Why Do Economists Say that Ron Paul Would Be the Best President for the Economy?

George Washington's picture

A number of well-known economists – such as Marc Faber, Thomas Woods and Paul Craig Roberts – support Ron Paul, believing that he would help the American economy more than any other presidential candidate.


I interviewed one well-known Ron Paul supporter – Dr. Walter E. Block – to find out.

Block is an Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics at Loyola University in New Orleans, received his PhD in economics from Columbia University, and is a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He has written 8 books and more than 300 scholarly articles and reviews, and co-edited dozens of books on economics.

Block just published a book called Ron Paul for President in 2012: Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.

We asked Professor Block 10 questions related to Ron Paul. [Our follow-up comments are in brackets.]

1. Ron Paul doesn’t support government bailouts for the big banks. But if the big banks fail, won’t it drive us into another depression?

[WEB] No. In the Austrian economic view, depressions are caused by big banks (the Fed) artificially lowering interest rates.

[Austrian economists believe that lowering interest rates too far gives a false signal to businesses to gear up production and invest more, which causes a "misallocation" of resources and unsustainable bubbles ... which always lead to crashes when the bubble bursts.

In addition, top economists have said that failing to let the big banks fail when they make bad bets which lead to insolvency is preventing economic recovery.]

2. Wasn’t the Great Depression a “liquidity crisis” which was made much worse by so many bank failures?

[WEB] Read Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression on this.

[This has never been a liquidity crisis; it has always been an insolvency crisis.]

3. Paul wants to end the Federal Reserve, or at least reduce its powers. But isn’t the Fed – as the “lender of last resort” – critical for keeping us out of a depression by providing stimulus to the economy when consumers and small businesses are tapped out?

[WEB] The fed as lender of last resort is a buttress of sorts, but only because we have fractional reserve banking.

If we have 100% demand deposit banking (see below) this function wouldn’t be needed

[We agree with professor Block. And it should be noted that we no longer even have fractional reserve banking ... we now have fictional reserve banking.]

4. Isn’t the best chance of prosperity for the most people available when the government somewhat plans the economy, and operates the “levers” of economic policy to push more money into the system when things are getting tight?

[WEB] No, that’s central Sovietized planning. Prosperity comes from laissez faire capitalism.

[While many may assume that laissez faire capitalism is a bad thing, and is the cause of our problems, the truth is that we don't currently have real capitalism at all. Instead, we have - depending on the label one uses - crony capitalism, fascism, communist style socialism, kleptocracy, oligarchy or banana republic style corruption. In fact, both liberals and conservatives despise crony capitalism.]

5. Isn’t the Fed – an independent governmental agency – vital for overseeing the big banks as a watchdog, and acting “independently” of the temptations of politicians to promote monetary policy which will help them get re-elected?

[WEB] “Independent govt agency” is a recipe for disaster. Suppose they make a mistake … there would be no market forces that can force them into bankruptcy?

[Indeed. Moreover, the Fed is neither independent, nor even a government agency.]

6. Paul is a “non-interventionist”, who wants to avoid wars that President Obama and Mitt Romney say we need to fight. But isn’t war a necessary form of “military Keynesianism” … i.e. a vital way to stimulate our economy and so keep us out of an even deeper recession? Wouldn’t cutting military spending destroy our economy?

[WEB] Read my new book on this:

Block, Walter E. 2012. Ron Paul for President in 2012: Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty. Ishi Press; http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871873234; http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/ron-paul-for-president-in-2012-walter-block/1110505571?ean=9784871873239.

[Many top economists say that the claim that war is good for the economy is a myth made up out of whole cloth.]

7. “Austerians” – as Paul Krugman call them – want to reduce our national debt. But isn’t it true – as both liberal and conservative economists have said – that “debt doesn’t matter”? And don’t we have to spend a little more now to get our economy out of the ditch, and then we’ll be more frugal later … when things are stable?

[WEB] We monetize that debt, which creates inflation, lowers interest rates, created booms and then busts.

8. Isn’t the “business cycle” largely responsible for the bad economy? Aren’t “booms” and “busts” part of the nature of things, like seasons?

[WEB] No, they emanate from the Fed. In the fully free society, there would be no such thing as the business cycle. See Rothbard’s Depressions: Their Cause and Cure.

9. Radicals think that we should let our most important companies fail if they’ve made dumb bets, or even that we should put Wall Street executives in jail for “fraud”. But wouldn’t both things undermine people’s trust in our economy, and depress our economy even more?

[WEB] No business should be too big to fail. Trust in the economy is highly overvalued. I oppose putting executives in jail for losing money, unless they are guilty of actual fraud.

[Happy talk and band-aid fixes cannot fix the economy. Blind trust in the stability of banks which have made foolish gambles is not helpful. But restoring trust in the honesty of one another - by prosecuting financial fraud - is vital. Conservative free market advocates and liberals both agree on this basic point.]

10. The May jobs report is a disaster. Paul Krugman (who – like the chairmen of the Fed – advocate blowing bubble after bubble in order to minimize the damage from the bursting of previous bubbles) and other Keynesians blame a failure of the government to spend more, and to do more quantitative easing and other monetary stimulus of the economy.

Do you think that government spending and stimulus are the solution to unemployment? Do you think that the government should blow another bubble in order to increase unemployment?

[WEB] These bubbles only cause inflation. They do nothing to rectify our problems. the Fed should stop this. We ought to end the Fed, and adopt a 100% dollar back gold standard.

[Even the "Central Banks' Central Bank" - the Bank of International Settlements - slammed the Fed and other central banks for blowing bubbles and using other "gimmicks" which only make the economy worse.]

Postscript: Dr. Block provided the following bibliography for those wishing to learn more about the pitfalls of fractional reserve banking:

Bagus, 2003; Bagus, Howden and Block, forthcoming; Barnett and Block, 2005, 2008, 2009; Baxendale, 2010; Block, 2008; Block and Caplan, 2008; Block and Garschina, 1996; Block and Humphries, 2008; Block and Posner, 2008; Davidson, 2008; Davidson and Block, 2011; Hanke, 2008; Hoppe, 1994; Hoppe, Hulsmann and Block, 1998; Huerta de Soto, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2006, 2010; Hulsmann, 1996, 2000, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2008; Murphy, 2010; North, 2009; Polleit, 2010; Reisman, 1996, 2009; Rothbard, 1975; 1990, 1991, 1993; Salerno, 2010A, 2010B, 2011.

Bagus, Philipp. 2003, ‘The Commons and the Tragedy of Banking’, November 12, http://mises.org/story/1373

Bagus, Philipp, David Howden and Walter E. Block. Forthcoming. “Deposits, Loans and Banking: Clarifying the Debate,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology

Barnett, William II and Walter Block. 2005. “In defense of fiduciary media— a comment; or, what’s wrong with “clown” or play money?” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics; Vol. 8, No. 2, Summer, pp. 55-69; http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae8_2_4.pdf

Barnett, William and Walter Block. 2008. “Time deposits, dimensions and fraud,” Journal of Business Ethics; www.WalterBlock.com/publications; http://www.springerlink.com/content/100281/?k=walter+block&sortorder=asc&v=condensed&o=20; www.WalterBlock.com/publications

Barnett, William and Walter Block. 2009. “Financial Intermediaries, the Intertemporal-Carry Trade, and Austrian Business Cycles; or; Crash and Carry: Can Fraudulent Time deposits lead to an Austrian Business Cycle? Yes.” Journal Etica e Politica / Ethics & Politics; Vol. XI, No. 1, pp. 455-469; http://www2.units.it/~etica/2009_1/BARNETT_BLOCK.pdf

Baxendale, Tony. 2010. Free Banking, the Balance Sheet and Contract Law Approach; March 15; http://www.cobdencentre.org/2010/03/free-banking-the-balance-sheet-and-contract-law-approach/

Block, Walter and Bryan Caplan. 2008. “Walter Block versus Bryan Caplan on Fractional Reserve Banking.” Nov 1; http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block110.html

Block, Walter and Kenneth M. Garschina. 1996. “Hayek, Business Cycles and Fractional Reserve Banking: Continuing the De-Homoginization Process,” Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1995, pp. 77-94; http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_1_3.pdf.

Block, Walter and John Humphries. 2008. “Humphries vs Block on fractional reserve banking.” November 17; http://alsblog.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/fractional-reserve-banking/

Block, Walter versus Eric Posner. 2008. “Posner vs. Block on fractional reserve banking.” November, 29; http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block114.html

Davidson, Laura. 2008. “Fractional Reserve Banking Is Indeed Fraudulent,” November 17;


Davidson, Laura and Walter E. Block. 2011. “The Case Against Fiduciary Media: Ethics Is The Key,” The Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 98, Issue 3, pp. 505-511;

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j76323752648720g/; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0590-2; 10.1007/s10551-010-0590-2

Hanke, Steve. 2008. “Banking Crises: Plus Ça Change…” GlobeAsia, November, pp. 168-169; http://www.freemarketfoundation.com/Hanke%5CBanking%20Crises–Plus%20%C3%87a%20Change,%20November%202008.pdf

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 1994. “How is Fiat Money Possible? or, The Devolution of Money and Credit,” Review of Austrian Economics, 7(2), pp. 49-74.

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann, with Guido Hulsmann and Walter Block. 1998. “Against Fiduciary Media,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 19-50, http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae1_1_2.pdf

Huerta de Soto, Jesús. 1995. “A Critical Analysis of Central Banks and Fractional-Reserve Free Banking from the Austrian Perspective,” Review of Austrian Economics, 8(2), pp. 25-38.

Huerta de Soto, Jesús. 1998, ‘A Critical Note on Fractional-Reserve Free Banking’, The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 1(4), 25-49.

Huerta de Soto, Jesús. 2001. “A Critical Note on Fractional Reserve Free Banking,” The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 1, No. 4, Fall, pp. 34-35

Huerta de Soto, Jesús. 2006. Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles (Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn AL.)

Huerta de Soto, Jesús. 2010. “Economic Recessions, Banking Reform, and the Future of Capitalism.” http://mises.org/daily/4817

Hülsmann, Jorg Guido. 1996, ‘Free Banking and the Free Bankers’, Review of Austrian Economics 9(1), 3-53.

Hulsmann, Jorg Guido. 2000. “Banks Cannot Create Money”, The Independent Review: A Journal of Political Economy, vol. 5, no. 1, summer, 101—110; http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_05_1_hulsman.pdf

Hulsmann, Jorg Guido. 2002a. “Free Banking and the Free Bankers.” Review of Austrian Economics. Vol. 9, No. 1. pp. 3-53; http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_1_1.pdf

Hulsmann, Jorg Guido. 2002b. “Free Banking Fractional Reserves: Reply to Pascal Salin.” Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 1, No. 3.


Hulsmann, Jorg Guido. 2003. “Has Fractional-Reserve Banking Really Passed the Market Test?,” Independent Review 7/3, Winter, 399-422. http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=90

Hülsmann, Jorg Guido. 2008. The Ethics of Money Production Auburn AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute

Murphy, Robert P. 2011. The Fractional-Reserve Banking Question.” June 14; http://mises.org/daily/4499

North, Gary. 2009. “What Is Money? Part 5: Fractional Reserve Banking.” October 10;


Polleit, Thorsten. 2010. “The Faults of Fractional-Reserve Banking.” December 23;


Reisman, George. 1996. Capitalism. Ottawa, Il.: Jameson Books; pp. 954-963

Reisman, George. 2009. “A Pro-Free-Market Program for Economic Recovery,” November 20; http://mises.org/daily/3870

Rothbard, Murray N. [1963] 1975. America’s Great Depression (Sheed and Ward, Kansas City).

Rothbard, Murray N. 1990. What Has Government Done to Our Money?, Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute; http://www.mises.org/rothbard/rothmoney.pdf

Rothbard, Murray N. [1962] 1991. “The Case for a 100 Percent Gold Dollar,” In Search of a Monetary Constitution, Leland B. Yeager, ed., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 94-136, and Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute. See also “The Logic of Action One” pp. 364-384; http://mises.org/story/1829

Rothbard, Murray N. [1962] 1993. Man, Economy, and State. Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, AL

Rothbard, Murray N. The Myth of Free Banking in Scotland, Review of Austrian Economics; http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE2_1_15.pdf

Salerno, Joseph T. Salerno. 2010A. Money, Sound and Unsound. Auburn, Ludwig von Mises Institute

Salerno, Joseph T. 2010B. “White contra Mises on Fiduciary Media,” May 14;


Joseph T. Salerno. 2011. “Dr. Joseph Salerno Explains Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Money (But Were Afraid to Ask)”, The Daily Bell, July 3;


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
f16hoser's picture

I heard on Alex Jones that the hard core Bilderbergers want to see Ron Paul dead. All Bilderbergers are scumbags. Obama, the Clintons, the Rockefellers, United Nations personnell, Tony Blair, the Bushes', Romney, (you get the picture) are all Bilderbergers.

lakecity55's picture

Audit, prosecute, then End The Fed!

f16hoser's picture

Bernanke is a Bilderberger!

Goldilocks's picture

"A number of well-known economists – such as Marc Faber, Thomas Woods and Paul Craig Roberts – support Ron Paul, believing that he would help the American economy more than any other presidential candidate.


...because they're "economists"

...& (in this context) the word "economist" is synonymous with the word "parasite"

WhiteNight123129's picture

Bizarre. We all here are clearly on Gold.

I urge you to hedge your Gold, because all recession and depression temporarily force liquidation, and since Gold can not be spent, Gold is not cash yet, in 2013 it might first fall.

It happened before in 1873 when there was a huge crisis, there were more Greenback issued, but the crisis force the Gold price down temporarily due to debt derangement driven liquidation. A natural hedge is evidently is to short overvalued stock in emerging markets and some names in the Nasdaq...



Bob's picture

Most people here recognize that, dude.  There are two camps:  Those who don't wanna play Risk and those who eagerly await the forthcoming liquidations (to bail our asses out of missing gold along time and a lot of dollars ago.)

Get a clue about who you're pretending to talk to.


WhiteNight123129's picture

Why would a lower Gold or Silver price be a bad thing? If you have half a metric ton or two in Silver, you can an additional few hundred kilos cheaper... Personally I don´t care if Gold is up or down, sometimes it rains sometimes it does not...that´s about how "commited" one should be, some day (a long time from now) it will be time to short Gold and buy the paper bonds at ultra high yield. Gold will not come back as money, because the power that be do not want that to happen.


MikeMcGspot's picture

People, family, tribes,, In my life, there are so many folks across the globe that helped me do what needed to be done.


Watch out, I got me a new grand daughter, “World conquest and domination”


While I cannot represent a good model of ROI or TCO or give you a decent prediction of when stuff is going to happen.

I urge you all to take the time, be the judge.

Unfortunately few survive this message; they are turned upon each other to self immolation or use the creative powers to destruction  because they think it is so painful to just be. An echo.

Have you ever been transformed into a star from the death of stars?

This is our greatest problem, this is why the lie persists.

TBTB, Sorrows (soros) as the North ships start raiding your place of worship. Judge me by trust in terms of our transaction.

As your definition fades so does your value.

The factor of replication and transfer of ability is here now. The old is fading, the middle thinks they are being fucked, few of the young  know any better.

Gollum lives! He was the toughest person in the trilogy of the rings because he was the scrape goat.

If you be TPTB and choose to invoke the elemental spirits to save your ass..

So be it. That is what  I do.

The choice is coming down to reality. Who will you hang with, who do you want to be with. How will you cast the spell?

Lie, cheat, fight survive.

Fight club.

Know this…

There is no answer, nothing will save you, but we can have a lot of fun together.

Fuck you, there is an answer, I may save you, the time we live in may be so brutal or so lovely in binding.

This is the nature of a spell, we have the say so of the future, if we can let go of the current context and teach others how to architect we can pass it on to the next generation.

Reject magic, do not make a spell, bow down before the one you serve.

Fact of the matter is we can change how people think about things.

The narrative is so fucked up. We are bitch slaves to fairey glamour.

0 % tolerance for the lies, truth is, if any of you think your going to fuck my new grand daughter because the system is collapsing please know that this is the first thing that I will your death will be sweet, no prolonged worrying about stuff.

 This is an example of casting a spell.

Give it a shot if you got some guts or not.

Are you a black or white swan?

Where is a realistic view of a white swan event?

Meanwhile back at the ranch, I will provide some cover for my new progeney, knowing the honor of my life, dispellimg lies, having 0 tollerence for them, replicating a superrior ability to survive because of.



BeetleBailey's picture

Ron Paul: Only one that's honest, that makes sense.


Need to be waterboarded, hosed down, shot, torn up, beaten with hammers, strafed by a squadron of F-15's, and completely re-vamped.

The Military Industrial Complex: Neutered down to a DEFENSE (of this country ONLY) god damn industry - NOT a fucking growth sell your shit to everyone and get subisdized industry...motherfuckers.

Banks: Glass FUCKING Steagall.....re-enacted. ENOUGH of this betting with customer money you fuckers.

The FED: STRIPPED of their "power". Brought to fucking HEEL by the People. The fucking bastards.

"To Big To Fail"..............BULLSHIT! Let them fail dammit!

Lobbyists: One step below child molesters.....K Street closed forever.


...an excellent start.

lakecity55's picture

Long Pitchforks and Rope!!!

Blue Dog's picture

It doesn't matter. Even if he had the best ideas in the world they'd never get through Congress. With spending at $3.6 trillion, revenue at $2.2 trillion, and unfunded liabilities at $5.3 trillion for this year, we have an actual deficit of $6.7 trillion with only $2.2 trillion of revenue.

So, in round numbers we have $2.2 trillion in revenue with $9.0 trillion in total spending and virtually no spending is politically feasible to cut. It's over for America, pure and simple.

Rynak's picture

As much as i like RP, and agree with most of the responses in the interview, if i were to be fair and judge the way the interview was performed, it have to say that it sucked just as much as most other typical "interviews" nowadays.

Why? See, when someone whom you do not like is interviewed, you are annoyed by softball questions. You are annoyed of "scripted" questions designed to let the person interviewed say what it wanted to say anyways. So basically, the whole premise of this being an "interview" being fake.

Yet, here we see those very same techniques applied, to someone with whom we agree. Does that make it right?

You didn't do an interview, GW. What you did was publishing an statement/article of someone else, and made it look like an interview. Sure, some webradio broadcasts do this all the time, without looking hypocrite, but when they do it, they do not pretend this to be a "critical" interview, but instead just dress it like a chat between two people who are on the same line from the start.... they do not attempt to pretend that they are critically questioning someone, but right from the start give it the form of a chat between buddies.

Conax's picture

Romney? A predatory, company wrecking scumbag, Obama, well, he should go apply for a green card.

Ron Paul has great and fearful enemies. Any of you that are indians know that 'the greater the enemy, the greater the man'.

Anyone that can make the banker's blood run cold, put the MIC on Xanax and cause the media to vomit in fear, is ok by me.

Vote for the Doctor, the Honorable Ron Paul!



smb12321's picture

So anyone who does not agree with RP is the devil incarnate?  That "thinking" has been the hallmark of the Left for decades, i.,e. those that disagree politically are not merely wrong but morally evil, worthless scum.   Jefferson wrote that the goal of a Republic is NOT universal agreement but a society that thrives with differences. 

This attitude is REALLY damaging to Ron who gives respect to opponents (especially Romney) while his followers denigrate them.  Romney ran a company well, did not take public money nor demand favors.   There were winners and losers in the process because that's the essence of markets and choice. If you don't like Romney, vote for Obama or write in RP.

whstlblwr's picture

Right, it doesn't matter because you've got it all taken care of -- for now. But what if we join police, CIA, FBI, we win elections in our town, city, state. Times they will be a changin', it won't be long.

tony bonn's picture

it's nice to hear about the economy from someone who is not a quackonomist...

Seorse Gorog from that Quantum Entanglement Fund. alright_.-'s picture

Don't forget my old pal Jim Rogers, Nasim Taleb and even Bill Gross.

Sturm und Drang's picture

There are always choices. You can count on one hand those choices that are exponentially more difficult to make. It is historically documented that others have made the difficult choices and, this is key, at their own personal peril.

Pretense and the gossamer veneer of civility have been cast aside to reveal the absolute, congential loathing of the vast unwashed by the inbred.

It was when they threatened to kill you unless you gave them what they wanted... you told them you'd rather die. You faced your death. You were calm. You were still.

Gringo Viejo's picture

We have our primary in California on Tuesday. Despite the facts that the American police state is now fully in place, that the federal government now views the American people as the enemy, that the Constitution has been shreded, that elections are a fraudulent and meaningless exercise, I'm going to vote for  Dr. Paul. MY voice if not heeded, will at least be heard. I owe that much to those that came before me.

PoliticalRefugeefromCalif.'s picture

Being an Arizona voter I also voted for Ron Paul in the primary for much the same reason.. but don't think for a minute I will consider voting for anyone other than Mitt in November.

Though I truly believe he doesn't see the depth nor the solution for the problem and represents a poodle in the duck blind we simply cannot afford even the few months left of what has turned out to be a true monster in the White House.

You have to call the fire department before you call the guy to do the repairs.

besides how much could Ron get accomplished with a career wheel man like John B as House leader?

the Republicans are simply not serious.

StychoKiller's picture

Voting for the lesser of two evils is STILL evil!

Write-in a different candidate.

monad's picture

A vote for Williard is a vote for Obombney. If this parasite did somehow get elected (think oligarch sponsored vote fraud) he would do nothing different from the Kenyan; or any of the previous CFR approved agents of the coup d'estat.

So you go on and vote for the draft dodger. Then you shut up and quit whining, because you brought it on yourself. Jared Loughner had a better plan, and he's crazy.

smb12321's picture

I worked for Ron nationally in 08 and still consider him a prophet without honor in his own land.  But alas, politics, as our Founding Fathers wisely understood, is at heart the art of compromise.  We are so lucky that these men of the Enlightenment were gathered in one time and one place.  Can you imagine ZH posters trying to write a Constitution with their rigidity? LOL

Anyway, I am pulling the lever for Romney (my first non-Libertarian vote in years) not because I agree with him or think he's the only guy for the job but because this nation cannot take another four years of BO.  And yes, there is a vast difference between the two.  At least with Romney some kind of confidence can be restored for a while and business will feel safe about investing again.

Uncle Remus's picture


this nation cannot take another four years of BO

Hmmm, I was under the impression that was the strategery. Let the whole house of cards collapse under the weight of Empire/Great Society on steroids on BO's watch? Romney isn't even remotely a solution.

At least with Romney some kind of confidence can be restored for a while and business will feel safe about investing again.

Others here on ZH whine about RP being one man unable to do anything should by some miracle he become president. So help me understand the convoluted logic of how the "election" of a less tan psychopath that the current sitting one is going to change anything. "Business investing" is one of the the underlying causes of the clusterfuck we have today - the retail investor doesn't have access to HFTs or co-located servers in the fucking exchange.

And "confidence" in what? Rule of law? Transparency? Prosecution of corruption and treason? The Squid playing fair? Seriously?

That's delusional.

whstlblwr's picture

Me, too! Mittens 2012

From "Why I Am Endorsing Mitt Romney for President (And Not Ron Paul)"

11. Economy - Romney is a businessman. That means he is an expert on “economics”. He is also in favor of “free enterprise”. That’s why he likes the Federal Reserve. They print all of our money. Then they GIVE it to Goldman Sachs, which LOANS it back to the U.S.Treasury and charges the taxpayer interest. How is this “free enterprise”? Because Goldman Sachs gets to take our money, for FREE!
But that isn’t the reason Goldman Sachs is the biggest contributor to the Romney campaign. Its because they know he is the “best man for the job”. And he knows a lot about the economy.

Romney had enough sense to know that the only way out of the 2008 crash was to give $700 billion dollars to the same guys that had caused the problem. Like Obama, he knew they were “too big to fail”, especially after Goldman Sachs and J.P.Morgan had bought them at fire sale prices. That is because Romney understands “free enterprise”.


Uncle Remus's picture

I am guessing you forgot the /sarc.

PeaceLover's picture

Well I feel the need to add this to The Ron Paul support
If you want to get a feel for what the deal is check out our old buddy Ralph Nader another guy that's not in it for the money.
And also doesn't seem to lie!

Take the time to watch this.. its long but will give you quite a understanding of Ralph and Ron and OWS 99% part in getting the country back.



I like Ralph comment on voting for the less of two evils  makes us complicit.

I will vote but I may be writing someone in.
Hope we get a Great Choice  its sure not what is in the main stream media this morning.

If I was a banker 1%er I would go play with one of my ten yachts with one or two of my 23yr old assistants(when they have a college degree we don't have to  call them escorts) and smile and laugh knowing I am fat for at least 5 more yrs. 
Because the public is still stuck in the Democrat Republican game thinking that's a choice. 


Darkness's picture


whstlblwr's picture

Go Mittens 2012!!!

From "Why I Am Endorsing Mitt Romney.."

8. National debt - Romney is against it. How do we know? Because he said so a whole lot of times in a very convincing tone of voice. And just as soon as he is elected president he will show us how we can eliminate the budget deficit without raising any taxes, eliminating any cabinet departments, reducing military spending, or cutting Social Security, Medicare, or any other popular program. How will he do this? Well he hasn’t explained his whole program but it has something to do with getting rid of all of those federal regulations that are smothering small businesses like Goldman Sachs.


smb12321's picture

So in other words, we should forget about it and just keep Obama in power?  That's what I don't understand since I don't think for a minute anyone thinks Obama and Romney are "the same."  I wish Romney had a libertarian streak but he has shown himself open to change which is at least a plus.   I something think many ZH posters would prefer Obama because they know he will hasten the end.

whstlblwr's picture

Ha, ha. What do you mean? EVERYONE thinks Obamaromney is one. They are both the same corporate whores. You're a little late to the party to influence opinions here.

dizzyfingers's picture

What Other Economists Say that Ron Paul Would Be the Best President for the Economy? Just wondering.

ivana's picture

who cares for economy - fascist media declared him "NON-ELECTABLE"

(funny side of this mega tragedy)

P'Od_Accountant's picture

5. Isn’t the Fed – an independent governmental agency – vital for overseeing the big banks as a watchdog, and acting “independently” of the temptations of politicians to promote monetary policy which will help them get re-elected?

[WEB] “Independent govt agency” is a recipe for disaster. Suppose they make a mistake … there would be no market forces that can force them into bankruptcy?



NOT a Government agency.  Nice bit of disinfo.  Independent OF governmental agency is more like it.

JeffB's picture

There was a nice article on who owns the Fed over on Seeking Alpha, by Sarel Oberholster:  

The Independence of the Fed


I'd recommend reading the whole article, but for those who want to cut to the chase... his conclusion was:

"The outright undisputable conclusion is that the Fed, when tested against GAAP as is used by it in it’s assessment of those it regulates, is a Special Purpose Entity of Federal Government or according to the latest definition is a Variable Interest Entity of Federal Government. The rules of consolidation therefore apply and the Fed must be seen as controlled by Federal Government, indivisiably part of Federal Government. The pretence of independence is no more that that, a pretence.

There is, however, no denying that the banks have tremendous vested interest in influencing the policies of the Fed and that the power so narrowly vested in the President makes the President a special target for influence.

Still, the power to control the Fed is not in the hands of the “owners” but firmly in the hands of Federal Government and the President of the USA."



John_Coltrane's picture

FED= A privately owned banking cartel founded by the major banks  (and, as its ownly shareholders, owned by them not the taxpayers).   Its real purpose is suppressing banking competition and ensuring taxpayer bailouts of its members when lending errors are made due its constant mispricing of money via centrally controlled interest rates.

The essence of RPs appeal is he places value in the individual and individaul responsibility-not in central control by "experts".  Real Change comes from the bottom up not the top down.  Change is slow but RPs proposed elimination of 5 unconstitutional depts is a good start to dismantle the "welfare state".   And individuals need to shed the entitlement mentality which is the appeal of fabian socialism-other people's money, the myth of free lunch etc. You don't reverse 100 years of FED and central control in a day.  Support RP and his platform.  He's a true patriot and an awesome human being.  Change will have to be incremental but we have to start somewhere.  Understanding the fraud of fractional reserve banking, phony FDIC "insurance", and the importance of sound money should be part of everyone's education.  Sound money=a store of value created by work and production (like gold).   

George Washington's picture

You're right, not govt agency. I'll fix ...

dcb's picture

I find it ironic that so many economists are saying the economic modles our system runs on are deeply falwed, but don't ever seem to revisist eh topic of delaftion. I've read almost ever article I can on deflation and they are filled with more wrong assumptions that the regular models. deflation isn't the bogey they think it is.

delation is fought because those that control the most, have the most to loose if prices drop. their wealth drops faster than those of us with savings in the banks, and deflation is in fact the great equalizer. if they want to prevent deflation, they need to prevent excess credit, and stop the silly inflation targeting. those are the things that cause the build up of excessive leverage and are the real cause of the deflation.


deflation restores the buying power of the populace who in fact don't own that many assets. the real issue is they have adopted their views to make sure banks are always bailed out. that's the reason. deflation means banks have to absorb the losses on loans they never should have made. in theory inflation targeting assures that if one holds onto an asset long enough it will recover it's value by simple dillution of the cirrency. that is how it allows banks to over leverage.


sorry for typo's.

I buy more things on sale than on regular price. that mmeans more people working to produce those goods. people already wait to purchase big ticket items on sale (deflation). the vast majority of purchases would not be decreased because of deflation. maybe only housing. people don't delay buying things. In fact the oppoiste happens. since3 deflation preserves income they feel they can spend some savings. in an inflation they save more for fear of loss in the future. what economists sya is wrong. they only time inflation hels (and I don't think it does) is if prices are rising so fast you feel you have to spend it today.

the exact behaviors economists say people do in certain situations is exactly and clearly wrong. But then it's nver been about being right, it's about serving the interests or the rich and powerful


sorry for typo's.

New_Meat's picture

spell check isn't so very difficult, certainly easier than saying sorry twice. - Ned

{maybe Sac ought to bring back the captcha?}

A Lunatic's picture

Yes, yes, we can all agree that Ron Paul would be the best choice for POTUS. We can also agree (with just a smidgen of intellectual honesty) that it will not happen. This horse is so dead it makes me physically ill to see in print.

monad's picture

If the MSM was paying you rent you'd be rich. They tattooed your brain all the way and all you have to say is, "They told me so it must be."

Gully Foyle's picture

A Lunatic

First there is absolutely no way anyone can know the quality of anything in the future.

Second, Paul needs to work with both parties to actually accomplish anything. Do you really see that happening?

Third, any assumptions made about tommorrows activities are made with the limited knowledge of today. We have no idea what new and interesting complications will arise in the next second let alone a year from now.

All we know for certain is Paul makes statements which resonate with a large group of people both citizens and foriegn nationals.

Beyond that anything else is guess work.

Bob's picture

Wouldn't it be interesting if Mitt got "assassinated" by a socialist terrorist and only Dr. Paul could lead us through this valley of darkness?

That would really make me wonder who runs this shit. 

Including Ron.  Just sayin'. 


bunnyswanson's picture

Ron Paul wants to audit the Federal Reserve and the gold at Fort Knox.  No other candidate has stated this.   You stupid sonofabitches are overlooking what brought the country, the globe, to its financial knees - The Banking Cartel.  This isn't time to waste.  Four more years of the wrong president will be the end of America as a soverign nation, as the currency will require being replaced to compete on the global stage for imports, including food, since monopolies rule the day.


Ron Paul - Audit The Fed



The Money Masters



Secret of Oz


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE   Money, Banking and Finance.


Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson understood "The Monster". But to most Americans today, "Federal Reserve" is just a name on the dollar bill. They have no idea of what the central bank does to the economy, or to their own economic lives; of how and why it was founded and operates; or of the sound money and banking that could end the statism, inflation, and business cycles that the Fed generates.

Dedicated to Murray N. Rothbard, steeped in American history and Austrian economics, and featuring Ron Paul, Joseph Salerno, Hans Hoppe, and Lew Rockwell, this extraordinary documentary is the clearest, most compelling explanation ever offered of the Fed, and why curbing it must be our first priority.

Alan Greenspan was not, we're told, happy about this 1996 blockbuster. Watch it, and you'll understand why. This is economics and history as they are meant to be: fascinating, informative, and motivating. This movie is changing America.

margaris's picture

Its funny that you post two links about Bill Stills work. (Creator of "the money masters" and "secret of oz".)


Its Bill Still who - although he likes Ron Paul - has a general problem with gold bugs!


Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f68sOuMkhsU    watch 6:00 minute


Bills position is that Gold money is what THEY want -- because THEY have it all. THEY = TPTB

Also Bill Still has a giant problem with Ron Pauls repeated claim that "Gold and Silver is the only constitutional money, the only legal tender"...

"Where in the constitution does it say that?" asks a frustrated Bill Still.


It really is confusing. watch 7:35 in this youtube video.




Lets look at the constitution:

Section 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

LMAO, could it be that simple? Is Bill Still just getting this part out of context: make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.

And Ron Paul is adding the "No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts".


A double negative? Is that what it boils down to???