up the monetary base by such a large amount. During the belt-tightening years of the late 1970s and early 1980s, both the balance sheet and the monetary base continued to expand during a severe recession. We have to look back to the 1920s and 1930s before we see the Fed lowering the monetary base, and even then the Fed lowered the base only by 16%. What we are talking about now is a 60% lowering of the monetary base in order to return to pre-crisis levels. That is a major decrease in the monetary base and, if it is undertaken once these excess reserves have begun to enter the system, it could undermine the viability of banks and lead to the collapse of the financial system that the Fed sought to avoid.
What the Federal Reserve still fails to realize is that intervention in the economy is always harmful. Unlike the late French economist, Frederic Bastiat, the Fed only sees what is seen, the superficial results of its policies, and not what is unseen, the effects of its monetary intervention throughout the economy. Monetary inflation leads to malinvestment and causes the boom phase of the business cycle. Once the malinvestment is realized the bust phase occurs, and these malinvested resources need to be liquidated in order for the economy to recover. But the Fed actively works to prevent this liquidation and does everything in its power to continue inflating in order to prolong the boom. The first act of intervention begets the second and subsequent interventions, each bigger than the first, as each economic bust gets larger and more severe.
The idea that a handful of brilliant minds can somehow steer the economy is fatal to economic growth and stability. The Soviet Union's economy failed because of its central planning, and the United States economy will suffer the same fate if we continue down the path toward more centralized control. We need to return to sound money, bring back free markets, and rein in the Fed.
»
- 5992 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
and in other news the "free and unfettered" equity markets surged back toward yesterday's breakout levels after the FED ran futures in overnight trading......
People still think Ron Paul is the broken clock of economics.
He is correct 99% of the time... central banking is one of the tenants of communism, tell somebody that and you get looked at like you're Richard Reed.
Maybe they're looking at you funny because you said tenants of communism...
now now, we're all (mostly) friends here...
with an eye towards the GSEs, I might offer that those of us w/mortgages are all tenants of the government
Easy, man. Slew is obviously the Muscle, not so much the Brain. You might be glad to have Slew on your side one day soon...
Read on "friend"
http://tonewah.blogtownhall.com/2008/06/09/usa_40_communist.thtml
These are not my words.
Try Masters of Deceit, or The Communist Manifesto before poking fun of grammar you haven't seen before.
Edit: Don't worry.... I'm still mostly muscle.
Ron has good intentions but he is wrong on some issues. You can eliminate the central banks and you are still going to collapse every 60-80 years. Matter of fact this country's economic system collapsed at a time when no central bank existed.
If you continue to borrow and lend at a rate of compounding interest, nothing will change, and nothing has changed.
Really? When was that collapse?
The Great Depression of 1837 there were no central bank in the United States. The financial systems have been rising and collapsing since upright monkeys started using compounding interest as the basis of their system.
Of course State banks kept on working on.
As long as you continue to lend and borrow at a rate of compounding interest you are going to continue to get your butt kicked at the end of the cycle.
You don't need a licensed bank nor a Central bank to lend and borrow... I can do today with my neighbor if I wish.
You do not need a Central Bank to lend and borrow, you don't even need a thing called a Bank.
There was a central bank and it was ended by Andrew Jackson. But he screwed it up by allowing states to print paper currency.
Insolvent borrowers and cavalier lending instituions go out of business and all their assets are purchased by solvent ones.
Problem solved.
The cycle is because unaddressed corruption always gums up the gears, which is especially prevalent when fractional reserve banking is considered legal.
The booms and busts were much more frequent than 80 years - imagine if you could keep international bankers hands off the free markets for that long.
Someone can clarify as I'm hazy on the details, but wasn't this depression a counterattack by the de facto 'central bank' of monied/power elite of NY/London? This seems what I remember from the Vanderbilt bio I recently read, but again...it's hazy.
Of course, your point stands. Even without a central bank, there will likely be a de facto central bank. But at least there is enhanced redundancy because the point of failure is not so integral to the system.
If there were only some way of ensuring such a bank couldn't control the currency...
There is. Eliminate the state.
...now that is thinking outside the box.
I'm a little late but that's like saying that if the Federal Reserve was abolished in 2009, it would have absolved them of any responsibility. The Bank of the United States (not as catchy as the Federal Reserve) was the fiscal agent for the US until the middle of 1833 but Jackson had talked about abolishing the bank as early as his 1829 annual address. From 1830 to 1833, the number of banks in the US increased from 330 to more than 500. All these banks were practicing FRB.
There was also an influx of silver from Mexico in the late 1820's, early 30's and for every new Mexican silver dollar deposited in one of these banks, at least five new paper dollars or paper credits were created. Buying something or paying off a debt with specie is not by itself inflationary, but using the specie to create five times its amount in new money is inflationary.
CEOoftheSOFA is spot on with regards to Jackson's role. The incorporated FRB's were the chief cause of the inflation leading up to the panic but Jackson's state-bank system made it that much worse.
Combine that with the bubble psychology of the time:
...and Nicholas Biddle's Paulson-like threats and collapsing of the money supply (maybe what Dicite justitiam is alluding to). Otherwise, the drop in cotton prices and British credit would have been a temporary inconvenience. Of course you're going to have corrections, that's how the markets work. They're necessary. But it's monopoly control of money coupled with FRB that not only create much bigger distortions in the economy (requiring bigger corrections) but also prevents the corrections from occurring as they should.
Mako,
Of course we had a Depression in 1837. Andrew Jackson ended the Bank Of the United States (central bank) the year before in 1836. All the air was let out of the inflationary bubble that had been created by the central bank.
And a $1 in 1837 was still worth a dollar in 1914. Today that dollar is worth 4 cents.
If we ever end the Federal Reserve it will result in massive deflation as the fiat ponzi scheme colllapses.
Collapse is the "solution" not the problem, boom is the problem, the malinvestment he talks about..
It is all malinvestment once you peak. There are businesses that are closing their doors with no debt or refusing to go into debt.
You are correct though... collapse is the solution to the equation... billions will be wiped from the books as a result of us using the equation... billions of what? I ain't talking about money or credit.
You imply the death of millions. (people?)
A war is the answer to many of the problems when viewed from the politicians lens.
Do we even have a chance to alter the outcome?
A potential survivor wants to know
I'll take 60-80 over the current 6-8.
Not to mention the size of the Fed backed collapse as any time a boom is created to delay a collapse the collapse is much worse. The amount of funds injected to create a boom as an attempt to prevent a collapse is idiotic.
do some research - it was coordinated from England to force people to believe they needed a central bank...
it was a lesser of evils decision at the time
prove your point lol wrong on some issues ron paul .. but you .. are right
hubris speaking , in a costume of keynesian goo.
Ron Paul is absolutely right about the distortions created by the Federal Reserve. They should have fixed interest rates at 5% at the beginning and told the markets there would be no change (and no bailouts for anyone if they got burned). Certainly, we wouldn't be stuck in this extremely dangerous boom/bust cycle. The economy would go through donwturns but nowhere like what we are now facing.
The system would collapse anyway. The Fed has no ability to raise RATES, they can raise the Fed Funds Rate. If they would have continued to raise the FFR back in 2007, you would not be typing on this blog right now.
Ron is a good guy but he is completely insane that you just go into a 1 year recession and that it's... you go into a death spiral but we are already there.
http://worlddarkestdays.blogspot.com/2010/03/kohn-research-needed-on-com...
I am talking about the Fed Funds rate. All other rates are driven by the private sector. Certainly, we would be in far less of a mess if Greenspan had not kept interest rates low for so long. Think about if he had to keep them at 5% in the early 2000's. Our economic picture right now would be substantially different (for one thing, there would have been far less debt build-up).
Yes, the Federal Reserve could keep on raising rates and if they would have continued like the chart I linked... the system would have looked like a mushroom cloud.
They had three choices that I see... continue to raise rates which would have blew up the system in months, done nothing and the system would have blown up in probably a few quarters, or drop rates to match the rates set by the market place to prolong the system.
The Fed does not set rates they follow the market, always have, always will.
You are missing the point. If the Fed Funds Rate had been fixed at a level, the Federal Reserve would not be playing catch-up with the market to try to correct it; the market would have adopted self-correcting mechanisms. As it stands now, the market relies on the Fed to bail them out by lowering rates, quantitative easing etc. That is wrong - the government should let the markets self-correct.
No the Federal Reserve is trying to hold a system together which was unsustainable. You and all the rest of the people on the earth think you can borrow and lend at a rate compounding interest, well you can for about 60-80 years then it must collapse due to Math.
The Federal Reserve follows the market, you are not making any sense.
http://curiouscat.com/images/30_year_rate_fed_fund_rate_2000-apr_2008_66...
If you were correct, the FR could continue to raise rates in 2007 and 2008 and 2009 and 2010... sorry but the system is not generating enough to sustain itself at 1% interest owed let alone 10%+.
Sure the Fed can raise rates, good luck going to your ATM and thinking you are going to get anything out of it... they could raise it to 10% tomorrow... let me know so I can go stock up on food and ammo.
The Federal Reserve is the unsustainable part of the math equation of which you speak.
Casino, you need to listen to what Mako is saying. He's coming at this from the highest level - he along with Trav7777 & myself seem among the few people who focus on this perspective.
Check around the interwebs to investigate the phenomenon of exponential math (eg compounding interest). Our credit-money system - with or without the Fed, gold, fiat, etc - is designed to fail from the start. Interest rates are always higher than growth rates - if they weren't, no one would loan any money. If the net positive interest rate is only 1.5%, principal+interest doubles in 50 years in excess of the underlying asset (collateral) value.
The solution is the bust - default & clear the debts to begin the cycle anew. When the basis is at/near -0-, at that point even the slightest hint of economic growth will appear as 5% or higher. But when we're hooked into massive mal-investment, nothing looks appealing. That is, unless we found a huge new source of energy equivalent to the current $USD:BTU oil ratio that could support decades of 7-10% annual growth rates.
Of course, that ain't gonna happen, so the alternative is a reset. However, this time around the crash has been transferred to sovereigns, making it that much worse. Like death & taxes, this is an absolute sure thing. So I don't get worried; rather, I prepare.
Now, from both intellectual & competitive angles, the real challenge will be to develop a non-credit money system during the next go-around. The competitive aspect results from the power elite who will want to regain control. Who will lead the mort's to defeat this threat?
Hmm. Okay, I get it now. Agreed about the non-credit money system.
Yep. We're all having a "polite" conversation here at ZH until music stops. And then there will be no more polite conversation, or ZH.
the real problem, is 1% of people own 90% of world wealth, and they don't want to take their losses in the bust, so they devise a way, to turn the losses into debt, owed to them ad infinitum. we are dealing with a parasitic organism, living off the efforts, of the people
Absolutely. So is it possible to win the next round? That's what I'm interested in achieving. This round is over - like tennis, if you're bombing, you gotta let a set go and start focusing on the next one.
When this sucker goes down, we might actually have a chance to re-cast a new monetary system.
One thing is certain, those that are running the current system are doing nearly everything in their power to motivate the general populace to that very end. And I agree with your premise that the current system is designed to fail. Parasitic without question.
OK I'm trying to catch up here. Didn't take economics or anything remotely financial in college.
If interest rates are always higher than growth rates (or else nobody would ever loan money), why doesn't it work to the converse, i.e. "Interest rates are always less than growth rates - if they weren't, no one would borrow any money." Aren't there always fools and smart people on both sides?
Close - the proper analogy would be "if interest rates are always less than growth rates, no one would lend any money". This is true, no? Otherwise, why would you lend money at a loss? Why not just keep it and invest (equity) in the growth vehicle?
From the borrowers' perspective, they discount the truth behind "interest rates are always greater than growth rates ..." by convincing themselves (or allow themselves to be convinced by a mass propaganda campaign) that interest rates are lower than growth rates. But it's a lie, and it's always a lie.
That's what "get in on the ground floor", "you'll get priced out", "real estate never goes down", etc, etc are all about. Right now, the horses ain't drinkin'. Ben is trying to convince everyone that good times are here again and it's time to re-lever, but the people know otherwise. That's why total credit (the Z1 report that Mako refers) continues to decline even in the face of massive federal (deficit) expenditures.
That's sortof what I thought was being said. So in other words - you're saying the lenders of money are, on average, always exploiting the borrowers, and never the other way around.
I would think that smart lenders would want to sustain this as long as possible, and therefore match the interest rate as closely as possible to the rate of growth. (I guess I'm talking in the increasingly-hypothetical case of free market capitalism.) Conversely, I would think that smart borrowers would seek out those rates as well. Supply and demand meeting - again, in the ever more mythical free market - balanced agreement.
**edit: by the way, thanks for the reply.
I must be missing something obvious here.
The anticipated growth rate must be higher than interest rate because the anticipated (risk established)yield on a loan should be higher than the risk adjusted borrowing rate offered the lender.
Otherwise none would borrow nor would anyone lend. Stated another way:
If I do not expect a risk adjusted yield greater than my opportunity cost of capital I would not lend money.
Compounding is a method for describing interest rates. They are descriptive not prescriptive. Any rate can be viewed from a compounded or compounding perspective. Growth rates also compound. The point behind credit based economic policy is to make sure that the growth rate (yields on assets) is greater than the interest rate on the loan plus inflation underlying that asset.
The people who "manage" this relation, central banks suck at their job because they work for banks. They want to maximize the growth rate while maintaining inflation. They do this on behalf of lenders who wants more return for less risk for free. Look how successful they are
The issue with central banks and the need for their abolition is that they artificially reduce the perceived risk or stated another way increase the expected return of an investment. They do this by the manipulation of their own invention, the riskless rate. This way they create artificially high growth rates leading to excessive risk taking encouraging bubbles to form. We know how this story ends, it ends with a ZIRP and this I would argue is the destiny of any "state controled" interest rates.
DD is correct. interest is not tied to growth rates. it is tied to inflation or deflation rates, risk and the time value of money. inflation/deflation is the relation of the growth of the money supply to the growth of the economy. usury is a different animal altogether.
Let me pose a question, hopefully I don't get put in the corner for asking:
I think your premise assumes a positive REAL return. Are you neglecting inflation? Where does inflation fit into this?
No, the Fed sets rates.
What college did you go to so I can avoid it at all cost.
The Fed sets the Fed Funds Rate, that about it... they set the FFR based on the market.
http://curiouscat.com/images/30_year_rate_fed_fund_rate_2000-apr_2008_66...
Now see the chart above to see what happens when the Fed tries to tell the market what to do. If you were correct, I could go get a mortgage at 1%.
You think the Fed's quantitative easing doesn't affect interest rates?
I think the point you are making is based on where we are now. I am saying they should have fixed the fed funds rate a long time ago. To get to that point now will take some transition.
And what you are referring to is fractional reserve lending which, over the fullness of time, is indeed corrosive. But we would be on a lot more sustainable path if the fed fund rates had not been micro managed up to now.
You are either creating the needed credit for the system to continue or you don't and the system starts to collapse. There is no way out of the equation once you enter.
No it is no more sustainable.
- Start the system
- System expands at the rate needed
- System is unable to expand at the rate needed
- System collapses
- System liquidates
- Rinse and repeat
The Fed can fight the market all they want, they tried that in 2007 and they lost and will always lose.
Mako, here's a friendly hint: ZH space monkeys are your allies. If you can't reasonably & persuasively explain these concepts to a self-selected group, that IMO is the brightest, most knowledgeable about finance & economics anywhere, then there is no chance in hell a mort is going to have any idea what you're talking about. So, go slow and drop the combativeness - just explain the math & post up some examples.
Now, regarding morts, that's an interesting conundrum, because if an attempt is made to change the money-credit system after the crash, it appears it may be a waste of time explaining what happened that led to the crash in the first place. If that's the case, then it predicts why the power-elite resume their position each & every time afterward. Hmm.
A+ and thanks
I think he means that credit availability must always be positive in order to sustain a credit based economy because one needs ever more credit to be able to transact.
Strangle the credit growth and you have deflation, where the rate at which liabilities grow stop but the ability to pay for assets using the only medium available has disappeared. The resulting illiquidity causes asset prices to tumble and on their way down annihilate any loans that had these assets as collateral.
Central banks operate on the premise that credit growth leads to higher asset yields, yields that are not inflationary because they are bubbles.
Mako, you have posted relentlessly over the past few days about your ‘equation’. Well, produce your ‘equation’ and allow the studied minds of the ZH body politic dissect it…
You are describing a closed system free from any variability. Setting up a perfect system is one that systematically fails. How can it even start when its collapse is determined a priori.
What role does exogenous information play in this death march, how are differences in expectations handled, errors, opinions, those things that make up a market play no role in your description or they are rationalized by the process. Liabilities are composed of principle plus interest but assets have no er even less yield because IR > GR. Growth rates do not compound but for some reason interest rates do.
What stabilizes the system and allows it to adjust you have left out in order for the system to collapse, for the math to work out.
According to a very similar agrument we would run out of food becasue mankind increases geometrically while food stores increase arithmetically.
The fed fails for a different reason
Just stop talking. That graph says nothing
Sure it does, the Fed would love rates to be higher.
The Fed only has influence, those people that blame the Fed for their stupidity in using a compounding interest base model are really just looking for an excuse.
If you don't understand the chart, you really shouldn't be looking at the chart.
The Fed has no ability to make rates magically go up, which is what was being discussed. The economy was blowing up when the got 2007, sure they could have kept raising rates and you would probably be eating in the dark tonight eating the roaches or rats you could find.
Dup.
Rates follow the economicalness of a business region.
They're higher in developing economies because they can be - those are more profitable.
You cannot lend at 5% to someone who can only eke out a 4% RoR.
The reason leverage is so huge here is because unleveraged activities are no longer of sufficient profitability. That is the sign of an exhausted economy.
When I say 5%, I mean fix it at some rate (somewhere 4-5% makes sense to me). Investment that generates less ROR doesn't happen (and we don't get the debt that goes with it) - it's that simple. That forces a more sustainable investment discipline. It's hard for people to comprehend this because everyone has got used to the get-rich-quick, take on lots of debt easy-money era.
Why the hell would you fix any price? Just get rid of the Fed.
The problem with "just get rid of the fed"
is that would put monetary policy in the hands of congress, and that would be much, much worse. The Fed and or its replacement needs 100% transparency.
But all of that is pointless at this stage, as Mako and BKB9 have explained above,we can't fight the equation. I'll also add that we have no answer to our impending energy crisis. Equation and energy crisis coupled together spell DOOM. Prepare well
Fixing an interest rate also problematic. If it is lower then the market rate would be will accrue malinvestment, if it is higher it would discourage good investment.
The solution, kill the central bank and all federal backstops and let the market decide. For those who hate capitalism and markets, know that we have not had real capitalism in this country for a wrong time and you confuse crony capitalism for capitalism.
It's been so long since we have had real capitalism in this country that not a single person alive today was alive to witness it. This makes it very hard for people (even for those of us who know) to tell the difference, practically, between Capitalism and what we have come to know as capitalism.
Why the hell would you fix any price? Just get rid of the Fed.
Inevitably, there has to be one "backstop" funding facility from the government to the banks. That rate should be fixed. All others should be market driven.
And this can be done while ditching the Fed, which I agree with.
Why is it inevitable? Let them fail. Clear out the knucklehead dynasty stock and bondholders living off Grandpa's hard work. Clear out the dumb mutual fund mgrs who hold the debt & equity in the institutions. Quit protecting the freakin elites.
Distributed systems for the win.
The economy is like a public skating rink. You have a mixture of former competitive figure skaters and people who are on the ice for the first time ever, kids, old women, etc.
Those who cannot let the self-interest of the skaters on the rink have primacy are the ones who worry, OMG without CONTROL, there could be accidents. Someone might get hurt. But, actually, they rarely do. Occasionally, there are collisions, but the self-interest of each person plus their concern for the welfare of others makes self-inflicted harm the most common (people fall down on their own).
Think about the control that would be necessary to be imposed...you would have to slow and segregate and reduce the numbers of skaters to ensure "harmonious" controlled activity instead of letting the emergent phenomenon of order within chaos manifest itself. The whole point of the endeavor then collapses. The skaters desert the rink; that is our economy under central planning. A controlled economy *always* has problems requiring more control. Eventually, the system becomes unstable. Stability can then only be achieved via a reduction in activity. The notion of exerting control over an increasing number of chaotic components is asinine...yet that is the trend among these morons. It becomes the Madonna of the Future
Nobody teaches fish how to school. There is no overlord.
Fitting analogy! Thanks
In your public-skating-rink economy, Sidney Crosby would be required to skate with octo mom and her children strapped on his back, and Apolo Anton Ono could use only one skate, having had his other taken from him and given for free to a one legged leper. All in the interest of fairness, of course.
Bingo.
Well played.
just raise the rates to skate to thin it out...who cares what they do on the pond
Nice analogy.
Compelling analogy. I thought of driving in Beirut (was there a few days ago) or Korea in years past as another.
It appears as utter chaos to the American driver who is familiar with traffic lights, right of way rules, lines you don't cross, and stern enforcement.
However, the drivers in these countries want to avoid accidents, so rules of thumb emerge without a regulatory body. In general, people get where they are going, and far less accidents occur than might be supposed. Speeds tend to be lower as well.
But would their traffic be improved by certain rules properly enforced? Yes. I believe there has to be some form of rule of law in activities that by means require human conflict (driving, commerce). But those rules must be tested to improve the outcome of the enterprise in whole. This is lacking in our application of rule of law to the economy.
Only rein it in? Sounds like his position is softening.
Once again Dr. Paul is totally right, and once again he will be ignored. At least when the history books are written maybe there will be a footnote in them about Dr. Paul trying to change the course of the Titanic. At least when the dollar goes he can try to hold their feet to the fire when they start crying "OMG we never saw it coming!!!".
He is always right. Somebody should go back through old video clips and do a "Ron Paul was Right" video on Youtube showing it.
RON PAUL, BITCHES!!
I am Chumbawamba.
whoever junked this comment needs to reply instead as to why not RON PAUL BITCHES!!
i get so sick and tired of these slimy libtards and neocons sneaking around taking pot shots at Dr. Paul but never bothering to explain exactly what it is he is saying with which they find fault, other than it completely exposes their own platforms to the complete lack of any consistency, either from a personal rights standpoint, or a Constitutional standpoint.
The truth?
Reality is governed by cause and effect.
Have you ever seen yeast grown on a petri dish? Hmmm?
Exponential function.
Our fractured unceasingly changing reality of limitation, causality, and relative matter?
Way too deep.
So what are we to do?
Evolve or die. Resources. Economies. Government. Time. Population. EXPANSION BY EXPONENTIAL FUNCTIONS IN ALL REALMS OF HUMANITYS' THOUGHT AND ENDEAVOR MUST CEASE TO BECOME CONSIDERED A VIABLE MODEL; IT IS THUS THAT THE RELATIVE NATURE OF THIS REALITY IS SUCH THAT EXPONENTIAL FUNCTION FAILS REPEAT FAILS EVERY TIME. Supply and demand, a natural law of this kharmic place; holocene extinction is imminent.
Survival?
Depends on the ability to sustain in cycle, not, I repeat not, grow ceaselessly. Expansion by unlimited exponetization (?) whether by empire, government, money printing, resource depletion, market saturation, population, economics, corruption, cancer,quarterly profit, Starbucks, monetization, exploitation...etc..etc...whatever subject you'd like to choose.
More must die?
Who am I. Who sees when I see.
The realm of the infinite, eyeh asher eyeh, tao, buddha realm, enlightenmenat, heaven, is not accessible by grasping at shifting materialization. The way to the Father is through the way and the life. We are not our bodies!?
Wake up and die? What is the sound of one species screeaming its death with the word more?
Just be. Please just be. No more, know less.
Humanity needs to breathe, and change, or we are all dead. Then again all of our bodies are going to die anyway. Perhaps, just perhaps....When travelling in this place we call This and That, we should treat our fellow travellers as you would want to be treated.
Get it? Can you see the edge of the petri dish?
We'll see.
+1000 Here Here
Word.
Nicely said Buddha.
The Ouraboros avatar fits nicely with the content of this post.
Ron Paul: "What The Federal Reserve Still Fails To Realize Is That Intervention In The Economy Is Always Harmful"
Even while Dr Paul is speaking truth to power, he is still either in denial or he is being politically correct in order to avoid being squished like a bug. I vote the latter.
The key people at the Federal Reserve absolutely positively realize that intervention in the economy is always harmful. This is a PONZI. A PONZI doesn't just happen by accident. It's a deliberate and intentional act by people that have forethought and are acting with malice.
They engage in endless discussions and debates in order to manufacture plausible deniability and thus an excuse for remaining out of jail or away from the hangman's noose. It's an elaborate game by a few that has captured masses of people, many who may honestly believe the game that's being played is real. But the people at the center know exactly what they are doing. To say otherwise allows them to avoid accountability.
This actually allows many to dissent while not actually doing much to stop it. After all, if the PONZI were to end, here and now, our standard of living will at least temporarily drop. No one who is being honest with themselves wishes themselves to go hungry for even a few days. No one. So we all play the game of denial by fussing and complaining but not actually revolting, of doing something to actually stop the game. I'm just as guilty as the next person. I'm not throwing stones at glass houses for I live in one myself.
In addition we must remember he has a short time to speak so explaining the ponzi takes some time, especially since most people are in denial even if they have some of the facts. Also he has already been vilified as a cook for willing to point out problems in the system. How much more would he be attacked if he stated the oblivious, the Emperor has no clothes? He does have the political courage to talk about hyperinflation which is important because he is setting a record for when it happens.
As to action we are acting. I'm acting in my own selfish best interests by saving, getting gold, and looking for escape route. You speak of a reduction in a standard of living and that crash in it of itself will cause a lot of chaos, hungry/angry people do crazy things. It's actually in my best interests for the ponzi to go on a while longer so I'm better prepared for the consequence. We have already crossed the Rubicon, the collapse will happen, the only issue now is when and how far down will we slide. I don't know about you but I don't feel ready for the crash.
"I don't know about you but I don't feel ready for the crash."
There is no such thing as being "ready" though I understand and agree with your point. One has no idea how it will play out so it's nearly impossible to be ready, only prepared as best as you can for various possibilities.
BTW, while purchasing Gold is important as a store of value, it will be nearly useless if you are forced to barter for supplies. Silver will be extremely useful because it's a smaller "denomination". Consider going to the grocery store today with a $1,000 bill. Even if it's accepted, which is unlikely, it won't help you if you're looking for a weeks supply of food. How do you get "change" back unless you're using fractional Gold coins, such as 1/10, 1/4 and 1/2 ounce Gold coins. But a couple of ounces of Silver will be much more acceptable to those you are bartering with.
I know this comment will bring out the people who think this entire subject is silly. Whatever. If you want to accumulate PM's don't forget silver dollars, particularly pre-1964 silver coins, including the quarters, dimes and half's, which are instantly recognized and understood to be mostly silver.
Not only that, but looky here:
http://coinflation.us
Pennies (real ones, not those copper flashed zinc pieces of shit) are 100+% over par value. Nickels, while not as impressively over par, are still worth more than five U.S. cents. Start hoarding your (real) pennies and nickels. You'll be using those to buy your produce at the local farmers markets in the future.
And for those who think I'm nuts, well, first of all you're right. But second of all, think back to what happened to American coinage in 1965. That's what happens to fiat money. All coins in circulation today, with the exception of pennies and nickels, are actually tokens: they merely represent the face value.
Is this making sense finally?
I am Chumbawamba.
Correction of web site.
http://www.coinflation.com/
Son-bitch! I was damn sure it was .us but you're right.
Thanks for the correction.
I am Chumbnitive Wambonance.
Be careful how you turn those copper coins in, Chumba. There was a company that was doing this before and got in lots of legal hot water, moved the opperation into canada, and then got shut down. Wish I could remember the company's name so that I could give you a link. If you are going to sell them, melt them down and then add some other metals to change the alloy. Or you could put them in plastic bags in the middle of a bunch of copper wire, but that is a little risky.
Exactly, I've stockpiled food, water + filter, guns, fuel (not much as I'm urban), and ammo in addition to getting gold and silver. I've gotten more then a few laughs from visiting friends who see my stockpile, but better safe then sorry. Besides all these things except for the PMs I use in my day to day life anyway. I'd like to see more people get food and water on hand. Even if they think there won't be a breakdown or that PMs are just a barbarous relic. It's not like they don't eat and drink bottled water anyway, why not take less trips to the store and stay stocked up in case of random natural disaster?
I wish I knew how this would turn out and when and I would plan accordingly. Because we don't it's more a shotgun effect to try to at least hit the more likely targets. But I still would like more time to prepare or to get to a better location. In addition the the pure simple fact I don't want it to happen so the longer it doesn't the more the pain stays in the future and not my present.
I agree with you on the silver. I have a lot of silver but I stopped buying because it was going to start getting silly with the weight. I'd like to be able to carry my hoard out hte door if I had to :) I got almost 1/2 my gold in small fractional pieces so I'm less concerned about getting change if stuck in that position. The fractionals are nice, even my dad was asking about them after he saw mine.
Though I will say I don't think the junk silver will be universally recognized overnight. To many people have no idea what is going on and a lot of people will have to face a steep learning curve.
Expanding on your comment, in the short term other things may work better for barter then silver coinage. Extra ammo, magazines even in small quantities should be very valuable as barter. Extra food and common bleach for water purification will good for barter also. I also plan on stocking up on alcohol at my retreat to use as barter, plus getting hammered may become our only excape from reality.
I assume your "retreat" will have a garden, perhaps a stockpile of special seeds from Jamaica would help to relieve the stress? In the spirit of self sustaining lifestyles.
WildWood Flower
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TQ3pC9W1o4
You should consider pre-positioning your stash near a rural community that you can get to, on bicycle, within a day or two. Storage sites in those areas are cheap - considering it is unlikely you can carry it all!
Cache the most important items in a PVC pipe: firearm, ammo, multi-tool, water-purification tablets, MREs, copies of personal documents, precious metals. Consider it a jump-start to your life if you've lost (or is confiscated) everything else.
Accept the idea you could lose everything and plan accordingly.
I'm basically trapped in a town and rural is not an option from my location. I don't expect a rapid collapse and if there is like I said I have some fuel and access to a place off the beaten path that is very secure to move my stuff to and barricade up (bars on all windows, security doors, barbed wire topped fence, off the main power grid, etc). It's only a couple miles away from my home and don't expect a hoard to pass by it. I have some stuff there but not much more then some canned food and water. Lucky for me if things do collapse the owner and most everyone else with a key will be at least 60+ miles away and probably not realize how nice a site it is and leave it to me alone.
I'm still of the opinion that this will take years, and more likely will be a slow easy to see decay before a busting collapse. We all know the debt strain will kill the dollar over the next decade. I'm guessing we are probably still about 2+ years out because of the obfuscation and the power of the gov to loot. I expect we'll see the 401ks taken before they let the dollar pop. I also expect to see the pound sterling to die first, that's my canary in the coal mine.
Awesome. The benefit of a nearby community with sustainability on their minds is that when your food runs out you have gardens, goats, and chickens to pick up the slack. Theoretically.
Interesting second paragraph. I'm crossing my fingers that it ain't quick and dirty either (to get out of town before everyone realizes that being in town is a bad idea), but also crossing my fingers that more people wake up and take control before total collapse. But if it lasts as long as a few more years I'll have more practice with outdoorsy survival stuff, getting my hands dirty in a garden, and scoopin' poop. LOL (at myself)
It would be foolish to rush in guns a blazin' without backup. That's called suicide. And since the whole purpose of this endeavor is to survive, we must hold our noses until the rest of humanity catches up with the obviously evolved intellect that you and I share :)
I am Chumbawamba.
I saw your "coagulate" comment on another thread that had me laughing. I'm stealing it from you. No donation or royalty paid to you, just outright theft by me.
I read that :) I've placed it in the public domain. I have freed your conscience.
You're welcome.
I am Chumbawamba.
"I have freed your conscience."
Free! Free at last. Thank Chumbawamba almighty, free at last!
Deliverance by Chumbawamba, the ultimate higher power, is so much more satisfying that the promise of eternal salvation by other assorted pagan Gods.
Thank you, mighty Chumbawamba. :>)
Holy Shit, I've been Deified!
I guess that's better than being defied.
Thank you, mighty Cognitive Dissonance!
I am The Almighty Chumbawamba. All shall tremble in my presence.
A compliment from either of you ZH demi-gods is quite a honor.
Anybody want to see what America might look like in a year, or two, or much less?
http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/slideshow?articleId=USRTR2C3ZV#a=1
You're flying with the same flock wings.
"Holy Shit, I've been Deified!"
lol
You two slay me! And be careful when you prospect off Monument in Concord Chumb.. heh
The ponzi will not end until redemptions (in FRN) are not accepted by counterparties. As BSB says, and others will concede, you cannot default if you control the printing press.
This will occur not on the basis of a liability that is due to be paid (as for Greece), but when two things occur to the FRN. 1. There is uncertainty that it provides a means to control the future. 2. It loses its fiscal sex appeal.
In my eyes, 1 and 2 hinge on the military might of the US.
This is a psychological phenomenon, and the Fed does not reference this limit to the power of their money, nor do their internal controls appear to seek to identify the status of these psychological mass behavioral factors as a pilot would the weather he may face.
Yeah, the Soviets collapsed *first* because of Central Planning.
But there is no free market solution either to spending more than you earn for too long.
In a free market, why would anyone loan someone money that they knew the borrower could not pay back?
To sell the loan to a greater fool and make a quick buck. These aren't investments anymore, only gambles.
While I don't think there would be that many "fools", even if there were, the fools would quickly be drained of their capital and the practice would stop. As for your 2nd sentence, I'm not sure how it relates to my hypothetical question.
A-fxxking-men RP.
Isn't it amazing that there is not one single other federal politician who understands, REALLY understands, how dangerous and doomed to failure the current system is.
Did anyone pay any attention to that thing called the 20th century as it went by?
Anyone?
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
YES! The Gods of the Copybook Headings! Such a wonderful poem.
Well played, Rusty. Well played.
BTW, I'm about to lock horns with the IRS. Wish me luck.
http://usa-the-republic.com
I am Chumbawamba.
good luck.
History will judge him favorably. It's just too bad that despite people like him, our history is hurtling down the path towards tragedy.
Chumba- Does everyone in the scrap business eventually lock horns with IRS?
Good question. I think it's when you realize that all you're doing is taking people's junk and selling it for pennies by the pound, and then the IRS wants to come and tax you for that just doesn't make much sense. You can't tax labor, bitches.
Then again, I may just be suffering from toxic poisoning due to my elevated exposure to metals of all kinds.
I am Chumbawamba.
A PM flush may help, try some colloidal silver (or in your case colloidal gold?).
No, more metal (especially the heavier ones) would only add to the problems. It would be better to eat or drink large amounts of oranges, grapefruits, and the like. The citric acid is a very good chelating agent (i.e. grabs on to metal ions and won't let go) and the vitamin C will help flush the metals through the urinary tract.
On a side note, a 200 lb. male can survive a 6000mg dose of vitamin C with little more than a itchy energetic high, and slight cold the next day to show for it. Just make sure that you have a couple gallons of water to drink the same day (not kidding about the water).
Current political chaos speaks for itself. It was the Republican Party that created the political situation enabling an Obama to occupy the White House and elect huge majorities of Democrats in the halls of Congress. But, the Democrats that Bush and the neocons swept into office went a league farther than the country can possibly swallow.
On top of looming Social Security/Medicare/Welfare insolvency, monetary collapse with unsustainable debt, interest rate thievery of savers, taxpayer-funded bailout and restoration of a corrupt third-world-esque banking system, declining standards of living, and a worldwide recession, the Democrat Party decided to make its “great leap forward” into world socialism--at the same time socialism in Europe is collapsing because of political chaos, corrupt politicians, union demands of more money and more strikes, and the economic consequences wrought by the “forgotten man” who got tired of paying for the loafers and joined them..
These facts will not be ignored by the American people, call these people what you like-- teabaggers, conservatives, malcontents… It is a rising issue that will only get bigger. And the more the socialists yell and scream racism and homophobe and “they’re trying to shoot and kill us,” it won’t change this fact.
Obama and his agents of change went far beyond what they can hold. The Obama Administration is the most irresponsible the country has ever witnessed, and the people know it. This issue of running against the political class is not between right and left; it is between the citizens and the State. That is the issue. And it’s going to become huge because it cannot be denied.
In this “Wonderful Era” of socialism there is little difference between Greece and the Obama Administration--large parts of each nation’s money going to fund public employees, lies and more lies, fudging figures on employment and labor and the economy and entitlements and professing that a tripling of the insurance rolls will save money, leaving the treasury doors open at night for the Goldmans… Does that look like Greece? It’s a duplicate. Only our political class is trying to outdo them.
And, now, in an election year, we’re treated to a scenario even a high school sophomore can see--it’s called European socialism. Greece? Look at the French. Whenever a crisis of socialism happens, it has a nationwide strike while the leaders issue more fabricated warnings as an excuse to enlarge the government’s socialist programs. And do not forget that IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a leader in the French Socialist Party.
The United States was not and will not be a European-socialist country. Its heritage is free enterprise and the development of individual liberty. The American people won’t have socialism; America’s principle of free enterprise is the reason America has the strongest and most important growth ethic in the world. The people are not going to give that away.
So don’t go by USA Today and World Report or the rest of the highly disgraceful controlled media to discern what people think, and what they are doing. In a contest between reality and politics, reality always wins. A good place to begin is abolishment of the Fed that made all of this economic chaos possible.
What Bennie hears, "blah, blah, blah"
Crowdsourcing, open financials, yelp, etc... we live in a new paradigm. A post-post modern revolution is taking place. And the financials oligarchs are crumbling. Stop protecting anyone. Let the people have access to ALL bank financials. Nothing off-balance sheet and everything marked to market. Shoot, my iPhone has enough processing power to do that.
It has been asked: Is the collapse organized or random? Are the engineers and big investors of our monetary system just fools or are they organized?
Monopolistic control is always present in a cartel. The Money Trust officially organized in 1910 to protect itself from competition by forming a cartel of shared monopolies. Seven men, representing one-fourth of all the wealth in the world, on a cold November night, traveled to a tiny island just off the coast of Brunswick, Georgia, owned by J.P. Morgan and several of his business associates. It was called Jekyll Island.
This was the roster on the train car that night:
1. Nelson W. Aldrich, Republican ‘whip” in the Senate, Chairman of the National Monetary Commission, business associate of J.P. Morgan, father-in-law to John D. Rockefeller, Jr.;
The basic plan for the Federal Reserve System was drafted at that secret meeting and on December 22, 1913, America had a privately owned central bank.
The reason for secrecy was simple. According to Fed researcher G. Edward Griffin: Had it been known that rival factions of the banking community had joined together, the public would have been alerted to the possibility that the bankers were plotting an agreement in restraint of trade— which, of course, was exactly what they were doing.
The cartel forced the nation’s small banks, which were springing up all over the nation at that time, into its “system,” controlled them and then squeezed them out. As early as 1896, the number of non-national banks in America had grown to 61%. By 1913, when the Federal Reserve Act was passed, those numbers were 71% non-national banks holding 57% of the deposits.
Paul Moritz Warburg, father of the Reserve system, within 20 years would become one of the wealthiest men in America with an unchallenged domination over the country’s railroad system.
He and his brother, Felix, soon after their arrival in America from Germany and with funding mostly by the Rothschild group, had been able to buy partnerships in the New York Investment banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company while continuing as partners in Warburg of Hamburg.
A third brother, Max Warburg, was the financial advisor of the German Kaiser and became Director of the Reichsbank in Germany – a central bank serving as one of the cartel’s models. The Reichsbank a few years later would create the massive hyperinflation that occurred in Germany after Versailles, wiping out the middle class and the entire German economy as well.
Are the engineers and big investors of our monetary system just fools or are they organized? The answer is “Yes” to both.
Awesome final line. I do not accept the official version of "accidental" history where only a few rotten apples cause any trouble. We are witnessing criminal collusion, at the grandest scale in history, on a daily basis.
And people laugh when you mention that there are those that would conspire to steal the wealth of others - the elite have done well hiding it in plain sight. Although public skooling certainly serves its purpose well, and mass media is quite a distraction!
"We are witnessing criminal collusion, at the grandest scale in history, on a daily basis."
We are told by the so called "debunkers" that people believe in conspiracies because they are weak willed, emotionally dependent and unable to deal with the world as it is, thus they need to concoct evil cabals as the reason for the strange and unpredictable ways of the world.
Ironically they are explaining themselves and their reasons for not believing that conspiracies exist everywhere and anywhere there are men, money and the potential to control one or both. To accept that there are conspiracies is to come face to face with evil and your part in ignoring it.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Since people don't want to believe that they allowed something to happen on their watch, they will ascribe it to happenstance, chance, a flip of the coin, thus absolving themselves from any blame or responsibility. And they will engage in incredible levels of denial as well.
For example, I bought into an older homeowners association community a year ago and after attending a few HOA meetings, I found terrible problems such as theft, willful misconduct, ignoring legal advice and so on. These delayed, mismanaged and ignored problems as well as the theft have forced a special assessment of several thousand dollars per unit to pay for them. As I have dug it up and displayed it at various meetings, forcing out the management company and most of the officers in the process, I have made many enemies. But not who you might think.
I've been demanding accountability, such as suing the old management company for not upholding their responsibilities in the management contract, suing two of the former officers for embezzlement, putting in a claim to the insurance policy to recover some money under the "Directors & Officers" clause and so on. I am fighting an up hill battle. I am being attacked by the older residents who would rather pay several thousand dollars each to make the problem go away rather than dig any further and uncover negligence on the part of the homeowners themselves, who blindly accepted whatever they were handed regardless of how ridiculous it was.
As long as someone else was willing to run the HOA and not bother them, they were happy. Now that this has blown up in their faces, they don't want to be reminded of their own responsibility to keep an eye on their own purse strings and those who controlled it. They would rather pay to bury their own negligence. I'm the enemy, not those who stole from them or paid kickbacks or whatever.
These people are acting together, actually meeting with each other to obstruct me. I and other new owners don't feel like paying several thousand dollars to paper over problems we had nothing to do with since we recently bought into the community. The other people are trying to prevent us from exposing the truth since it would embarrass them. People see their best interest as keeping this stuff under wraps, even if it costs them lots of money. But it's only pride we're talking about. Simple egoic pride.
But this is impossible since conspiracies don't exist. These people would never act against their own financial best interest simply because of pride, ego or embarrassment. Never. And neither would extremely powerful bankers, political leaders and other pure souls act together to make more money or control more lives, property or position. It just doesn't happen in the real world. Nope, I'm just a silly conspiracy theorist.
Good for you, CD. And good luck to you in establishing accountability within your HOA. As Juvenal said: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guardians?).
As for your neighbors and Americans who wear blinders while basking in the sun within their comfort zones as evil abounds, George Orwell had it right: "To see what is in front of one's nose requires a constant struggle.
Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened. ~ Winston Churchill
As you say, it's an uphill battle. But in the name of survival, someone has to do it.
naww CD - Stirring the pot is a bit more than theorizing. Remembering the time when things started to get ... fuzzy :-) Have a wonderful weekend and enjoy that Bavarian workmannship!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrcPQSTYs4A
What Ron Paul still fails to realize is that there's no such thing as "capitalism with zero government intervention in the economy".
Government intervention in the economy always existed, and always will exist. Even on England in the times of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, there was government intervention in the economy.
Those who say that any government intervention in the economy is a reason to label a country as "socialist" are lunatics.
Since the New Deal, in the 30's, the US government intervened a lot in the american economy. In the last eight decades, there was government intervention in american economy, at a not low level. Don't matter if the Republicans or the Democrats were in charge.
So, the United States was a "socialist" country for the last 80 years? Great! The Cold War was just a "inter-socialistic dispute", like the conflicts between Soviet Union and maoist China!
Ron Paul is a fraud, and knows nothing about the economic history of the world. The history of the real economy, not fantasy economy.
Actually, yes, given the escalating amount of government interference in the economy in the US, I would say there's a great deal of socialism here. I wouldn't call our country 'socialist' as a whole, but we're getting closer rather than further away.
Government policy should always be judged by how much it does or does not maximize freedom and individual rights. The fact that our government has been getting bigger and bigger, with more and more influence on the daily life of individuals, indicates to me that we're headed in the wrong direction.
Ron Paul does know a lot about economics and monetary policy, much more than most other congressmen and senators. I don't think he has any misconceptions about the roles Republicans as well as Democrats have played in (mis)shaping our economic mess. He is, after all, a libertarian, not a neo-con, and doesn't identify with the big-government Republicans who are as much a problem as big-government Democrats.
please.
which came first government or capitalism.
c,mon its not rocket surgery.
"When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes... Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain."-- Napoleon Bonaparte, 1815
The richest people in the world support Communism and Socialism? Why? And why is there truth to the charge that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties," one now run by the neoliberals, the other by the neocons? You can find the answer in Dr. Carroll Quigley's 1,300-page book Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World. Dr. Quigley was former President William J. Clinton's mentor at Georgetown University.
Hint: The "Hope" in the title represents the man-made millennium of a collectivist one-world society which the world will enjoy when the "network" achieves its goal of ruling the world; all who resist represent the "Tragedy."
if you think Dr. Paul is unaware of the levels of government interference in the economy since FDR, since the Federal Reserve Act (1913), and actually since the moneyed trust started finding ways to influence government policy (which actually dates back to 1776 and before) then you know nothing about the man and certainly have no legitimacy to pronounce him a fraud.
you are correct that there has always been government interference in the economy, and credit to you for realizing that. now go back to your history books and figure out the ONE solution that solves that problem... when you do, you will really understand Dr. Paul and realize that he is anything but a fraud.
Central planning isn't the cause of our or the Soviet Union's problems. I think Ron Paul is screwing up 'central planning' and throwing everything the gov't does and putting it under the term 'central planning'. There's lots of planning by the gov't that is good and helps markets.
Then there is the federal reserve, the not allowing for liquidation, etc.
Thus Ron Paul once again shows he's exactly 1/2 right, and exactly 1/2 wrong.
I'll take the 1/2 right part, but we must be wary to see beyond and be smarter than Ron Paul to make sure we don't get the 1/2 he's wrong about done to us.
Ron Paul acts as if anything the gov't does is tantamount to the almost total central planning of the Soviet Union when Communist.
Ron Paul supporters better stop drinking the kool-aid and realize his shortcomings....and then push 10x harder about the stuff he is right about without dragging this other 1/2 in there. Good luck with that, otherwise Ron Paul will be a failure. Don't let him.
okay you are 1/2 right.
but what are you suggesting? should us Ron Paul supporters, who are actually Libertarians who are grateful that the most well known living Libertarian in the world happens to be a man of unquestionable principle, anyway, should us Ron Paul supporters tell Ron Paul to act more like a Neocon or a Libtard? Should he pander to Marxism just to be more palatable to the MSM or the sheeple?
let me give you a little hint about where Dr. Paul is really coming from... you claim that there is lots of planning by the government that is good and helps markets. that may be so, maybe not, in any case, it was ultimately enforced at the end of a gun barrel. think about that. right or wrong, it was enforced ultimately by the threat of death. once you understand this, then you will start to understand Dr. Paul.
Not sure if this was resolved, but if I read Rothbard right in A History of Money and Banking in the United States, the event in 1837 was sparked by the earlier behavior of the central bank.
ucvhost is a leading web site hosting service provider that is known to provide reliable and affordable hosting packages to customers. The company believes in providing absolute and superior control to the customer as well as complete security and flexibility through its many packages. cheap vps Moreover, the company provides technical support as well as customer service 24x7, in order to enable its customers to easily upgrade their software, install it or even solve their problems. ucvhost offers the following different packages to its customers