Ron Paul Supporters:

Not that you would agree with anyone with a Libertarian view, here's a link with a good analysis of recent Fed policies.

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_15_04_1_hummel.pdf

From the summary at the end of the analysis:

"In the final analysis, central banking has become the new central planning. Under the old central planning—which performed so poorly in the Soviet Union, Communist China, and other command economies—the government attempted to manage production and the supply of goods and services. Under the new central planning, the Fed attempts to manage the financial system as well as the supply and allocation of credit. Contrast present-day attitudes with the Keynesian dark ages of the 1950s and 1960s, when almost no one paid much attention to the Fed, whose activities were fairly limited by today’s standard. Even before Bernanke, the Fed’s increasingly conspicuous targeting of interest rates had major economic players sitting on the edge of their chairs, waiting to hear the Open Market Committee’s latest pronouncement, rationally oblivious to the fact that the Fed is basically a noise trader in the market for loanable funds and cannot ultimately control real interest rates.

This pretense of control led William A. Fleckenstein (a critic of Greenspan who is unduly harsh, in my opinion) to write aptly: “Central bankers are actually central planners. Like bureaucratic leaders of central-planned or command economies, they pick an interest rate to within two decimal places that they guess will be the correct one, and then they proceed to cram it down the throat of the banking system” (2008, 3, emphasis in original). But now, with Bernanke, the central-planning aspect of central banking has become much more encompassing. As George Selgin observed in an interview, “The Fed . . . has morphed into a central planning agency with a corporate welfare department” (qtd. in Oliver 2009). It requires a certain hubris to undertake such a daunting task, yet Bernanke clearly does not lack such hubris. As the prolonged and incomplete recovery from the recent recession suggests, however, the Fed’s new central planning, like the old central planning, will ultimately prove an unfortunate and possibly disastrous failure."

 

Wow, I guess Woogs has a more advancededer degree in the economies. We're all rocket scientists on the internets, some of us just have a harder time selling it.

 

Ron Paul already won. He has done more than any contemporaneous politician to change the political landscape, challenge the status quo, and make people question their political ideology.

The more he gets his message out, the more support he gains, despite the media blackout of him and people continually being ignorant and misinterpreting his views. The man is a trooper and has challenged and changed more people's political views in the past few years than any politician has in decades.

Unfortunately, Paul does face insurmountable odds. He is running as a paleoconservative in a Republican Party that loves to expand the government, increase our debt, infringe on civil liberties, and wage unnecessary wars based on lies and deceit. Despite the GOP rhetoric about limited government and individual responsibility, they have a penchant for the welfare/warfare state. In addition, Paul has many views that liberals can relate to, but his personal social conservative views scare them off, as well as his antagonism towards the nanny state.


p.s. I also have an advanced degree in economics and the Federal Reserve practices price setting all the time. They try to set the price on fiat money which will be less tomorrow than it is today. It is central planning of our monetary system. These central planners will erode people's labor since they think that mild inflation is a "good lube" for the economy. Mainstream economists have this unhealthy fear of mild deflation. They view it as a black hole and think that the American consumer will start hoarding their money if mild deflation occurred, therefore exacerbating a recession.

However, anyone who hasn't been in a coma for the last four decades realizes that the average American consumer does not show great restraint when it comes to spending. In fact, lower prices would increase people's purchasing power, giving them the incentive to spend more. However, this is in direct conflict of the Keynesian view of the AD model. Mild deflation would spin the economy out of control on a downward path towards misery and strife.

 

you're just illustrating what i wrote, hummel is a politically motivated libertarian

his analysis was obvious hyperbole, there are plenty of others like him at the mises institute, helping lew foment libertarian propaganda and misinformation

did you prefer the gold standard days, when the price of gold was prescribed by government?

 

I'm shocked...positively shocked...at your response.....NOT!!!

Did you bother to read the entire piece? If so, you would have seen it is a detailed, well-cited and well-researched analysis.

Funny thing is...these guys are the ones getting it RIGHT these days. Mis-information like that is obviously upsetting to those that have invested in failed outlooks. Take off the Keynesian blinders, man...there's a real world your philosophy is screwing up.

You would think at some point the writing on the wall might be clear to even you. But I guess reality doesn't fit your agenda, much like slowing down didn't fit into the agenda of the Titanic's Captain, either.

FULL SPEED AHEAD. I'M GONNA MOVE YOU, BABY!!!!!!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KONpt9a6HrI"]Ron Paul: "This real-estate bubble will burst, as all bubbles do" (part 3) - YouTube[/ame]

 

i've repeated this many times on this forum:

the only school of economic thought more archaic than the keynesian school, is the austrian school

so, it should be obvious that i don't support an archaic philosophy

 

This just means that you are likely to get it wrong just like the rest of academics, central bankers and fed heads, schooled in mainstream economic theory.

Much of mainstream economic theory that you were taught (whenever it was taught to you) was badly flawed.

 

you're like an armchair quarterback

you don't know what you're talking about

 

this is my first post.

i am a registered independent. and i am totally against central private banks owned by the 1%. this is by the way, the FEDERAL RESERVE. it is unfair that a private bank loans the government its money. its like blackmail...

this is why Thomas Jefferson stated "a national bank is more dangerous to our liberty than a standing army." Also, its funny how our founding fathers founded this nation on a gold / silver standard, stating that paper currancy is illegal... and now its a fiat currency with no metal backing. Now a days, the FED can print money out of thin air, which is called inflation... back then, we traded in gold and silver. then the fed came in 1913 and printed paper. this is unconstitutional, and illegal.

 

Where do i begin?

hmmm...

Ron Paul will win in 2012.

END THE FED

 

you don't seem to be able to distinguish propaganda from reality

the government doesn't borrow money from the federal reserve

i've found you a treasury dept page the explains the process for kids


How does the U.S. Government borrow money?

Here’s where the Government is different from individual people and businesses. When the Government borrows money, it doesn’t go to the bank and apply for a loan. It "issues debt." This means the Government sells Treasury marketable securities such as Treasury bills, notes, bonds and Treasury inflation-protected securities (TIPS) to other federal government agencies, individuals, businesses, state and local governments, as well as people, businesses and governments from other countries. Savings bonds are sold to individuals, corporations, associations, public and private organizations, fiduciaries, and other entities.

Here is how Treasury securities - such as savings bonds - generally work. People lend money to the Government so it can pay its bills. Over time, the Government gives that money, plus a bit extra, back to those people as payment for using the borrowed money. That extra money is "interest."

This is how the U.S. system of debt works:

The U.S. Treasury issues or creates the debt.

The Bureau of the Public Debt manages the Government’s debt. That means it keeps records, takes care of selling the debt, and handles paying back people who loaned the Government money.

The U.S. Treasury and the Bureau of the Public Debt do not decide how the money is spent. The legislative branch of Government (Congress) decides how the money is spent.

There is a maximum amount of debt the Government can have. This is known as the “debt ceiling.” To raise that amount, the U.S. Treasury must get Congress to approve a new and higher limit.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/kids/what/what_borrow.htm



here's another myth that ron paul spreads: the federal reserve is a private for-profit institution

it isn't true, the fed is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects

it turns over all its net-profits to the united states treasury department


Federal Reserve earned $45 billion in 2009

By Neil Irwin - Washington Post Staff Writer - 1/12/2010

The Fed will return about $45 billion to the U.S. Treasury for 2009, according to calculations by The Washington Post based on public documents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/11/AR2010011103892.html

 

We pay interest on the "debt" to the Federal Reserve so it really is a Loan. It's a For-Profit Bank not a Public Bank like you make it out to be.

What is easier? Raising the debt ceiling to keep the current Economic stupidity while keeping your own desired programs in effect or not raising and being forced to cut back? Just because Congress has to raise the debt ceiling doesn't mean the Federal Reserve doesn't "Loan" out money to other Institutions/Corporations which inflates the currency causing it to be devalued. The FED/Corporations/Banks get the benefits of the US Paper Dollars we have now not the general public at all.

It is a For-profit institution... Just because the Government tells the FED to print money doesn't mean it's controlled by the US Government in anyway. The President appoints a person of course to be the Head but, in reality the FED really is nothing more than a typical Private Bank that loans out money to Institutions/Governments across the globe with the idea in mind to make a Profit.

It's net profits? You mean when we pay interest on the debt we owe to the FED the US Government recieves a portion of the Interest we pay but, the American Taxpayer gets screwed in the end because the money being taken by Interest is still being given to the FED and not the people/Government.

$45 Billion... when we have to pay around 300-400 Billion on the interest.

One of the figures I saw for the interest payment was $352,350,252,507.90 for one year... the 45 Billion you present is nothing.

 

Ron Paul finished third in the latest Des Moines Register poll. Not a bad place to be at this time. His support is solid, unlike Cain's, whom I expect to begin dropping soon. Romney seems to be stuck in the 20% range, so he is vulnerable.

Ron Paul in 2012!!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/29/cain-edges-romney-in-des-moines-register-poll/

 

Do not blame me because your understanding of economic history is weak.

If you think that central bankers and fed heads have a good track in predicting the economy you are welcome to that opinion.

 

I was under the impression that the Fed sometimes buys US Treasury securities.

If the government raises money by selling Treasury Securities, and the Fed buys these securities, how do you figure that the Fed is not the lender ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

 

first, show me where i said anything about the fed making predictions

second, my understanding of economic history is quite strong

there has been no depression in this country for nearly 70 years

the treasury sells securities, that's not a bank loan

you're completely wrong, the fed turns that money over to the treasury dept

 

I've never felt 3rd place was good unless you are in a marathon and weight 250 lbs.
If Romney is stuck at 20..

where's Paul?
6-12 %

Let's face it.. Paul won! ..he and his ilk destroyed any chance of Romney wining.If Romney had won.. Paul would have run as a 3 rd party guy again.

But now..Paul gets to sit back and watch a FED guy win the nomination,
Must make him feel sooo proud. The tea party founder watching the FED roll on by.. ( I cant wait to see the true Nice Paul go ballistic )

Watch taxes go up..the economy go down.Everything Paul was against,he helped deliver. IOWA..THE DEEP SOUTH ..and his religious faithful keep the evil Mormons at bay.
Paul served his purpose..made some money..now gets to retire while you get to suck wind.
But he only took 1 retirement.. ..Right.


But the late night shows will be really happy with the cute Cain gaffs.

 

The one thing about Romney is that his support has been steady since the beginning. That's good in a way, since he's been on top, but he can't seem to climb above the 20+% mark. He will likely win New Hampshire, but he will have to build on that.

You can't blame Ron Paul, Herman Cain or anyone else for Romney's situation. Whatever support he has or doesn't have is his own doing. The simple fact is that people know Romney and his support is what it is.

I look for Ron Paul's support to creep up a little more and Cain's support begin to fall off. There's still a lot of undecided people and the nomination isn't a lock for anyone yet.

 

so you accuse me of not being able to discern propaganda from truth, yet you are quoting something created by the treasury, who's secretary is a wall street bankster btw, so whos issuing the propaganda?

why dont you digress, and debate me on my notion that according to the constitution, the Federal Reserve is ILLEGAL!!!

 

what's the use, you'll just say your internet propaganda trumps the supreme court and congress

there's nothing in the constitution that says congress can't create a central bank

 

Using Paper Money that isn't backed by Gold or Silver is Unconstitutional... take another read some time. Also if it's all given to the "Treasury" than please explain why we pay interest anyways and only a PORTION goes to the Treasury of the total amount? Also if we didn't take any loans out why is it on the books for us to payback the FED $8.2 trillion dollars? Clearly you're missing quite a lot in your "studies".

 

that's not what the constitution says

 

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: The Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.

Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall…coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt.

AMENDMENT IX RIGHTS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT X POWERS RETAINED BY THE STATES AND THE PEOPLE
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

By default it is Unconstitutional because it wasn't listed as a Federal Power.

 

section 10 enumerates what states are prohibited from doing

president washington signed legislation granting the first bank of the united states a central bank charter

president madison issued $35 million in paper money, to finance the war of 1812

Congress is explicitly granted power to regulate currency, and to make any law that is 'necessary and proper' to fulfill any of its enumerated powers. Therefore, if Congress can create a Bureau of Mint to coin and print money, it can also create a Bank that can regulate said currency. This argument has stood the test of time since 1791 when congress created the Bank of the United States.

In 1819 the Supreme Court voted 9-0 to uphold the Second Bank. Critics say only gold and coin are legal tender, but U.S. v. Rifen clearly tells us what can be legal tender: The United States Constitution prohibits states from declaring legal tender anything other than gold or silver but does not limit Congress' power to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts: Coinage Act of 1965, §102, 31 USCA §392; USCA Const. Art. 1, §10.

In Knox v Lee, 79 U.S. 457 (1871), the Court ruled that paper money was not unconstitutional: "The Constitution nowhere declares that nothing shall be money unless made of metal." The Court argued that the Congress can manipulate the value of precious metals to the point where it can be rendered as inherently worthless as paper (the Congress could enact a law that says that 10-dollar silver coins weigh 400 grains in one year and 500 grains the next, effectively devaluing the silver). The Court even noted the arguments of the Framers against "emitting bills," but wrote that the Framers (1) could not anticipate all governmental needs and (2) allowed the Congress to do what was necessary and proper to carry out its powers. In this case, that includes printing paper money.

So, said the Court, even though paper money is not expressly permitted by the Constitution, it is also not expressly forbidden, and in spite of the extra-constitutional opinions of some of the Framers, the ability to print paper money is a necessary and proper power of the federal government.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q154.html

do you think the united states air force is unconstitutional? it wasn't mentioned in the constitution

 

Central Banks have been around for centuries so your point for bringing up the USAF is a moot point. Also the USAF could under the Constitution be listed under the Navy--Army Relationship which is indeed Constitutional.

Signing in legislation doesn't make it valid... It has to be amended via the Constitution.

Congress has no power over the FED as to how they direct their funds at all. It is a Private Bank and it is as Federal as the Federal Express.

Yet with their own practices the State Governments are accepting not Gold nor Silver backed currencies... So is that not breaking a Constitutional Law? Just because the Federal Government can Print Money that is backed by precious metals to be just as worthless as regular paper doesn't give the States the right to accept Non-backed currencies.

If it isn't specified in the Constitution it isn't a given Authority. The Constitution itself was designed as a limitation of the Federal Government and not a limitation towards the people.