Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Ron Paul tackles the Federal Reserve...

Options
  • 19-05-2009 6:50pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 214 ✭✭


    Hi All,

    Ron Paul has released the following update in relation to his endeavors against the Federal Reserve:

    CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY | Link to article

    YOUTUBE | Link to audio version
    I have been very pleased with the progress of my legislation, HR 1207, which calls for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve and removes many significant barriers towards transparency of our monetary system. This bill now has nearly 170 cosponsors, with support from both Republicans and Democrats. Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced a companion bill in the Senate S 604, which will hopefully begin to gain momentum as well. I am very encouraged to see so many of my colleagues in Congress stand with me for greater transparency in government.

    Some have begun to push back against this bill, and I am very happy to address their concerns.
    The main argument seems to be that Congressional oversight over the Fed is government interference in the free market. This argument shows a misunderstanding of what a free market really is. Fundamentally, you cannot defend the Federal Reserve and the free market at the same time. The Fed negates the very foundation of a free market by artificially manipulating the price and supply of money — the lifeblood of the economy. In a free market, interest rates, like the price of any other consumer good, are decentralized and set by the market. The only legitimate, Constitutional role of government in monetary policy is to protect the integrity of the monetary unit and defend against counterfeiters.

    Instead, Congress has abdicated this responsibility to a cabal of elite, quasi-governmental banks who, instead of stabilizing the economy, have destabilized it. It took less than two decades for the Federal Reserve to bring on the Great Depression of the 1930’s. It has also inflated away the value of our currency by over 96 percent since its inception. It has invisibly stolen from the poor and given to the rich through this controlled inflation, and now openly stolen through recent bank bailouts. It has predictably exacerbated the very problems it was meant to solve.
    Detractors have also argued that the Fed must remain immune from the political process, and that that more congressional oversight would distort their very important decisions. On the contrary, the Federal Reserve is already heavily entrenched in the political process, as the Fed chairman is a political appointee. High level officials routinely make the rounds between positions at the Fed, member banks, Treasury and back again, taking care of friends and each other along the way.
    As far as the foolishness of placing complex monetary policy decisions in the hands of politicians — I couldn’t agree more. No politician or central banker, no matter how brilliant, is smart enough to know more than the market itself. The failure of central economic planning has been witnessed over and over. It is frankly beyond me why we ever agreed to try it again.
    To understand how unwise it is to have the Federal Reserve, one must first understand the magnitude of the privileges they have. They have been given the power to create money, by the trillions, and to give it to their friends, under any terms they wish, with little or no meaningful oversight or accountability. Thus the loudest arguments against greater transparency are likely to come from those friends, and understandably so.
    However, it is the responsibility of every member of Congress to represent the interests of the people that sent them to Washington and find out what has been happening with our money. As the branch of government with the power of the purse, we really have no other reasonable choice when the economy is in the shape it is in.

    What are your thoughts on his efforts and what level of success do you think he will enjoy?

    If anyone is failing to see how this thread relates to conspiracy theory please acquaint yourself with 'Zeitgeist - The Movie' either briefly or in full. If you personally don't buy into the Zeitgeist films or movement please acknowledge that other members may very well do so as do many conspiracy theorist enthusiasts ergo the correlation exists which renders this a valid discussion in a conspiracy theory forum.


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 123 ✭✭jackiebrown


    <snip>


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 123 ✭✭jackiebrown


    The fed sucks.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 214 ✭✭ilivetolearn


    Ron Paul seems to be revered by most conspiracy theory enthusiasts when it comes to his stance against the Federal Reserve.

    One insight that I haven't been privy to (but I am equally open to) is that of the more skeptical members of this forum. There is an obvious parallel between the convictions of Ron Paul and the conspiracy theorist when it comes to ineffectiveness of the current monetary system. Would a stringent skeptic regard Ron Paul with as little credibility as Alex Jones (an often poorly researched fanatic so far as many online skeptics are concerned) or is this one instance where you'd believe that the conspiracy theorists may be barking up the right tree (which wouldn't necessarily (but may) infer that the stringent skeptic condones the convictions of the conspiracy theorist but rather those of Ron Paul alone.)?


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    There is an obvious parallel between the convictions of Ron Paul and the conspiracy theorist when it comes to ineffectiveness of the current monetary system.

    Is there?

    Maybe I've misunderstood Ron Paul's stance, but he seems to be arguing against the seperation of power...that the control of creating these trillions and so forth should rest with Congress, and not with appointees.

    If one were to look at the judicial branch, this would be analagous to saying that the Supreme Court shouldn't be allowed make rulings...such should be done by Congress.

    The conspiracy theorist stance on the Fed, on the other hand, seems to be that the entire system is wrong...that the Fed itself is a symptom of the problem - that being fractional lending. This entire system is what is wrong.

    Again, taking the judiciary, this would be more analagous to saying that instead of the Supreme court, we should have an anarchical system (which has, I would note, been advocated on occasion on this forum).

    It seems to me that Ron Paul has been popular with all those who oppose the concept of fractional lending because he seems to be the first guy in a long time who's getting anywhere in terms of making waves and challenging the current status quo.

    I'm unconvinced, however, that his stance is parallel to theirs.

    Maybe I just need to read up more on Ron Paul. Maybe he is completely against fractional lending. Mostly what I've read, so far, seems to be him saying that the problem is entrusting this to others, who then favour their friends. It should be entrusted to Congress (who, of course, would never do anything similar)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    Thanks Bonkey, Ilivetolearn's post was rather difficult to comprehend, from what I know about Ron Paul he's a good old fashioned Republican, he's against the concept of a 'privatised' Fed run by cronyismbut from what I gather his issue is the interest payments on The money by the government, I think that if he does succeed in nationalising the Fed he is still a free makrket fanboi, so Fractional reserve lending would remain, however it may be curtailed somewhat, but there is no way that he'd ditch that system.

    anyway I think your Supreme court analogy is a bit misleading, yes the Supreme court are apointees too, but they are one of the 3 branches of government in the US as defined by the Founding Fathers, the FED is a private company masquerading as a QuasiGovernmental body, and is exactly what Jefferson warned the world about at the time of the declaration of independence


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 90 ✭✭ihatewallies


    Of course Ron Paul is a leading member of that constituency that says that the recent financial catastrophe was the fault of regulation.
    Alan Greenspan who was the architect of the policies that destroyed the US banking system, crippled the US economy and have generated 13 trillion US deficit, was equally at the extreme end of the libertarian philosophy spectrum as Master Ron.
    He says that no one, no matter how brilliant, is smarter than the matket. But here he contradicts himself since by definition even he (or anybody else) cannot second guess what therefore is the correct policy. Other than laissez faire and faith in human morality.
    In essence it is the law of the jungle and counter to the thrust of human civilisation.
    It is a philosophy of the haves to excuse a tyrannical attitude towards the weak.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 214 ✭✭ilivetolearn


    Bill to Audit Fed Gains Serious Momentum

    ... according to Infowars (May 22, 2009). A list of co-sponsors can also be found at the end of the article.

    The latest streamed update from Ron Paul:



    I enjoy his candidness. Theres a certain confidence to his righteousness.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,487 ✭✭✭banquo


    Ron Paul 2012.

    That is all.


Advertisement