0 votes

Anybody want to argue with armchair economists?

ht tp://www.tnr.com/article/politics/91224/ron-paul-debt-ceiling-federal-reserve

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Crime scene trickle down & such

I post this as Old School Legal US Citizen who believes in Free Sovereign US Markets. Our economies sovereign borders must be geographic and clerical in nature. In order to operate our free markets we always have had a set of regulations so we could produce and trade goods with fair and equal terms. Our Economic Engine must have compatible parts, just as any engine there must be uniformity in design or the engine want run as desired.

Identify the major problems

Our economic engine has been altered. The main modifications are the removal of Glass-Steagall,Act the Trickle down theory and Foreign Sovereign Wealth Funds . Another factor that has to be seen as a siphon and bad fuel for the system is illegal labor.

Bill Clinton and his removal of Glass- Stegall Act. It forced people out of saving their money in a bank and into the stock market in search of a fair interest rate for their money.

Then the banks with their Self Regulation laws brought in leverage without collateral on their speculation. Allowed Foreign Sovereign Wealth Funds with endless supplies of money that took control of our Free then and now un-Regulated Markets. Regulations were in place and were meant to protect the USA's economy and it's Citizens, they were removed. Not all Regulations are bad if you want to maintain a sovereign Nation. We need to restore these Regulations and Glass-Stegall

The true harm that came with the destruction of Glass-Stegall was self regulating banks and their new leverage allowances. Once the new (Casino)rules were set for Banking there was a large increase in the number of Foreign Sovereign Wealth Funds.(2000AD)

The repercussions of these actions would not show up in the news until the Bush administration. By that time they had pumped up the stock market with so much Leverage that many stock market investors 401k or what ever in the long run Showed up as mega growth in their portfolios due to the leveraged foreign cash infusion over the past few years into our markets.

Bush and this Trickle down Theory is so far out side of our economic model that most people are still scratching their head over that one. One of the most basic foundations of business is that Real Profit is derived by sale or services to the COUNSOMER. I think president George Bush got a little to far ahead of his self on this one,but I guess he fore saw the coming economic crash and knew right where he wanted all that Bail Out money to go, right to the top rungs of all his globalist buddies then trickle down.

The crime scene for starters?

Clinton/Bush/Obama: Centrist losers with their hand held out looking for a Government Bail Out Program to keep their Dividend checks propped up with Artificial Stimulus "False Profit. Welfare for stock market Gamblers.


Hi Hal,

I do not wish to get into an argument with an armchair economist, but I submit the following points for your consideration:

(1) The Glass-Steagal Act was passed in 1933 as a response to the consequences of irresponsibility of the Federal Reserve. It was not addressing the real problem then, it was not addressing the fundamental problem after 1933, and it will not help now.

(2) Thinking of the economy as an "engine" is inimical to liberty. You do not have the consent of the people to make them cogs in your engine.

(3) Ron Paul does not agree with you


and (in this instance) he is correct.

(4) The answer is for people to exercise personal responsibility over the fruits of their labor. To create an unnatural system of regulations which tricks the people into trusting strangers (who run the banks) with the fruits of their labor is unacceptable. Yes, the people should be independent enough and responsible enough to not be tricked. They have not been, but that does not make the actions of those who tricked them for the sake of creating some collective "engine" admirable or desirable.

Glass-Steagall one more time

Glass stegall regulation was implemented ,BUT The fed was STILL free to print all the money they wanted. Dr. Paul's words not mine.

Me>If the Fed would have been tied down to measurable market forces all that wild leverage would not have been allowed thats where all the money printing came in.

What was so important about Glass-Stegall was that the interest rate that the bank Charged for a loan was tied to the interest rate the bank payed on it simple savings account give or take a few points a bank with free checking might pay less interest than a bank that charged for checking.

Dr. Paul> Change their ways. More Supervision to the Fed and full audit then get rid of the Fed.

Dr. Paul>No special protection for powerful elite. Congress must take charge through budgetary controls.

Me>There would still have to be rules and regulations per Dr. Paul I think Dr. Paul would agree that glass- steagall would be fine as long as the FED is rained in and Leverage is put in check.

I thank you for the link and I don't get mad I try to learn more but I am still a Glass-Steagall man. I think Dr. Paul was telling what happened during a point and time in history at that point of his speech which was correct but ,I don't like to throw out the baby with the bath water nor do I think he would. I will look for a more in depth speech on Glass-Steagall by Dr. Paul as time goes on. Thanks again.

Clinton/Bush/Obama: Centrist losers with their hand held out looking for a Government Bail Out Program to keep their Dividend checks propped up with Artificial Stimulus "False Profit. Welfare for stock market Gamblers.

OK I found this Ron Paul said

OK I found this Ron Paul said he voted against Glass- Stegall because it had some bad parts in it which involved the FDIC insurance and the risk to the Tax Payer to insure the banks. This part of the video starts at 3.07. I still get the impression that he like part of Glass-Stegall


I'll have to think on that one but when you talk free market banking it sounds like a crap shoot to me. And you better have a lawyer with you to see what your bank can and can't do to you and your Money. I would love to see a model of the type of system Dr. Paul is thinking about. I shall search on, if you know of such a model I would love to see it.

Clinton/Bush/Obama: Centrist losers with their hand held out looking for a Government Bail Out Program to keep their Dividend checks propped up with Artificial Stimulus "False Profit. Welfare for stock market Gamblers.

"No" vote.

You are right that in Paul's state of the union, his point is that Glass-Steagal was a misdirected piece of legislation rather than a fundamentally bad one. So, perhaps I was stretching it a bit to give that citation as a statement against Glass-Steagal per se.

However, the general philosophical point of view is probably what is important. And Dr. Paul has mentioned over and over again that it is neither the people nor the corporations (and I would include the banks in this) that really need regulating. It is the government that needs to be regulated. It is my application of this principle to the Glass-Steagal Act that suggests Dr. Paul would not support it.

The Federal Reserve needs to be regulated (of course) because of its unconstitutional and immoral relationship with the government. In short, the relationship needs to be dissolved. We can all agree on that.

As for a free market banking model, I don't have an answer for you on that because banking is not particularly my interest, though I have considered it. My considerations run as follows: If I could amass enough silver and a secure location to hold it (and the assets of others) and a secure and discrete means for transfer of those assets, then I could imagine offering my services to hold the assets of others (who trust me) for a fee as well as taking part in the organizing of the voluntary exchange of assets and perhaps investing on behalf of the same group of people. These would not be strangers. The group would not be bigger than my community, and I would have to operate in such a way that their trust was maintained. Trust and community would be very crucial. (As an aside, the idea of Bitcoin is also very interesting.)

My only other comment is that I could very easily imagine not wanting to have any interaction with banks at all. For those who do not use banks, is it fair to force them to participate in funding (through taxes) a regulatory structure designed to protect those who do decide to use banks? Of course it's not fair. And whatever regulation of banks exists should be handled outside the federal government. Where in the Constitution is the authority for the federal government to regulate, insure, or otherwise protect people from private banks?

Seig Heil global Ponzi!

No. Arguing anything to Ponzi believers devolves into flamboyant fistycuffs in 2 seconds. These are the kind of people who don't find anything conflicty-of-interesting about the prospect of Dimon replacing Geithner.

The end result is always "You are advocating the end of the world then" and any decent response which won't be considered is "Yea. Haven't you noticed that red horizon yet?".