There were few surprises in today's commentary by Ron Paul on QE2: the only man in Congress (with Grayson now gone) who is sufficiently intelligent to realize that the primary culprit behind the US economy's boom-bust cycle is the Federal Reserve, continues to press for the termination of Ben Bernanke's public "service" which has resulted in a collapse in American purchasing power in the 100 years since the first Jekyll Island meeting. Yet Paul takes a 'John Lennon' approach to the problem, believing that active intervention may not even be needed, as the Fed ends up cannibalizing itself: "I think the Fed will self-destruct. People will desert the dollar. I think the Chinese are hinting that already. They are not wanting our dollars as much as raw materials. This is a deeply flawed monetary system. Here we have a small group of people who can create $600 billion with the stroke of a pen... I don't know where people are coming from to think that this can work. What really astounds me me is how tolerant the people are, the people in Congress and the financial market, where did this authority come from? Now somebody outside of the government can spend trillions of dollars and not think anything about it. It doesn't work, it's a failure. And next year it will be more. Bernanke is very clear on what he is going to do - he is going to create money until he gets economic growth and there is no evidence to show that just creating money causes economic growth." All logical and expected. Which is why nobody will endorse the Paul stance, it as it means an end to the trillion dollar wealth transfer system from the middle class to the kleptocracy.
Yet the funniest thing is Ron Paul's commentary on that irrelevant, and now completely discredited Fed puppet, Paul Krugman,
Krugman is the exactly the opposite of a free market economist. I would think by now he would have been totally discredited and it's tragic - i pray every night that his views will just disappear because what he wants to do is more of the bad stuff...He is leading the intellectual charge for the total destruction of the dollar. I don't see how he has any credibility whatsoever.
Nobody but the NYT has an answer to that question.