Krugman Rebutts (sic) Spitznagel, Says Bankers Are "The True Victims Of QE", Princeton-Grade Hilarity Ensues

Tyler Durden's picture

At first we were going to comment on this "response" by the high priest of Keynesian shamanic tautology to Mark Spitznagel's latest WSJ opinion piece, but then we just started laughing, and kept on laughing, and kept on laughing...

As a reminder, on Thursday Universa's Mark Spitznagel, best known recently for explaining in very vivid ways just how central planning has sown the seeds of its own destruction, wrote the following in the WSJ:

How the Fed Favors The 1%


The Fed doesn't expand the money supply by dropping cash from helicopters. It does so through capital transfers to the largest banks.


A major issue in this year's presidential campaign is the growing disparity between rich and poor, the 1% versus the 99%. While the president's solutions differ from those of his likely Republican opponent, they both ignore a principal source of this growing disparity.


The source is not runaway entrepreneurial capitalism, which rewards those who best serve the consumer in product and price (Would we really want it any other way?) There is another force that has turned a natural divide into a chasm: the Federal Reserve. The relentless expansion of credit by the Fed creates artificial disparities based on political privilege and economic power.


David Hume, the 18th-century Scottish philosopher, pointed out that when money is inserted into the economy (from a government printing press or, as in Hume's time, the importation of gold and silver), it is not distributed evenly but "confined to the coffers of a few persons, who immediately seek to employ it to advantage."


In the 20th century, the economists of the Austrian school built upon this fact as their central monetary tenet. Ludwig von Mises and his students demonstrated how an increase in money supply is beneficial to those who get it first and is detrimental to those who get it last. Monetary inflation is a process, not a static effect. To think of it only in terms of aggregate price levels (which is all Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke seems capable of) is to ignore this pernicious process and the imbalance and economic dislocation that it creates.


As Mises protégé Murray Rothbard explained, monetary inflation is akin to counterfeiting, which necessitates that some benefit and others don't. After all, if everyone counterfeited in proportion to their wealth, there would be no real economic benefit to anyone. Similarly, the expansion of credit is uneven in the economy, which results in wealth redistribution. To borrow a visual from another Mises student, Friedrich von Hayek, the Fed's money creation does not flow evenly like water into a tank, but rather oozes like honey into a saucer, dolloping one area first and only then very slowly dribbling to the rest.


The Fed doesn't expand the money supply by uniformly dropping cash from helicopters over the hapless masses. Rather, it directs capital transfers to the largest banks (whether by overpaying them for their financial assets or by lending to them on the cheap), minimizes their borrowing costs, and lowers their reserve requirements. All of these actions result in immediate handouts to the financial elite first, with the hope that they will subsequently unleash this fresh capital onto the unsuspecting markets, raising demand and prices wherever they do.


The Fed, having gone on an unprecedented credit expansion spree, has benefited the recipients who were first in line at the trough: banks (imagine borrowing for free and then buying up assets that you know the Fed is aggressively buying with you) and those favored entities and individuals deemed most creditworthy. Flush with capital, these recipients have proceeded to bid up the prices of assets and resources, while everyone else has watched their purchasing power decline.


At some point, of course, the honey flow stops—but not before much malinvestment. Such malinvestment is precisely what we saw in the historic 1990s equity and subsequent real-estate bubbles (and what we're likely seeing again today in overheated credit and equity markets), culminating in painful liquidation.


The Fed is transferring immense wealth from the middle class to the most affluent, from the least privileged to the most privileged. This coercive redistribution has been a far more egregious source of disparity than the president's presumption of tax unfairness (if there is anything unfair about approximately half of a population paying zero income taxes) or deregulation.


Pitting economic classes against each other is a divisive tactic that benefits no one. Yet if there is any upside, it is perhaps a closer examination of the true causes of the problem. Before we start down the path of arguing about the merits of redistributing wealth to benefit the many, why not first stop redistributing it to the most privileged?

And here is how Krugman, who among other pearls of insight references ... Joe Wisenthal, responds. This is seriously Princeton-grade humor. We leave it up to readers to enjoy it for themselves unobstructed by our cynical interjections. Fom the NYT (highlights ours)

Plutocrats and Printing Presses


These past few years have been lean times in many respects — but they’ve been boom years for agonizingly dumb, pound-your-head-on-the-table economic fallacies. The latest fad — illustrated by this piece in today’s WSJ — is that expansionary monetary policy is a giveaway to banks and plutocrats generally. Indeed, that WSJ screed actually claims that the whole 1 versus 99 thing should really be about reining in or maybe abolishing the Fed. And unfortunately, some good people, like Daron Agemoglu and Simon Johnson, have bought into at least some version of this story.


What’s wrong with the idea that running the printing presses is a giveaway to plutocrats? Let me count the ways.


First, as Joe Wiesenthal and Mike Konczal both point out, the actual politics is utterly the reverse of what’s being claimed. Quantitative easing isn’t being imposed on an unwitting populace by financiers and rentiers; it’s being undertaken, to the extent that it is, over howls of protest from the financial industry. I mean, where are the editorials in the WSJ demanding that the Fed raise its inflation target?


Beyond that, let’s talk about the economics.


The naive (or deliberately misleading) version of Fed policy is the claim that Ben Bernanke is “giving money” to the banks. What it actually does, of course, is buy stuff, usually short-term government debt but nowadays sometimes other stuff. It’s not a gift.

To claim that it’s effectively a gift you have to claim that the prices the Fed is paying are artificially high, or equivalently that interest rates are being pushed artificially low. And you do in fact see assertions to that effect all the time. But if you think about it for even a minute, that claim is truly bizarre.


I mean, what is the un-artificial, or if you prefer, “natural” rate of interest? As it turns out, there is actually a standard definition of the natural rate of interest, coming from Wicksell, and it’s basically defined on a PPE basis (that’s for proof of the pudding is in the eating). Roughly, the natural rate of interest is the rate that would lead to stable inflation at more or less full employment.


And we have low inflation with high unemployment, strongly suggesting that the natural rate of interest is below current levels, and that the key problem is the zero lower bound which keeps us from getting there. Under these circumstances, expansionary Fed policy isn’t some kind of giveway to the banks, it’s just an effort to give the economy what it needs.


Furthermore, Fed efforts to do this probably tend on average to hurt, not help, bankers. Banks are largely in the business of borrowing short and lending long; anything that compresses the spread between short rates and long rates is likely to be bad for their profits. And the things the Fed is trying to do are in fact largely about compressing that spread, either by persuading investors that it will keep short rates at zero for a longer time or by going out and buying long-term assets. These are actions you would expect to make bankers angry, not happy — and that’s what has actually happened.


Finally, how is expansionary monetary policy supposed to hurt the 99 percent? Think of all the people living on fixed incomes, we’re told. But who are these people? I know the picture: retirees living on the interest on their bank account and their fixed pension check — and there are no doubt some people fitting that description. But there aren’t many of them.


The typical retired American these days relies largely on Social Security — which is indexed against inflation. He or she may get some interest income from bank deposits, but not much: ordinary Americans have fewer financial assets than the elite can easily imagine. And as for pensions: yes, some people have defined-benefit pension plans that aren’t indexed for inflation. But that’s a dwindling minority — and the effect of, say, 1 or 2 percent higher inflation isn’t going to be enormous even for this minority.

No, the real victims of expansionary monetary policies are the very people who the current mythology says are pushing these policies. And that, I guess, explains why we’re hearing the opposite. It’s George Orwell’s world, and we’re just living in it.

It... just... does.... not.... compute.... is this the type of thinking of needs to exhibit to get a Nobel?

Does Krugman seriously still not understand that NIM as a business model for banks died about the time banks stopped making loans and relying exclusively on prop, pardon flow, trading and using infinite rehypothecation leverage to juice their returns into the stratosphere, using the offbalance accounting permitted by shadow banking (really read this Paul - you may finally understand how finance DOES work these days), while doing all their best to limit origination and mortgage lending exposure, thank you Bank of Countrywide Lynch (i.e. the opposite of the NIM business model)?

Well at least Krugman is right about thing: there sure aren't many people living on fixed income anymore. Most of them have already died. And he is most certainly not referring to the $5 billion on average in capital that is weekly rotated out of stocks and into bonds.

Whatever anyone does, do not point out our previous post that it was none other than the Fed warning that monetization and excess reserves could lead to hyperinflation. Or, that none other than JPMorgan pointed out a month ago that his beloved central planning has destroyed Okun's Law which makes all Krugman Op-Eds in the past 4 years about the same intellectual quality as one-ply Cottonelle.

We may get a scene straight out of Scanners. And we don't want that - we just want more Krugman humor and more LSAP, aka Large Scale Asshat Publications. In fact, it is time for the Fed to stop printing money and just print Krugman Op-Eds. Following the laughter-induced genocide, unemployment will indeed finally drop for once naturally, instead of as a result of millions of people dropping out of the labor force on a monthly basis.

Comment viewing options

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

Watching all videos/pictures at lemonparty would prove less damaging to one's eyes than reading this Keynesian apologist.

Careless Whisper's picture

The Careless Whisper Saturday News Update & Threadjacking


Feds Use Resources To Prosecute Teenagers' Pump & Dump; MF Corzine Still Free; $1.2 Billion Still Stolen From Customers Accounts,0,2038354.story

Foreign Judge To Decide MF Case

EXCLUSIVE PIC - CENSORED BY MSM; Ron Paul, April 20, 2012, Pittsburgh PA



Troll Magnet's picture

when i was a kid, winning the nobel was considered one of the greatest achievements for any human being. now? not so much. not so much AT ALL. especially those who win the peace prize, economics, et al.

spiral_eyes's picture

You know Krugman is fucked up when he started citing Joe Wiesenthal as a source on macro.

toady's picture

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

If ANYBODY, let alone someone whose opinion might be respected, actually BELIEVES this drivil we are in a world of shit.

nmewn's picture

"I just threw up in my mouth a little."

Me too.

The time it takes to unwind the assumptions & fallacies of any Krugman article is better spent watching the national debt clock spin.

TruthInSunshine's picture

Krugman quotes and relies on Joe Wiesenthal, and jumps an even bigger shark than any he has jumped previously.

The guy is 100%, absolute, full-tilt batshit crazy, or a total tool of the fractional reserve alchemists.


It's incredible.

Krugman actually wrote in one of his bullshit op/eds that the Fed's purchasing of 60%+ of all U.S. Treasury Bonds over the last 24 months has "insignificantly impacted yields," and that yields on treasuries (and competing assets, such as corporate bonds) are essentially priced in accordance with free market equilibrium.

Can anyone with a functioning brain possibly believe this load of shit?

He's a disgrace to economics, which is at any rate more a religion than a science anyways, and he's a disgrace period. No matter what he claims or how he tries to split his semantical hairs in his arguments and views that he's endorsed, he is just a simpleton, who is of the "deficits don't matter" school of idiocy that Cheney spewed, and essentially and perpetually calls for the creation of more debt to solve the existing debt problem.

And the icing on the cake (or grave) of Krugman's complete lack of credibility (one of just many examples that can be found), with respect to Krugman's claim that social security is the go-to repository of sustenance for the elderly, rather than savings:



Blast From Paul Krugman's Past: "Social Security Is A Ponzi Scheme"
francis_sawyer's picture

I suppose the only good thing one could say about Krugman is that in this fucking retarded world, 99% of the morons probably don't even know who the hell he is, & 99% of the people who DO, know he's FOS...

Whatever remains of the rest are just the satisfied customers whose dick he sucked to become recognized...

TruthInSunshine's picture

I'm trying to find two op/eds by Krugman in the NYT.

I know the following as fact:

In one op/ed, Krugman explicitly stated that QE was necessary because it was critical to keep interest rates as low as possible given high unemployment and weak aggregate demand for goods and services (at least implying that QE had the affect of significantly impacting yields on treasuries and interest rates, generally).

In another, Krugman explicitly stated that QE had an insignificant impact on U.S. treasury bond yields and interest rates in general, and that market forces were driving interest rates lower.

I am absolutely positive he espoused these two contrary positions in two separate op/eds that he wrote within the last year or so. Any help in sourcing links would be appreciated.

The guy is a certifiable hack who lost any shred of credibility that he may have ever held a long, long time ago.

knukles's picture

Many people sincerely believe and eagerly await Krugman's prognostications.
Unfortunately, they vote.

The Limerick King's picture



Krugman is now quoting Joe

From the Business Insider shit-show

I guess it makes sense

They're both very dense

And simply too stupid to know!

The Big Ching-aso's picture



Krugman is baboon butt ugly and has his head up his ass.  Other than that he has a lot going for him.

Oh regional Indian's picture

Keeeesinger got the nobel.

Case closed, no?


Paul Krugman's picture

I can't believe you dummies can't understand my perfect logic. Don't you understand that the Fed exists to help you. The Fed through masterful monetary policy has improved all your lives immensely.

EscapeKey's picture

I didn't realize there was a worst troll of the year award.

Harlequin001's picture

Yeah, it should be illegal to use somebody else's name like this. I think the name 'Tosser' might be a little more apt for him...

ChrisFromMorningside's picture

One of my business clients is fairly wealth (tens of millions of dollars in assets) and very educated (Ivy B.A. + J.D.) and he gobbles up *everything* that Krugman writes. Hook, line and sinker. Looks up to him as an informative source to educate him about the markets. I *long* ago gave up on trying to set him straight or trying to open his eyes.

There is a population of people who love credentials and who love herd-thinking. If someone has a particular degree from a particular school, or won a particular award (Nobel), or is looked up to by a herd of mindless useful idiots -- then it is cemented in their minds that this is a person that they must respect.

Krugman is the favorite of upper class liberals who don't know *anything* about finance but like to imagine themselves as intellectually superior. His policies allow for unending giveaways to the financial sector while giving it all a veneer of social democracy and care-for-the-poor by tossing a few cents into some bureacratic black hole that is ostensibly meant to help those who are struggling economically.

The thing is, many of those who most support Krugman are so far detached from reality that they can't tell his spiel is pure bullshit. They don't shop for themselves and they don't have to budget so, yes, they do believe Krugman and Obama that inflation is at 2% or whatever the Party Line is. They have the government in their back pocket so they have no appreciation for how much money goes into government and then never sees the light of day. They think that forming some 501(c)3 and holding a soiree fundraiser actually equals "doing something" to help the less foruntate. Then when someone, especially someone without the right credentials, points out that inflation is really at 10%, that unemployment is really at 20% and that most of the "stimulus" money and bailouts never even came close to reaching the physical economy -- then you're labeled a "conspiracy theorist" or worse.

Fuck Krugman and fuck the Obama administration. Two of the biggest terrorist criminals on our planet right now.

Fred Hayek's picture

Even some of those pretentious lemmings might hesitate if they read that quote from Krugman circa 2002 to the effect that what we must do is start a real estate bubble to avoid a recession.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

ChrisFromMorningside lamented the unfortunate reality:

There is a population of people who love credentials and who love herd-thinking. If someone has a particular degree from a particular school, or won a particular award (Nobel), or is looked up to by a herd of mindless useful idiots -- then it is cemented in their minds that this is a person that they must respect.

Many people find that thinking is an unfamiliar and unpleasant process. Referring to a list of credentials is much easier and far less painful than making the effort to understand. Sadly, 'twas always thus.


uno's picture

Ultra libs (limousine liberals) look at anything in the NY Times as 100% reality.  To them O, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid are gods to be worshipped.

nicxios's picture

Appeal to authority. He must have skipped class the day they taught that.

Freewheelin Franklin's picture

I am absolutely positive he espoused these two contrary positions in two separate op/eds that he wrote within the last year or so. Any help in sourcing links would be appreciated.


You might want to try here (if you haven't already):

nmewn's picture

"...perpetually calls for the creation of more debt to solve the existing debt problem."

Exactly right.

Anyone with a functioning brain knows a debt based system is premised on the principle being repaid. Putting it on another credit card does nothing to repay the debt incurred now...his present credit cards are time & currency debasement.

He continually avoids this not so small detail of principle, while disguising his true motives as fighting for present "social fairness" which is really opting for the certain mutually assured destruction of all of this the future...which he must be gambling on happening long after he has departed this mortal coil.

He can only be best described by me as a parasitic leech who infects others while sucking off the host.

EscapeKey's picture

yes and no. the current system rests on the pretense of the debt getting paid. but the wall st bankers sit under a rain of fees and interest payments, and that's what they ultimately care about.

mendigo's picture

This is not about economics or reason, this is in your face soviet style disinformation.

He says that interest rates are not artificially low yet the fed is openly usint "printed" money to buy government debt which he knows has the effect of surpressing rates. Obvious lie.

The fed is loaning money at essensially zero percent - that is not buying anything and the banks profit from those cheap loans. Another obvious lie.

Somebody needs to take this guy to task. The public does not have the familiarity to see this Nobel prize winning voice of a major source of "news" is a lying sack of shit.

Fred Hayek's picture

Some cracks in the Krugman facade probably started to show with his attempt to sort of debate Steve Keen. Krugman almost risibly misrepresented Keen's arguments and even the sycophants at his blog started to wonder if the all powerful Oz was really all he was cracked up to be.

The Alarmist's picture

Actually, it takes little to no time to unwind Krugman. He lives and breathes "post hoc ergo propter hoc," to wit:

"And we have low inflation with high unemployment, strongly suggesting that the natural rate of interest is below current levels, "

Go ahead and pull on that one thread ... if for some reason the measure of inflation is questionable, most of his reasoning unravels.

While many, including myself, would argue that current official inflation measures, the ones used by Krugman, are hardly representative of the inflation experienced by the average person (99%) or myself (the next 0.99%), I will avoid resorting to doing a Krugman here and merely say that he is demonstrating an amazing lack of academic or scientific integrity by presenting questionable lemma to draw the reader into accepting what may be a questionable hypothesis as a sound theorem.

BTW, Krugman is one of the 0.01%, who stands to benefit from the use of his reasoning to loot the rest of us ... would be nice if he believed in fair disclosure.

akak's picture

Spouting big sloppy lies loudly and directly from one's ass: So easy, a Krugman can do it!

The Alarmist's picture

It depends on the audience and the intended effect, but I learned long ago that I should sometimes say that sombody "Lied" and other times say that somebody made a "Material mis-statement of fact."

Krugman deals in the hypothetical, so one needs to consider being a little more nuanced to ensure his arguments are soundly countered.

He does not lie ... he opportunistically frames the problem. Hell, I'm willing to concede that he actually believes what he is espousing.

mendigo's picture

I find it hard to believe he is that stupid. It must be a calculated lie - to the average person they accept this ass as an authority.

He is right in at least one respect - as much as wall street needs another injection of QE, the banks must fear a serious case of inflation. I imagine that is what has caused Ben to blink.
Perhaps Europe will start that fire.

ElvisDog's picture

I would say un-insightful and ivory-tower rather than stupid. He lives in an academic world surrounded largely by syncophants who praise his insights on aggregate demand and so on. He is enormously well paid and probably never travels or exists outside the cloistered world of Princeton or Martha's Vinyard. His premises and opinions are based on academic models that support his own political agenda.

The bottom line is his arrogance and ego will never allow him to admit he is wrong. Any failures will be attributed to not following his policies strongly enough.

mendigo's picture

His reasoning seems to me to be based on the premise that the banks are focused on maximizing return to shareholders and that this results in efficient allocation of resources. I don't think there ismodel that correctly accounts for greed, fear and incompetence. and any rational person allows for this descrepancy.

Gohn Galt's picture

I spewed my coffee and one of the kids saw it on the computer while I was cleaing up.  Maybe you shouldn't bring up lemonparty or at least give us a warning.

And as long we are referencing the bizarre.  Did anyone else think what was happening in the over Norway when Obama was accepting the Noble Peace Prize might not have been the sign we hoped for?

It is unfortunate about those twin teens getting hit for $1.2million pump & dump.  Our people are morally bankrupt.  At least if the kids were going to do something they should use protection.  I am sure if they want to shed some heat they could do a follow up on how Gandhi was homosexual,7340,L-4048776,00.html

and how Gandhi is an enemy to religions

which I am sure is just payback for denouncing Zionism and the fact that Gandhi supported Palestine and was against turning the region into a Jewish state.

And let's run Gandhi's grandson out of his institute for speaking up against oppression.


For the record I do not promote oppression.  I am not looking to be the master or slave of anything.



Seize Mars's picture

I think I just sharted.

Quaderratic Probing's picture

Poor banks have tones of money on deposit with the Fed right now getting a crappy 3% interest. Al they have to do is take it out and buy their own stock with it. This will force the price up creating huge capital gains for themselves... my God this is easy

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Troll Magnet said:

when i was a kid, winning the nobel was considered one of the greatest achievements for any human being. now? not so much. not so much AT ALL. especially those who win the peace prize, economics, et al.

While our lawless exterminator-in-chief has shit on the reputation of the Nobel Peace Prize, we must remember that there is no Nobel Prize in Economics. It is really an award created in 1969 by Sveriges Riksbank, the world's oldest central bank. It is a ham-fisted attempt to purchase credibility and legitimacy for the pseudo-science of economics by way of an annual bribe of a million dollars to the Nobel Foundation for "administrative expenses".

If Krugman could somehow be compelled to tell the truth, this would have been his opening statement:

These past few years have been lean times in many respects — but they’ve been boom years for agonizingly dumb, pound-your-head-on-the-table economic fallacies, which, incidentally, is how I won my quasi-Nobel Sveriges Riksbank Participation Trophy in the Economic Pseudo-Sciences.


Lednbrass's picture

+1, this is a point I rarely see mentioned. If there were any honesty and the media reported this as the "Central Bankers Prize in Economics in Memory of Alfred Nobel" (which it really is) it would take a bit of the lustre off this "award".

Whoa Dammit's picture

Krugman bought his Nobel at the Obama Store.

He also seems to be plagerizing Bart Simpson's homework: "What it (the Fed) actually does, of course, is buy stuff, usually _____, but nowadays sometimes other stuff."

CuriousPasserby's picture

Did you see Corzine is a major bundler for Obama? Wanna bet it's payment for the pardon he'll need?

Red Heeler's picture

Ron Paul is packing arenas like that everywhere he goes. It will be interesting to see what the millions of Ron Paul supporters do when he is fraudulently denied the nomination. I hope it will be something more forceful than to weep themselves to sleep. As well organized, numerous, and patriotic as they are it would only be fitting for them to make the kleptocracy howl. 

philipat's picture

If Ron Paul threatens to stand as an Independednt, Romney is fucked because the consistent 10-15% who vote for Paul, well, will vote for Paul. This would hand re-election to Obama. IMHO, Paul should stay in until the end then demand some real influence in the Romney administration, without commitments to which, he would announce his Independent candidacy.

i-dog's picture

You are making an [incorrect, IMO] assumption that the Republicrats are trying to win!

The most conservative and influential repub backroom boys are actively spoiling Romney and attempting to get Santorum back into the starting gate---knowing full well that he is even less appealing to the electorate than Mittens. They totally shun Ron Paul, notwithstanding his very close connection to many of them that goes all the way back to his days in the John Birch Society.

I strongly suspect that the repub leaders know there will not be an election and that they are all, including Ron Paul, just treading water to keep up the show.

mendigo's picture

I don't understand your point about no election but I agree that it appears the repubs are taking a pass on this one. I think they are getting most of what they want with obama in office - his administration is so inept and so needy.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

mendigo said:

I don't understand your point about no election but I agree that it appears the repubs are taking a pass on this one. I think they are getting most of what they want with obama in office - his administration is so inept and so needy.

You are more correct than you realize. The republican branch of the War Party loves Obama. He is like a third-term Bush Jr., except he's a better republican than George W ever was.

They can't openly campaign for him, as that would spoil the two-party illusion that they've worked so hard to develop with their partners, the democratic branch of the War Party. What do they do to assure an Obama victory? They run a flip-flopping milquetoast (Romney), a pariah of corruption (Gingrich), and a religious extremist kook (Santorum), while simultaneously undercutting at every opportunity the only credible threat to Obama's re-election (Paul).


TheVirginian-HGWT's picture

You are correct. The 'Left' and 'Right' wing parties are both attached to the same bird (neo-feudalistic fascism).

philipat's picture

I agree it makes no difference which party wins. It's called divide and conquer, a game invented by the British in the days of Empire. But you really believe the Totalitarian takeover, or the revolution, will come before November?

ElvisDog's picture

Such talk is silly because collapses of great empires always take longer than most people think. Rome took 200 years from when it was on the brink until it finally died (the western empire that is). There will absolutely be an election in November. If any don't think there will be, please tell me what event will prevent it.

hadriansnightmare's picture

Paul should run as an independent. Period.  Let Obuma have another four years.  The sooner this mess gets pushed over the cliff the better.  The friggin repubs have had their shot on and off for thirty years.  Paul should go out starting something (a third party with legs) not pandering for some BS cabinet position.  Romney is a Fed lover and a Wall Streeter through and through- you gotta be kidding me "demand some real influence".....that's a good one.  The toast is already burn't black and your solution is to scrape it with a knife.  Been there, done that.