Central Economic Planning at its Worst - Essay by Ron Paul for February 21, 2011

Last week, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) presented its results to the Financial Services Committee. As with most other politically-appointed commissions, the results of the FCIC's investigation were easy to predict. Established by the same congress that gave us national healthcare and with a majority of its members appointed by those who seek to solve every problem with more government intervention, it was no surprise that the commission's findings would favor increased government intervention in the economy. Minority members were not substantively involved in the commission's operations, and the commission attempted to exclude their dissenting views by granting them very limited space to do so.

However, even the minority members of the commission failed to consider the most important cause of the financial crisis, namely the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy. Almost a century ago, in 1912, Ludwig von Mises published his great work The Theory of Money and Credit. This was the first systematic description of Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT), which explains the origins of the business cycle in monetary expansion. This theory explains why so many businessmen make so many of the same errors at the same time. Yet not a single member of the commission undertook an analysis of the financial crisis from an Austrian economic viewpoint.

Instead, blame was placed on failures in financial regulation and corporate governance, excessive borrowing and risky investments, and expansion of subprime lending, among other factors. But none of these explanations can answer why this crisis occurred. Why was there excessive borrowing? Why was there an explosion of subprime lending? Why were there failures in corporate governance? Why did virtually no one except Austrian economists see this coming?

Without the Federal Reserve's massive expansion of credit throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, there could have been no excessive borrowing or explosion of subprime lending. Through easy credit, the Fed initiated the economic boom that created the dot-com bubble. When that bubble burst the Fed pumped additional liquidity into the system, which led to a new boom that created the housing bubble. And now the Fed's additional trillions of dollars in monetary pumping is creating yet another bubble. This is the exact opposite of stability in the marketplace and has nothing to do with free markets. It is central economic planning at its worst.

It is imperative that the historic record accurately reflect what actually happened. In the popular press we see columnists attempting to blame the financial crisis on the “small-government,” “free-market” policies of President Bush. Hundreds of billions of dollars in stimulus payments, a $700 billion bailout program, and trillions of dollars of Federal Reserve credit facilities hardly represent small-government and free-market principles in action! On the contrary, these government interventions by both major parties demonstrate quite clearly our nation’s acceptance of crony capitalism.

Schoolchildren today are taught the myth that Herbert Hoover was a small-government President who did nothing to stop the Depression, while the truth is exactly the opposite. Fed Chairman Bernanke failed to understand the true cause of the Great Depression, so his policy prescriptions to combat the current crisis are understandably flawed. Unless we confront and correct false economic rhetoric, truly understand the causes of the economic crisis, and do away with our loose monetary policy, we will find ourselves in ever more vicious business cycles.

Ron Paul on Kudlow Report Jan 14, 2011

posted by Greg Chamberlain

Ron Paul joined Larry Kudlow to discuss the Congressman's latest CPAC presidential straw poll victory. Congressman Paul chuckled about comments from Donald Trump, and Kudlow grilled him about the potential of defeating Barack Obama in 2012, and Ron Paul steered the conversation toward liberty, foreign non-intervention, cutting spending and reducing the role of government.

He elaborated on the fact that most empires end when they run out of money. He tied to say people need to embrace liberty and we are safer when we are free.

He said he has not made a decision to run for office and that he feels like he has a few months before he has to worry about it, since no other candidates have announced.

He spoke about his idea to allow people to "opt out", meaning be taxed 10% on income, with the agreement to not rely on the government for anything, including Social Security.

He also spoke about non-interventionism and why it is the best policy for the U.S.. He said he would abolish foreign aid and he made reference to his amendment which he later introduced on Jan 15, 2011. Congressman Paul introduced an amendment to the recent Appropriations bill striking $6 billion in foreign aid to four recipient governments in the Middle East. They are Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Israel. Ron Paul says, "We’re broke"

Congressman addressed how we propped up Egypt for 30 years and that is a reason there was so much repression for so long and that it is a bad policy to do what we did. We should stop that and this is part of his non interventionist policy that the framers of The Constitution advocated. That is to be friends and trade with countries, but no meddle in their internal affairs or prop up dictators. There is too much potential for long term unintended consequences and terrorist style blowback.

He talked about how he would trade with Cuba and how the politicians who consider themselves free traders are always the ones wanting to put sanctions on other countries for not acting the way they want. He said it's hypocritical and we need to stop the sanctions that get in the way of trade between nations to open markets.

He also addressed in detail how the U.S. debases it's currency, yet accuse China of the same thing and tell China to stop debasing theirs. We want a weak currency to enhance exports. It doesn't work. The hypocrisy continues.

The most valuable quote from Congressman Paul in this interview is: "We are not competitive like we used to be and it's not China's fault. We have too much taxes and too much regulation. We have a monetary system that causes a lot of confusion. We have the inflationary factor. If you got rid of all that and gave the incentives back to this country, I believe we could compete and we would not worry too much about the internal economic policies of China."

Ron Paul introduced amendment to Appropriations bill striking $6 Bil in aid to Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Israel.

On February 15, 2011, Ron Paul introduced amendment to Appropriations bill striking $6 billion in foreign aid to largest recipients- Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Israel. Ron Paul says, "We’re broke"

Ron Paul on Spending Addicts in Washington - February 14th 2011

Posted by Greg Chamberlain

Ron Paul appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe to speak about the role of government and how politicians in Washington are addicted to spending. Ron Paul talks about semantics. He breaks down that defense spending is different than Military Spending. Ron Paul talks about ending support for others around the world, that it's not part of defense. It's part of the Military Industrial Complex. The U.S. funds Egypt to buy weapons from U.S. military companies.

The Republican Divide - Not all are sipping the same tea

Posted by Greg Chamberlain

During the Ron Paul 2008 presidential run, his mighty group of true grass roots supporters orchestrated what was the beginning of the actual "Tea Party" movement. For better of for worse, I feel safe in being able to state that Ron Paul was the Godfather of the Tea Party movement. After the 2008 election was over, Neoconservative strategists (the kind that like the policies of George W. Bush and John McCain) looked to Ron Paul's Tea Party for ways to literally hijack it into a Conservative movement of their own, not guided by substance, but guided by a desire to win elections for Republicans, many of whom do not resemble the good Congressman, Ron Paul, in terms of his strict constitutional, non-interventionist and freedom principled platform.

Behind the scenes, Neoconservative movers and shakers using "Tea Party" as part of their moniker, dominated the last midterm election, after having successfully hijacked Ron Paul's movement. Many are now thanking Ron Paul, but not adhering to his positions which make him popular with young people.

These people who started the tea party movement were actual Ron Paul supporters, most of whom were young and could recite Congressman Paul's constitutionalist platform of non-intervention in foreign policy and Ron Paul's Austrian platform on economics and argue for it. They could argue against fixing economy through The Fed or central economic planning. They could debate non intervention in the markets and the economy puts an end to nepotism, cronyism, corporatism, and all the other things that plague our supposed free markets, which are everything but that. These were the real modern day Tea Party Republicans, and their message has been temporarily distorted during the mid term elections and during CPAC.

Ron Paul made a speech at the CPAC convention, which cleared the distortion from the air as to what the freedom movement and the revolution is all about. It was one of his finest and most concise speeches ever about who he is and what he stands for. This is the reason that Ron Paul received more contributions from active duty military personal than ALL of the other candidates combined. They know his voting record matches his words.





As I watched other segments from the CPAC conference, which is basically one of the first cheerleading matches for both real AND fake conservatives for the upcoming presidential elections, the divide on who the real tea party is and who the real tea party isn't became more clear.

There is one man, Allen West, who spoke at CPAC. West, who is a freshman Congressman from South Florida who is considered by the press as a Tea Party backed candidate. Yet, he was preaching the same old tired rhetoric such as chasing so called terrorists and those who resist U.S. occupation, blindly proclaiming his undying support for Israel no matter what and cutting measly amounts of spending of $100 Billion, compared to the $500 billion proposed by at least one other congressman who knows we can no longer borrow from China, Japan or Saudi Arabia or call The Fed to print more money. In my humble opinion, this man is not drinking from the same tea supply as the Godfather of the Tea Party movement, Ron Paul. He is speaking more for the Neoconservative wing. And, that is a big difference.

Here are three three 10 minute parts of Allen West's speech.

Part I

In this section he does not hit anything substantive until the 4-5 minute point. When he does offer a view into what he is seeking, he talks about reducing the annual defcit by a measly $100 million dollars, when at least one other Congressman is seeking $500 billion.



Part II

In this section, he almost went into a peace speech, but it quickly turned into what sounded like a war speech. He is promoting interventionism, which is the reason the U.S. is a target of those who we label as terrorists. Interventionism is not with the constitution. This is where Congressman West and Ron Paul have different ideologies in terms of Foreign Policy. They are sipping different tea, in my opinion.



Part III

In this section, he boasts of his unwavering support for a U.S. ally who is known throughout their region for being a bully and for breaking international law, showing favor to one group of people in the region and less of an even playing field for the other. This is the opposite of what Congressman Paul promotes and what the original tea party movement included. Nothing against any country. No special aid for any country. Just seeking fair honest friendship, free trade for all, no entangling alliances.

End

Ron Paul essay for February 14, 2011: Deception at the Fed

For the past three decades, the Federal Reserve has been given a dual mandate: keeping prices stable and maximizing employment. This policy relies not only on the fatal conceit of believing in the wisdom of supposed experts, but also on numerical chicanery.

Rather than understanding inflation in the classical sense as a monetary phenomenon-- an increase in the money supply- it has been redefined as an increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI is calculated based on a weighted basket of goods which is constantly fluctuating, allowing for manipulation of the index to keep inflation expectations low. Employment figures are much the same, relying on survey data, seasonal adjustments, and birth/death models, while the major focus remains on the unemployment rate. Of course, the unemployment rate can fall as discouraged workers drop out of the labor market altogether, leading to the phenomenon of a falling unemployment rate with no job growth.

In terms of keeping stable prices, the Fed has failed miserably. According to the government's own CPI calculators, it takes $2.65 today to purchase what cost one dollar in 1980. And since its creation in 1913, the Federal Reserve has presided over a 98% decline in the dollar's purchasing power. The average American family sees the price of milk, eggs, and meat increasing, while packaged household goods decrease in size rather than price.

Loose fiscal policy has failed to create jobs also. Consider that we had a $700 billion TARP program, nearly $1 trillion in stimulus spending, a government takeover of General Motors, and hundreds of billions of dollars of guarantees to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD, FDIC, etc. On top of those programs the Federal Reserve has provided over $4 trillion worth of assistance over the past few years through its credit facilities, purchases of mortgage-backed securities, and now its second round of quantitative easing. Yet even after all these trillions of dollars of spending and bailouts, total nonfarm payroll employment is still seven million jobs lower than it was before this crisis began.

In this same period of time, the total U.S. population has increased by nine million people. We would expect that roughly four million of these people should have been employed, so we are really dealing with eleven million fewer employed people than would otherwise be expected.

It should not be surprising that monetary policy is ineffective at creating actual jobs. It is the effects of monetary policy itself that cause the boom and bust of the business cycle that leads to swings in the unemployment rate. By lowering interest rates through its loose monetary policy, the Fed spurs investment in long-term projects that would not be profitable at market-determined interest rates. Everything seems to go well for awhile until businesses realize that they cannot sell their newly-built houses, their inventories of iron ore, or their new cars. Until these resources are redirected, often with great economic pain for all involved, true economic recovery cannot begin.

Over $4 trillion in bailout facilities and outright debt monetization, combined with interest rates near zero for over two years, have not and will not contribute to increased employment. What is needed is liquidation of debt and malinvested resources. Pumping money into the same sectors that have just crashed merely prolongs the crisis. Until we learn the lesson that jobs are produced through real savings and investment and not through the creation of new money, we are doomed to repeat this boom and bust cycle.

Ron Paul: On The Patriot Act

Congressman Paul speaks on the House floor in opposition to extending certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act.

Our 30 Year Mistake - Essay by Ron Paul - February 7, 2010

The events in Egypt of late have captured the attention of the world, as many thousands of Egyptians take to the streets both in opposition to and in favor of the current regime. We watch from a distance hoping that events do not spiral further into violence, which will destroy lives and threaten the livelihoods of average Egyptians caught up in the political turmoil.

I hope that Egyptians are able to work toward a more free and just society. Unfortunately, much of the blame for the unrest in Egypt and the resulting instability in the region rests with US foreign policy over the past several decades. The US government has sent more than $60 billion to the Egyptian regime since the Camp David Accords in 1978 to purchase stability, including more security for the state of Israel. We see now the folly of our interventionist foreign policy: not only has that stability fallen to pieces with the current unrest, but the years of propping up the corrupt regime in Egypt has led the people to increase their resentment of both America and Israel! We are both worse off for decades of intervention into Egypt’s internal affairs. I wish I could say that we have learned our lesson and will no longer attempt to purchase – or rent – friends in the Middle East, but I am afraid that is being too optimistic. Already we see evidence that while the US historically propped up the Egyptian regime, we also provided assistance to groups opposed to the regime.

So we have lost the credibility to claim today that we support the self-determination of the Egyptian people. Our double dealing has not endeared us to Egyptians who now seek to reclaim their independence and national dignity.

“Diplomacy” via foreign aid transfer payments only makes us less safe at home and less trusted overseas. But the overriding reality is that we simply cannot afford to continue a policy of buying friends. We face an ongoing and potentially deepening recession at home-- so how can we justify to the unemployed and underemployed in the United States the incredible cost of maintaining a global empire? Moral arguments aside, we must stop sending hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign governments when our own economy is in shambles.

American media and talking heads repeatedly pose the same loaded questions: Should the administration encourage the Egyptian president to remain or to resign? Should the US ensure Mohamed ElBaradei or current vice president Omar Suleiman succeeds current president Mubarak? The best answer to these questions is that we should just do nothing, as Eisenhower did in 1956. We should leave Egypt for Egyptians to figure out. Some may claim that this is isolationism. Nothing could be further from the truth. We should enthusiastically engage in trade and allow travel between countries, but we should stay out of their internal affairs. We are in fact more isolated from Egypt now than ever, because the regime we propped up appears to be falling. We have isolated ourselves from the Egyptian people by propping up their government, as we isolate ourselves from Tunisians, Israelis, and other recipients of our foreign aid. Their resentment of our interventionist policies makes us less safe, because we lose our authority to conduct meaningful diplomacy when unpopular regimes fall overseas. We also radicalize those who resented our support for past regimes.

Let us hope for a more prosperous and peaceful era for the Egyptians, and let us learn the lessons of our thirty year Egyptian mistake.

U.S. Envoy to Egypt for Obama a Bad Apple for Democracy

Commentary by Greg Chamberlain





Just finished listening to the news on Democracy Now! (in the video above) about what is happening in Egypt today. About halfway into the show was a segment on President Obama's special envoy to Egypt, Frank Wisner who is supporting Mubarak staying in office through to the next election, going against the will of the Egyptian protestors, all while Obama pretends to support Democracy with his speeches for supposed change. However, it is no surprise to me or those who know that the policy of U.S. interventionism and desire to shape and control the Middle East for corporatist gain. It's all part of an exercise of pretending to be making the world safe for democracy. The reality is the U.S. has continued waging a never ending war of terror throughout the region disguised as a war upon terror.

As U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, a strict constitutionalist and non-interventionist, has pointed out, the founders (of the U.S.) advised against meddling in the affairs in other countries. The congressman points out quite often that The Constitution does not authorized the President, Congress or the government to police the world or meddle in the affairs of other countries.

Congressman Paul's hopeful view that the U.S. should begin to carry out a policy of non-interventionism is far from the true realities that exist, unfortunately. In my humble opinion, the Egyptian people should not feel safe with the U.S. intervening. The U.S. has propped up Mubarak during his reign heavy handed rule. With Mubarak as one of the U.S. governments most cherished partners in kidnapping, renditioning and torturing, there are many in the State Department, CIA and related departments who most likely would like to clean house a little before Mubarak is forced out all of the way.

The real news is not on U.S. major media, who is pretending as if life is going back to normal in Egypt with much lighter protests. The real news is being covered by Democracy Now! and on Aljazeera.

We as American's should be skeptical, cynical and vigorously question U.S. participation in the lie being spread by elected politicians that they are playing a role in helping spread supposed Democracy in Egypt, or anywhere in the world, for that matter.

ABC Interview with Ron Paul that ABC banned from TV

I ran the presidential campaign blog for Ron Paul’s official MySpace page during the 2008 Presidential election starting in October of 2007 and for about two years after the November 2008 election. I think I have seen almost every single speech, news appearance and TV interview that made it onto YouTube that featured Ron Paul.

This is one of my favorites. ABC John Stossel conducted the interview that never made it onto ABC TV, being basically banned by ABC Execs. Ron Paul is honest. His answers in the interview do not stray outside of how Congressman Paul has voted during his over two decades in the House of Representatives.

Part I



Part II



Part III



Part IV



Part V



Part VI