PDA

View Full Version : An E-mail from Ron Paul



chauncy republicans
09-25-2008, 06:00 PM
The Republicans really shot themselves in the foot by nominating McCain.

Dear Friends: The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.

We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.

Still, at least a few observations are necessary.
The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?

We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).

Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."

Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?

Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:

Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.

The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.
The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?
Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.
The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.
I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.
H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.
In liberty,

http://app.campaignerpro.com/accountsmedia/5858/ronsig.jpg

Ron Paul

Umbro2914
09-25-2008, 06:33 PM
The Republicans really shot themselves in the foot by nominating McCain.

I agree 100%

shocker1
09-25-2008, 06:34 PM
I really like Ron's view here, it goes along with my opinion on the issue.

drunken sailor
09-25-2008, 06:59 PM
If Ron Paul would have not associated himself with Alex Jones then he would have had a better chance of getting more mainstream coverage in my opinion. He warned everyone long ago that this was coming and most laughed.

He ( Ron Paul ) is dead write on the economics of this country for sure. Lets pray that Alex Jones is wrong about the end game.

LineDoggie
09-25-2008, 07:09 PM
The Republicans really shot themselves in the foot by nominating McCain.

And they would have been laughed out of the universe if they nominated Paul

Mans a Loon, but hey let's listen to some Aimee Allen songs :roll:

nagant_m44
09-25-2008, 07:16 PM
And they would have been laughed out of the universe if they nominated Paul

Mans a Loon, but hey let's listen to some Aimee Allen songs :roll:

why's he a loon?

chauncy republicans
09-25-2008, 08:34 PM
why's he a loon?
Because the T.V. told him so.

duhblow7
09-25-2008, 08:36 PM
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville

Gat0r
09-25-2008, 08:38 PM
Maybe because he talks about a piece of paper called the constitution, because he actually follows it, I guess its easy to label him a loon when he's the only one in that position.

Winger
09-25-2008, 08:52 PM
The main theme of this wiring, to let liquidation occur, with the idea that the market will fix itself more quickly as opposed to a credit expansion that will create a worse economic crisis.

I think that pretty much sums up the article. Question, if liquidation is allowed to occur, how bad will it be in the short term? Will enough prospectors start flocking like vultures to buy this stuff at low liquidation rates?

LineDoggie
09-25-2008, 09:11 PM
Because the T.V. told him so.

Don't watch even 3 hours a week there sparky, try again.

LineDoggie
09-25-2008, 09:24 PM
Maybe because he talks about a piece of paper called the constitution, because he actually follows it, I guess its easy to label him a loon when he's the only one in that position.

Nope, Letters of Marque & Reprisal ringa any Bells?

It isnt 1804 anymore....

Gold Standard

War on Drugs stand

The Racist Statements Paul is attributed to:

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."



Does Ron Paul eat? after all it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.....:roll:

Thor
09-25-2008, 09:30 PM
The whole private Federal Reserve system is shady to say the least. The only way it has been able to survive is through it's powerful guardians and the fact that few people understand it: "We got our suburban home, three cars and a swimming pool, what's the problem?"

On a more positive note we had a very similar Financial Crisis in the beginning of the 1990's and New York Times recently published this article:



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html?em

Stopping a Financial Crisis, the Swedish Way

By CARTER DOUGHERTY
Published: September 22, 2008

A banking system in crisis after the collapse of a housing bubble. An economy hemorrhaging jobs. A market-oriented government struggling to stem the panic. Sound familiar?

It does to Sweden. The country was so far in the hole in 1992 — after years of imprudent regulation, short-sighted economic policy and the end of its property boom — that its banking system was, for all practical purposes, insolvent.

But Sweden took a different course than the one now being proposed by the United States Treasury. And Swedish officials say there are lessons from their own nightmare that Washington may be missing.

Sweden did not just bail out its financial institutions by having the government take over the bad debts. It extracted pounds of flesh from bank shareholders before writing checks. Banks had to write down losses and issue warrants to the government.

That strategy held banks responsible and turned the government into an owner. When distressed assets were sold, the profits flowed to taxpayers, and the government was able to recoup more money later by selling its shares in the companies as well.

“If I go into a bank,” said Bo Lundgren, who was Sweden’s finance minister at the time, “I’d rather get equity so that there is some upside for the taxpayer.”

Sweden spent 4 percent of its gross domestic product, or 65 billion kronor, the equivalent of $11.7 billion at the time, or $18.3 billion in today’s dollars, to rescue ailing banks. That is slightly less, proportionate to the national economy, than the $700 billion, or roughly 5 percent of gross domestic product, that the Bush administration estimates its own move will cost in the United States.

But the final cost to Sweden ended up being less than 2 percent of its G.D.P. Some officials say they believe it was closer to zero, depending on how certain rates of return are calculated.

The tumultuous events of the last few weeks have produced a lot of tight-lipped nods in Stockholm. Mr. Lundgren even made the rounds in New York in early September, explaining what the country did in the early 1990s.

A few American commentators have proposed that the United States government extract equity from banks as a price for their rescue. But it does not seem to be under serious consideration yet in the Bush administration or Congress.

The reason is not quite clear. The government has already swapped its sovereign guarantee for equity in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance institutions, and the American International Group, the global insurance giant.

Putting taxpayers on the hook without anything in return could be a mistake, said Urban Backstrom, a senior Swedish finance ministry official at the time. “The public will not support a plan if you leave the former shareholders with anything,” he said.

The Swedish crisis had strikingly similar origins to the American one, and its neighbors, Norway and Finland, were hobbled to the point of needing a government bailout to escape the morass as well.

Financial deregulation in the 1980s fed a frenzy of real estate lending by Sweden’s banks, which did not worry enough about whether the value of their collateral might evaporate in tougher times.

Property prices imploded. The bubble deflated fast in 1991 and 1992. A vain effort to defend Sweden’s currency, the krona, caused overnight interest rates to spike at one point to 500 percent. The Swedish economy contracted for two consecutive years after a long expansion, and unemployment, at 3 percent in 1990, quadrupled in three years.

After a series of bank failures and ad hoc solutions, the moment of truth arrived in September 1992, when the government of Prime Minister Carl Bildt decided it was time to clear the decks.

Standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the opposition center-left, Mr. Bildt’s conservative government announced that the Swedish state would guarantee all bank deposits and creditors of the nation’s 114 banks. Sweden formed a new agency to supervise institutions that needed recapitalization, and another that sold off the assets, mainly real estate, that the banks held as collateral.

Sweden told its banks to write down their losses promptly before coming to the state for recapitalization. Facing its own problem later in the decade, Japan made the mistake of dragging this process out, delaying a solution for years.

Then came the imperative to bleed shareholders first. Mr. Lundgren recalls a conversation with Peter Wallenberg, at the time chairman of SEB, Sweden’s largest bank. Mr. Wallenberg, the scion of the country’s most famous family and steward of large chunks of its economy, heard that there would be no sacred cows.

The Wallenbergs turned around and arranged a recapitalization on their own, obviating the need for a bailout. SEB turned a profit the following year, 1993.

“For every krona we put into the bank, we wanted the same influence,” Mr. Lundgren said. “That ensured that we did not have to go into certain banks at all.”

By the end of the crisis, the Swedish government had seized a vast portion of the banking sector, and the agency had mostly fulfilled its hard-nosed mandate to drain share capital before injecting cash. When markets stabilized, the Swedish state then reaped the benefits by taking the banks public again.

More money may yet come into official coffers. The government still owns 19.9 percent of Nordea, a Stockholm bank that was fully nationalized and is now a highly regarded giant in Scandinavia and the Baltic Sea region.

The politics of Sweden’s crisis management were similarly tough-minded, though much quieter.

Soon after the plan was announced, the Swedish government found that international confidence returned more quickly than expected, easing pressure on its currency and bringing money back into the country. The center-left opposition, while wary that the government might yet let the banks off the hook, made its points about penalizing shareholders privately.

“The only thing that held back an avalanche was the hope that the system was holding,” said Leif Pagrotzky, a senior member of the opposition at the time. “In public we stuck together 100 percent, but we fought behind the scenes.”

I'm going to start a separate topic about this as well. I hope no one minds.

domokun
09-25-2008, 10:54 PM
I could say that Ron Paul is one few politicians that I admire.

Reason is very simple, he says what he really means, a genuine idealist. He reminds me of our former foreign minister Erkki Tuomioja, both guys are same on manners even while on totally different political paths and opinions. Ron Paul is fresh air in US politics, too bad that he didn't got nomination as Republican.

2Sheds_Jackson
09-25-2008, 10:56 PM
I agree 100%

I agree too but nominating Paul sure wouldn't have been any better.

Hey, everybody loves a stalwart contrarian - especially one not burdened with having to actually do anything - but frankly I'm not all that impressed with his penchant for endlessly waving his finger. I disagree completely with his assessment of the causes of the depression and so to me he's not offering much valuable insight here.

nagant_m44
09-25-2008, 11:52 PM
Nope, Letters of Marque & Reprisal ringa any Bells?

It isnt 1804 anymore....

Gold Standard

War on Drugs stand

The Racist Statements Paul is attributed to:

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."



Does Ron Paul eat? after all it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.....:roll:

yea, ignore the constitution, its just old fashioned.:roll:

alphasixfour
09-26-2008, 12:07 AM
Ron Paul is the wrong candidate with the right message. I don't agree with everything he has done in the past, but I will be writing him on my ballot in Nov. Imagine a younger, early 40 some-odd candidate with the exact same message. They would blow everyone away in the polls.

cobra25
09-26-2008, 12:38 AM
This is the greatest con job of them all.
It's blatantly obvious too.

However, the con, even out in the open will succeed.
What does that tell you about the current state of the US?

Oh, and I sincerely hope that as a result of this people finally realize what place the politicians really occupy in the scheme of things.
Wall St. has basically blackmailed the US. This cannot be described as anything other than blackmail; "Help us or you're going down".

When the financial powers that be in the US can do this much damage who do people really think runs this country?

Most of the talk surrounding this situation in the media is full of smoke and mirrors. Bush's speech the other night was just that because the Feds see that the folks aren't falling for the con.

In a nutshell this is what happened.

Financials took about 300 Billion in sub-prime aka garbage mortgages and leveraged them out into trillions of dollars. As much as $5 trillion.
Now, who created this situation again? The fools who borrowed the mortgages of course. :roll:
If these loans weren't leveraged (or minimally leveraged; let's say even 5:1) than this would never have been a large problem at all.

As long as most people have their weekly football game and American idol they won't care. Such is America today.


There's a greater agenda here. The US financial industry is being consolidated (with the help of the US government) . The largest banks in the US ( JP Morgan, Citi, etc.) have upwards of $300 Trillion in derivatives holdings. Might that have something to do with it?

of course not. :bash:

Flagg
09-26-2008, 05:15 AM
Nope, Letters of Marque & Reprisal ringa any Bells?

It isnt 1804 anymore....

Gold Standard

War on Drugs stand

The Racist Statements Paul is attributed to:

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."



Does Ron Paul eat? after all it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.....:roll:

While you are entitled to your opinions I have to state that I don't just believe, I KNOW, you are completely off the mark.

If I'm stuck in a smoke filled building.......being told everything is OK by management.........but alerted by someone to the reality of a blazing life threatening fire in the basement.......do I care if the person who's been screaming all along "fire! And I've seen who started it!" likes the colour purple?

Ron Paul is probably lots of weird and crazy things............but most importantly he is largely RIGHT and has been ringing the alarm bell for YEARS.

Discount him all you want.......that's your personal perogative.......

We face the REAL possibility of a "financial global nuclear war"

Alarmist? Possibly........but not probably.........we are at the stage that it pretty much requires everyone's completely undivided attention....especially when we have financial neutron bombs exploding weekly.

Rictor
09-26-2008, 07:16 AM
Nope, Letters of Marque & Reprisal ringa any Bells?
It isnt 1804 anymore....

Because the alternative has worked so well, clearly. Oh that's right, I forgot - bin Laden is still at large and the people who were his reluctant hosts now alternate between ambushing American patrols and blowing up hotels and prime ministers in Pakistan.



War on Drugs stand

Another marvelous success. Decades after the inception of the program, drugs are cheaper and more plentiful than ever.

If I can drink myself into the grave, smoke myself into the grave, is it such a terrible offense to indulge in a bit of weed? Who has the authority to decide what I may or may not do to my own body?

LineDoggie
09-26-2008, 08:28 AM
Interesting that no one rebutts his racist statements from his newsletter.

Ah well, time for another Aimee Allen song for the believers.. :roll:....

Winger
09-26-2008, 08:31 AM
Ron is wrong on about 10% of the stuff which is way better than par from your average bear. Like someone said before, take his brain and put it in a more youthful and charismatic person and we have good American leader that is electable for the Presidency.

Winger
09-26-2008, 08:32 AM
Interesting that no one rebutts his racist statements from his newsletter.

Ah well, time for another Aimee Allen song for the believers.. :roll:....

His racists comments are not politically correct and wrong. There.

Thor
09-26-2008, 08:36 AM
Interesting that no one rebutts his racist statements from his newsletter.

Ah well, time for another Aimee Allen song for the believers.. :roll:....
I fail to see any racism.

Ron Paul tells things as he sees them. Political Correctness need to stop.