As we anticipate more demand-rigging, pump-priming, can-kicking experiments from Bernanke today, Ron Paul just came out with his latest stream of truthiness (via Bloomberg):
- *REP. PAUL SAYS BOTH PARTIES KEYNESIANS, GOP 'NOT HIS PARTY'
- *REP. PAUL SAYS FED PRICE FIXING
- *REP. PAUL SAYS FED FLOODING MARKET WITH MONEY
Indeed, what is the opposite of 'between a rock and a hard place' when deciding on just who will provide 'change' in November.
Monopolies contribute to many problems - the record of evidence illustrates the potential inefficiency, waste and price fixing. Yet the greatest trouble with monopolies is what they take away - competition. Competition is a beautiful mechanism; in exercising their purchasing power and demand preferences, individuals run the economy. If we are for competition in goods and services, why should we disclude competition in the money industry? Would competition in the money industry not benefit the consumer in the manner that competition in other industries does? Why should the form and nature of the medium of exchange be monopolised? Shouldn’t the people - as individuals - be able to make up their own mind about the kind of money that they want to use to engage in transactions? Earlier, this year Ben Bernanke and Ron Paul had an exchange on this subject. It is often said in Keynesian circles that Bernanke is too tame a money printer, and that the people need a greater money supply. Well, set the wider society free to determine their own money supply based on the demand for money.
The discussion over the GOP's gold standard proposals continues in spite of the fact that everybody surely knows the idea is not even taken seriously by its proponents – as we noted yesterday, there is every reason to believe it is mainly designed to angle for the votes of disaffected Ron Paul and Tea Party supporters, many of whom happen to believe in sound money. As we also pointed out, there has been a remarkable outpouring of opinion denouncing the gold standard. Unfortunately many people are misinformed about both economic history and economic theory and simply regurgitate the propaganda they have been exposed to all of their lives. Consider this our attempt to present countervailing evidence. The 'Atlantic' felt it also had to weigh in on the debate, and has published an article that shows, like a few other examples we have examined over recent days, how brainwashed the public is with regards to the issue and what utterly spurious arguments are often employed in the current wave of anti-gold propaganda. The piece is entitled “Why the Gold Standard Is the World's Worst Economic Idea, in 2 Charts”, and it proves not only what we assert above, it also shows clearly why empirical evidence cannot be used for deriving tenets of economic theory.
"We accept the world as it is presented to us. If True American really wished to discover the truth, I would be unable to prevent him from doing so. But he is much happier in my artificial world than he would be in the real world. Since there are so many painful consequences to seeking the truth, he quite rightly prefers to live in my artificial world."
It’s a safe statement to make that when Mitt Romney is finally crowned the GOP nominee for president during the Republican National Convention, any vestige of liberty will be firmly wiped away from the ballot box come this November. For those who have followed his campaign in the United States, Congressman Ron Paul has been swindled out of the nomination through various underhanded tricks at state conventions. The explanation is straightforward: Paul’s views are not comfortable within the Republican Party establishment. Today’s GOP is a party of banker interests, imperialism, and clandestine state empowerment while claiming to represent small, limited government. Romney embraces this platform while Paul’s decades-long voting record stands in opposition. For towing the party line, Romney has been anointed the “electable” candidate while Paul has been deemed an extremist.
On the 'new' eve of the Republican Convention, it appears all is not well in the Romney-Ryan ranks. In what is quite a stunning admission, though not entirely surprising given his outspoken desire for a change to the status quo, the NY Times is reporting that Ron Paul does not fully endorse Romney for President. Mr. Paul, said convention planners had offered him an opportunity to speak under two conditions: that he deliver remarks vetted by the Romney campaign, and that he give a full-fledged endorsement of Mr. Romney. He declined. "It wouldn't be my speech," Mr. Paul said. "That would undo everything I’ve done in the last 30 years. I don’t fully endorse him for president." Whether this is Paul playing an admirable 'long-game' and/or standing by his libertarian roots (or angry at his apparent marginalization) is unclear but one thing is for sure; with the dominance of 'young' voters (seeking 'change'?) behind Ron Paul relative to 'old' voters with Romney, this rebuff will not help in the fight against TOTUS. As BigStory reports, Paul is telling his supporters to stand firm because "we will become the tent eventually!"
Up to his neck: the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia—the latest in a series
Stranger than fiction perhaps but the FT is reporting that the gold standard has returned to mainstream US politics for the first time in 30 years with a 'gold commission' set to become part of official Republican party policy. While this could simply be a reach for as many Ron Paul marginal voters as possible (with the view that the GOP would never really go for it); it appears drafts of the party platform from the forthcoming rain-soaked convention call for an audit of the Fed and a commission to look at restoring the link between the dollar and gold. The FT, citing a spokesperson, adds that "There is a growing recognition within the Republican party and in America more generally that we’re not going to be able to print our way to prosperity," but "We’re not going to go from a standing start to the gold standard," although it would provide a chance to educate politicians and the public about the merits of a return to gold. Interestingly, the Republican platform in 1980 referred to "restoration of a dependable monetary standard", while the 1984 platform said that "the gold standard may be a useful mechanism."
Major General: Why Are Domestic Government Agencies Purchashing Enough Lethal Ammunition to Put 5 Rounds In Every American?Submitted by George Washington on 08/20/2012 11:40 -0400
Why Do They Need So Much Ammunition?
"Personally, I look at the Americans and I see a people who have been very effectively brainwashed, or who simply have given in to the entirely human tendency to shuffle unquestioningly onto the path of least resistance and let themselves go. I see a people who, on a wholesale basis, have consciously or unconsciously decided to trade the idea of America for the false security of a totalitarian state."
And the hard reality is that the vast majority would raise their hands in favor of the current system that has the state deeply involved in pretty much every aspect of the economy and society at large. The level of support for the very same tangled body of state-controlled handouts, regulations and central economic planning now choking the last gasps of life out of the body politic is obvious and overwhelming. The champions of liberty are fighting against a very entrenched and increasingly dangerous public mindset. Today the enemy (of true freedom) is within. In fact, the nation is overrun by them... they dominate in most every community, in most businesses and even in most families.
Scandal after scandal – but the Fed just doesn’t want to be audited. Period.
Alas, the devil is in the details for Europe’s latest attempt at financial alchemy. Much to the investment world’s apparent dismay yesterday, it turned out that the ECB’s Draghi had nothing very specific in mind when he pledged last week to defend Europe’s monetary union by any means necessary. In theory, and most immediately, such a rescue would entail using printing-press money to mop up Spain’s leprous bonds, lest rates push above 7%.
When we started reading the LA Times article reporting that "the federal government has quietly been completing an audit of U.S. gold stored at the New York Fed" we couldn't help but wonder when the gotcha moment would appear. It was about 15 paragraphs in that we stumbled upon what we were waiting for: "The process involved about half a dozen employees of the Mint, the Treasury inspector general's office and the New York Fed. It was monitored by employees of the Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm." In other words the Fed's gold is being audited... by the Treasury. Now our history may be a little rusty, but as far as we can remember, the last time the Fed was actually independent of the Treasury then-president Harry Truman fired not one but two Fed Chairmen including both Thomas McCabe as well as the man after whom the Fed's current residence is named: Marriner Eccles, culminating with the Fed-Treasury "Accord" of March 3, 1951 which effectively fused the two entities into one - a quasi independent branch of the US government, which would do the bidding of its "political", who in turn has always been merely a proxy for wherever the money came from (historically, and primarily, from Wall Street), which can pretend it is a "private bank" yet which is entirely subjugated to the crony interests funding US politicians (more on that below). But in a nutshell, the irony of the Treasury auditing the fed is like asking Libor Trade A to confirm that Libor Trader B was not only "fixing" the Libor rate correctly and accurately, but that there is no champagne involved for anyone who could misrepresent it the best within the cabal of manipulation in which the Nash Equilibrium was for everyone to commit fraud.
Ron Paul’s signature Audit the Fed legislation finally passed the House; on July 25, the House bill was passed 327 to 98. But the chances of a comprehensive audit of monetary policy — including the specifics of the 2008 bailouts — remain distant. All that the current state of secrecy does is encourage conspiracy theories. What is the FOMC trying to hide? Are they making decisions that they think would prove unpopular or inexplicable? We can’t have a real debate about policy unless we have access to all the data about decisions. Those who believe the Fed’s monetary policy has worked should welcome transparency just as much as those who believe the Fed’s monetary policy has not worked. If the Fed’s actions have been beneficial, then transparency will shine kindly on it. If not, then transparency will help us have a better debate about the road forward.