PDA

View Full Version : Politics: Very long post by Ron Paul on the crisis (new)


Justinian
09-25-2008, 10:09 PM
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,



Ron Paul


me: Please, please, please, please read the bold paragraph as many times as it takes for the point to sink in.

Mazer
09-25-2008, 10:11 PM
Also, pretty much the same stuff but for lazy people:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB-OhTfplYE

Lethn
09-25-2008, 10:11 PM
I sincerely hope that that guy gets the support he needs personally.

Fro
09-25-2008, 10:12 PM
That is a long post. tl:dr version?

Justinian
09-25-2008, 10:14 PM
just read the bold paragraph, or read the whole thing instead of being a chump.

stalwart
09-25-2008, 10:15 PM
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.

LOLOLOL. so fucking true.

Dwhap
09-25-2008, 10:24 PM
LOLOLOL. so fucking true.

Ron Paul is Jesus.

Jezrith
09-25-2008, 10:24 PM
That is a long post. tl:dr version?

TL;DR Version:

"I told you so."
-Ron Paul

Jackhowitzer
09-25-2008, 10:25 PM
I hate that he has a first name and another first name, but his second first name is really his last name.

Fro
09-25-2008, 10:26 PM
TL;DR Version:

"I told you so."
-Ron Paul

Thanks, thats all i needed to know.

The Cougar
09-25-2008, 10:30 PM
He's spot on. A standing ovation is, as always when it comes to Ron Paul on economics, appropriate.

trichlor
09-25-2008, 10:31 PM
Yup, that is a very long post..

Tharkon Fargor
09-25-2008, 10:32 PM
Also, pretty much the same stuff but for lazy people:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB-OhTfplYE

I was starting to watch.
Then I saw a fucking Swedish flag in an US flag and I stopped.

This is outrageous!


I did skim through the post though, nice. Agreed with much of it. First part fully.

kehmesis
09-25-2008, 10:48 PM
Ron Paul was USA's last chance. So sad.

Lindorn
09-25-2008, 10:49 PM
Excellent post. The great thing is that he went into a lot of detail here, moreso than usual. I mean if you actually read his platform at any point, which most of the haters never did, he explains it in detail. But for him to get so technical in one of his bloggish posts is rare form for him.

Oh well I'm sure the haters will still find something to say.

Tharkon Fargor
09-25-2008, 10:49 PM
yup america is buttsexed now.
Though I'd vote for John Edwards to and perhaps Dennis aswell if he would run and I was American.

Capricious
09-25-2008, 10:53 PM
Williams: … Congressman Paul, a question for one of your colleagues on stage.

Paul: My question is for Senator McCain.

This is an economic question that I want to ask. It has to do with the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets.

I’d like to know what your opinion is of this and whether you would keep it in place, what their role would be if you — or you would get rid of this group? And if you kept the group, would you make sure we would see some sunlight and know what they’re doing and how they’re being involved in our markets?

Hmmm.

[LoD] EE
09-25-2008, 10:56 PM
That is a long post. tl:dr version?

Stop being a lazy fuck and read it.

Musketeer
09-25-2008, 10:58 PM
Very long post
That's as far as I got.

Kagetora8151
09-25-2008, 11:04 PM
Ron Paul was USA's last chance. So sad.

I agree. Its now a very steep decline for the United States of America.

I didn't read the post, but I watched the video. Ron Paul is the man.

EDIT: Just read the post. Much better than the video. I love Ron Paul.

Elemancer
09-25-2008, 11:30 PM
I agree. Its now a very steep decline for the United States of America.

I didn't read the post, but I watched the video. Ron Paul is the man.

EDIT: Just read the post. Much better than the video. I love Ron Paul.

Please guys....

http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html

Write your reps, instead of just sitting around bitching about it. Get your neighbor, friends, and even girlfriends to write in. This HAS to stop. Also, there will be protests, I don't think they're centralized yet, but there are several scheduled throughout the country.

If there's ANYTHING you should do something about, it is this. We're talking burdens that we will leave to generations that will view us as part of the dark ages.

Malhavok
09-26-2008, 12:15 AM
Actually, what's being proposed now is 1000x worse than injecting liquidity. Injecting liquidity is somewhat defensible depending on what school of economics you subscribe to. Even if you're talking about minarchism of the Chicago School liquidity injection has its use as a last resort to shock start the economy. Of course, the real question is whether or not the economy needs a shock start. The Chicago school has always been pretty honest about the bleak after effects of injecting liquidity. That is, you get a temporary and unsustainable boost to the economy in the short term followed by a larger suppression and inflation which could possibly lead to stagflation (which we're on the brink of right now, due to the easy money policies following the .com bust).

Even if you're a god damn Keynesian who fervently believes that we should intentionally manipulate the economy to minimize the impacts of business cycles despite the cost it's pretty questionable as to whether we should partake in even more meddling at this point. We just spent several years artificially stimulating the economy with easy money and now that we're feeling the effects of said stimulation we're talking about upping the dosage? That's treacherous waters for even a Keynesian, let alone a minarchist.

It's situations like this which is supposedly why the Fed is kept out of politicians hands. The philosophy is that the Fed will practice some damned restraint rather than caving to the short-term goal of artificially ramping up the economy for political reasons. Yet it's the damned Fed that's leading the charge for more liquidity and Congress, which supposedly can't be trusted to maintain the long-term interests of the economy, who is showing the restraint. Talk about some damn role reversal. I already thought Greenspan over reacted with the easy money. At least he had the decency to raise the rates back up even if it was, as it looks now, too little too late. Bernanke on the other hand has played nothing but loose with the money supply. Ten years from now I think we'll look back at Helicopter Ben with nothing but disdain.

But, back to my original point. This isn't just a liquidity injection. It's a liquidity injection in the form of a direct bail out of those profiteers who totally disregarded all common sense and threw risk to the wind. You want to make loans available and act as a lender of last resort? That's one thing. Inadvisable and perhaps even grossly negligent. But for better or worse to act as a lender of last resort is what the Fed was created to do. The proposed 700 billion dollar buyout of bad investments is the icing on the cake. We put the nail in the coffin on capitalism when we bailed out FNM and FDM. Now we're building the god damn Democratic Socialist shrine to house it in with the bail out.

I could support the socialization of FNM and FDM on the condition that Government act as a broker to sell off all its assets in as timely a manner as possible before completely disbanding it. I'd even go so far as to say it's the best way out of the stupidity that is FNM and FDM. A gentle let down when the markets are already unstable is perhaps better than a cold turkey failure of FNM and FDM, even if it does end up costing the tax payers a boatload of cash. The government and the tax payers created it and imo we have a responsibility to pay for its funeral. The bailout, on the other hand, is nothing more than rescuing private enterprises that sunk themselves. It's an unprecedented interference in the already not-so-free capital markets.

Vanno
09-26-2008, 02:22 AM
The FED hasn't been about inflation targetting or restraint for ages. They have existed to stabilize output (a silly notion) for quite awhile now.

Fylraen
09-26-2008, 02:43 AM
Good post, Malhavok.

Lethn
09-26-2008, 02:50 AM
Real revolutions don't just happen during elections ;)

DR.NUMBERS
09-26-2008, 02:53 AM
Spot on as usual.

Elemancer
09-26-2008, 03:33 AM
Actually, what's being proposed now is 1000x worse than injecting liquidity. Injecting liquidity is somewhat defensible depending on what school of economics you subscribe to. Even if you're talking about minarchism of the Chicago School liquidity injection has its use as a last resort to shock start the economy. Of course, the real question is whether or not the economy needs a shock start. The Chicago school has always been pretty honest about the bleak after effects of injecting liquidity. That is, you get a temporary and unsustainable boost to the economy in the short term followed by a larger suppression and inflation which could possibly lead to stagflation (which we're on the brink of right now, due to the easy money policies following the .com bust).

Even if you're a god damn Keynesian who fervently believes that we should intentionally manipulate the economy to minimize the impacts of business cycles despite the cost it's pretty questionable as to whether we should partake in even more meddling at this point. We just spent several years artificially stimulating the economy with easy money and now that we're feeling the effects of said stimulation we're talking about upping the dosage? That's treacherous waters for even a Keynesian, let alone a minarchist.

It's situations like this which is supposedly why the Fed is kept out of politicians hands. The philosophy is that the Fed will practice some damned restraint rather than caving to the short-term goal of artificially ramping up the economy for political reasons. Yet it's the damned Fed that's leading the charge for more liquidity and Congress, which supposedly can't be trusted to maintain the long-term interests of the economy, who is showing the restraint. Talk about some damn role reversal. I already thought Greenspan over reacted with the easy money. At least he had the decency to raise the rates back up even if it was, as it looks now, too little too late. Bernanke on the other hand has played nothing but loose with the money supply. Ten years from now I think we'll look back at Helicopter Ben with nothing but disdain.

But, back to my original point. This isn't just a liquidity injection. It's a liquidity injection in the form of a direct bail out of those profiteers who totally disregarded all common sense and threw risk to the wind. You want to make loans available and act as a lender of last resort? That's one thing. Inadvisable and perhaps even grossly negligent. But for better or worse to act as a lender of last resort is what the Fed was created to do. The proposed 700 billion dollar buyout of bad investments is the icing on the cake. We put the nail in the coffin on capitalism when we bailed out FNM and FDM. Now we're building the god damn Democratic Socialist shrine to house it in with the bail out.

I could support the socialization of FNM and FDM on the condition that Government act as a broker to sell off all its assets in as timely a manner as possible before completely disbanding it. I'd even go so far as to say it's the best way out of the stupidity that is FNM and FDM. A gentle let down when the markets are already unstable is perhaps better than a cold turkey failure of FNM and FDM, even if it does end up costing the tax payers a boatload of cash. The government and the tax payers created it and imo we have a responsibility to pay for its funeral. The bailout, on the other hand, is nothing more than rescuing private enterprises that sunk themselves. It's an unprecedented interference in the already not-so-free capital markets.

The only point...which I'll be curious if you argue...that I disagree with is that we're already well into stagflation. I've been saying it for the past 6 months...yet everyone still throws recession (and even depression) around like it's inevitable. Stagflation > depression in almost all cases. If I could steer us to a depression I would. We will see stagflation for the next decade....

losinglife
09-26-2008, 07:30 AM
Hmmm.

hahaha yeah, that was awesome when he pulled that question out at the debate.

Zuku
09-26-2008, 07:58 AM
The worst part of reading this thread is all the crying about how the country is lost and this is the end and "There goes the country."

Whiny bitches.

This is just another problem to get through.

My question is what happens to all the pension funds, retirement funds, etc? What happens to all the money that all the people have in the market?

The people who caused this mess already made their money.