16 votes

Ron Paul names his pick for Federal Reserve chairman

Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul, a vocal critic of the Federal Reserve, dropped a potential name for chairman of the Fed on Wednesday evening.

During the online portion of Fox News’ “Special Report with Brett Baier,” Paul said that he would “probably” pick economist Jim Grant, editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, for the position.

The question was posed by Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard, who noted that Paul would be unable to immediately abolish the Federal Reserve.

“He’s an Austrian economist, he has experience on Wall Street, he’s brilliant, he’s a good historian,” Paul said of Grant. “He would quit printing money.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/26/ron-paul-names-his-pick-fo...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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


I thought that the president could only pick a chairman off of a list of approved candidates given to him by the federal reserve. Not whomever he wants. Am I wrong?

That's my understanding as

That's my understanding as well.

We have 33 Senators to replace to get Jim's confirmation.

I suppose that Chair could be left vacant.

Free includes debt-free!

Some commentary on the choice:

None whatsoever. Is there any

None whatsoever.

Is there any reason to believe that youre anti semitic?

I didn't mean it to sound

I didn't mean it to sound like a loaded question. It was very much a sincere question and should be everyone's first question moving forward for every important position being filled in government. Don't agree? Research Bernanke, William Kristol,Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith and try to find what they all have in common. Dismissing the patterns isn't going to help anyone.

but theres simply NO reason

but theres simply NO reason to suspect it. None whatsoever. And even a crusory view of Mr. Grants positions would lead one to believe he is actually the opposite.

One thing that all those names you listed do have in common is jewish heritage. Another thing they have in common is a pro-zionist political philosophy.

However these 2 things are far from causal, as several of the most ideologically consistent pro-liberty people have also been of jewish descent (mises, rothbard, schiff)

Why create any doubt about Mr. Grant's position?

Why not create a thread "Is ron paul racist?" then list other texans who happened to be racist?

"There's simply NO reason to

"There's simply NO reason to suspect it."

When an employer asks you to take a drug test before hiring you, does that mean he "suspects" you do drugs? Or is he just being diligent?

"several of the most ideologically consistent pro-liberty people have also been of jewish descent"

That's like saying there are plenty of drunk drivers who make it home just fine, so let's not be concerned with drunk drivers. It's called risk management.

Political correctness has already just about killed adult dialog. I'm trying to keep things open. When you make a big deal out of it, like you have, you're essentially telling people they're still not allowed to "go there." I say, in the grown up world, no "there" is off the table.

You're right on taking a cursory look, but honestly, I didn't have time at the time and I value the knowledge of many at the DP.

How exactly

does asking if one is an Israeli firster make one an anti-Semite?

Sorry to chime in like that, but I'm getting tired of people playing the "anti-Semite" card when it doesn't even make sense 99% of the time.

A signature used to be here!

reedr3v's picture

I read Evan's comment as meant to

illustrate the pointlessness of random accusations made with no evidence.

exactly.If he can randomly


If he can randomly expect people to have to defend Jim Grant from accusations of an "Israeli bias" for no reason whatsoever (link to one single reason to suspect he may have an Israeli bias appreaciated), then I can randomly expect him to have to defend himself from completly unsubstantiated claimes of anti Semitism.

I propose a new rule: unless you have a reason to suspect someone of something, how bout you refrain from accusing them, expecting they defend themselves, etc. Deal?

Well yes,

I read it that way as well, but the fact remains that that particular accusation is thrown around WAY too often, especially concerning Israel, and is inaccurate to boot (as discussed in another thread a few days back).

Although no, I don't think Mr. Grant is an Israel firster, never even heard/read anything that'd lead me to believe so either.

A signature used to be here!

"Although no, I don't think

"Although no, I don't think Mr. Grant is an Israel firster, never even heard/read anything that'd lead me to believe so either."

Although no, I don't think the poster to which I replied is an anti-Semite, never even heard/read any of his posts that'd lead me to believe so either.

I find it curious that you (appropriatly) call me out for unfounded accusations, yet you let his unfounded accusation stand? Might I ask why? If you're truly on some righteous crusade against ubnsubstantiated accusations of all stripes, then why the bias in who you call out?


"yet you (appropriatly) call me out for unfounded accusations yet you let his unfounded accusation stand? Might I ask why?"

Of course. I brought it up because I see that particular accusation get thrown around a lot, especially whenever someone brings up Israel in virtually any context. It just kind of gets me going sometimes, heh.

"If you're truly on some righteous crusade against ubnsubstantiated accusations of all stripes, then why the bias in who you call out?"

I don't see it as bias, because I pointed out that I've never seen anything from Mr. Grant that would lead me to believe he was putting Israel first (or anywhere, for that matter), which was in response to tonym's question (although, to be fair, I neglected to add that until I saw reedr3v's response, so touché).

But yeah, I mainly brought it up not because of the accusation itself, but because the context I read it in. "Anti-Semitic" is often used to describe bias against Israel/Jewish people, when it has little to do with either. I just wanted to make a quick point to avoid posting a wall of text like I'm doing now :/

A signature used to be here!

I was considering going with

I was considering going with asking Tonym the4 equally ludacris:

"Is there any reason to believe you aren't a child molestor?"

It would have concveyed the same point: That by asking someone to disavow a "rumor" that never even existed in the first palce, you are actually helping to CREATE said rumor.

I understand.

I figured you were just using one unsubstantiated claim to counter another, to prove a point (which I actually agree with).

I just wanted to clear up the whole "Semite" thing, because like I said, it's often used to describe bias against people who by and large aren't Semitic, and just wanted to make sure you knew that. Nothing more, nothing less.

Interesting conversation, though.

A signature used to be here!

Jim Grant: How interest rates would be set if Fed abolished

This was from just a couple days ago http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4endQcdGqD0

Short answer: interest rates are determined in the private market based on the demand for money, just like in the pre-Fed days.

Ole' slim Jim would have a pretty cushy job as Fed Chairman - just kick back, relax, and let the market do its thing. Other times, he can make testimony that the Federal Reserve should be abolished. You'll probably be astonished to learn this, but former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan DID advocate abolishing the Federal Reserve in Senate testimony back in 1995:


Only a few months earlier, Greenspan
had recommended to a Senate committee
that economic regulations all
should be sunsetted. Senator Paul
Sarbanes accused him of "playing with
fire, or indeed throwing gasoline on
the fire," and asked him whether he
favored a sunset provision in the
authorization of the Fed. Greenspan
coolly answered that he did. Do you
actually mean, demanded the senator,
that the Fed "should cease to function
unless affirmatively continued"? "That
is correct, sir," Greenspan responded.
IIAll right," the senator came back.
liThe Defense Department?" "Yes."
The Senator could scarcely believe
his ears. "Now my next question is, is
it your intention that the report of this
hearing should be that Greenspan recommends
a return to the gold standard?"
Greenspan responded, "I've
been recommending that for years,
there's nothing new about that.... It
would probably mean there is only one
vote in the FOMC [Federal Open
Market Committee] for that, but it is
mine." This may be the first time that
advocating a policy on a nationally
televised Senate committee meeting
has been characterized as trying to
implement a policy "ever so quietly."

I never was able to find that particular video in C-Span's archive, but I was able to find evidence that Greenspan did have this conversation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_y0S2q3edA

As long as we're on the topic of Greenspan and gold, you may find this exchange between Greenspan and Dr. Larry Parks (who is 100% pro-Paul, pro-Austrian) interesting:

On April 19, 1993, which was prior to my forming FAME, I
approached Mr. Greenspan as he came off the dais, and
complemented him profusely on an article he wrote in 1966 titled
“Gold and Economic Freedom.” The article can be found in a book
called Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, which is an anthology of
essays, mostly by Ayn Rand. I inquired whether I could ask him
some questions about the article. Digressing for a moment, in this
article, Mr. Greenspan took the position that gold-as-money is a
precondition for a free society, something we all presumably are in
favor of. When I mentioned the article, he told me that
coincidentally he had recently reread it.
During the small talk portion of our conversation, five times he
asked me if I was with the press, and each time I said “no.” Finally
he said, “So what is your question?” I said, “Do you still agree with
the reasoning and the conclusions in this article?” His response was
an emphatic “Absolutely!” Then, I asked, “So why don’t you speak
out?” Mr. Greenspan said: “Because my colleagues at the institution
I represent disagree with me.” [Note the absence of proper nouns.]
And I responded, “But you know where all of this is leading to [a
complete collapse].” He then gave me a very pained look, like I had
punched him in the stomach, and walked on.

The second time I approached him, which was on January 13, 2000,
I was waiting for him as he alighted the stairs to leave the Hilton’s
main ballroom. Again, we had some pleasantries, and I asked him
what the moral justification was for legal tender laws. He gave me a
very convoluted nonsensical (to me) answer that I believe he knew
made no sense. We spoke briefly about the merits of gold-as-money,
with which he concurred, and then I asked him why, if he
understands what is happening and what the implications are, he
doesn’t speak out more. His answer had a ring of truth and, also, a
tinge of desperation. He said: “Nobody wants to hear it.” By then,
we had reached the elevators on the floor above the main ballroom,
and he got in with his wife, Andrea Mitchell, who was most

Dr. Parks has his own local access TV show BTW: http://www.channels.com/feeds/show/392432/The-Larry-Parks-Sh...

Nice finds!

There's really something

There's really something strange about Greenspan. He has ever been an Austrian Economist to a high degree, so I just didn't understand why he took that job at the Fed.

I finally came to the conclusion, that he must work on a special goal secretly, but I think he is not working against the people like many of the other banksters do. I really think he is on our side and only doesn't tell it.
Like you already wrote in Greenspan's quotation:

“Because my colleagues at the institution
I represent disagree with me.”

, he is not using any proper nouns. Did he really mean the Fed or it is another institution he is talking about? Maybe an institution that wants to restore sound money in America but wanted the people to recognize that fiat money doesn't work to achieve this goal? Couldn't it be that Greenspan wanted to destroy the fiat money system before the banksters take it over completely while the people still think everything is allright?

Some time ago, I read a quotation from Ayn Rand (and you know, Greenspan and her were good friends) saying about Greenspan: "He is my man in Washington". So what could she have meant here? Maybe that Greenspan is John Galt?

look up Bix weir and the road

look up Bix weir and the road to roota theory. What they say is that Greenspan saw decades ago that the banks were out of control. You could not go against them or end up like JFK. So he has set out to destroy the one thing that will destroy the banking cartel and that is their FRN. When the FRN does not buy anything the banks are done.

definitely not on our side

Ayn Rand eventually thought of Greenspan as basically a social climber. Not very skilled in economics, or the like.

"Frederick Sheehan's Panderer to Power documents Greenspan's rise to power, his skill at playing the political game, and his ability to convince virtually all the world that he was perhaps the greatest economist of the age. He accomplished all of this, Sheehan notes, in spite of a record as one of worst forecasters of economic trends at every stage of his career."

Read more: http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken132.html

I know what you're talking

I know what you're talking about and once, I used to think so as well.
However, try to imagine in which position he was, assuming that my theory is correct. How should he have got elected as Fed Chairman while pronouncing Austrian Economics and anti big government speeches? Nobody would have taken him!
Further, if you know Austrian Economics, you know that it is not much about making concrete economic forecastings. Austrians know that there is a lot of uncertainty in those predicitions, so they only make pattern predictions like now that there will be a lot of price inflation. It is impossible, however, to exactly predict when it will happen.
I think this explains very well his bad forecastings and his political gameplaying. He just wanted to attract the politicians in order to get the job at the Fed.

Awesome choice!

Drop a few more names here and there Ron. I can already hear the gears grinding as people are thinking about and researching Jim Grant.

hope Jim Grant will be Fed's last chairman

Thanks for posting Bobby.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Thank You

for the videos. He's an interesting man. Too bad he's a bow tie guy. That never helps.

We need this kind of dialogue about the Military. Hopefully Dr. Paul will point out someone who has written something on what Dr. Paul wants to do there.


Kinda broad, but I'll take a stab. Karen Kwiatkowski was a fairly high-ranking military officer and worked in the Pentagon if I'm not mistaken. Michael Scheuer is experienced in certain areas, not to mention all the sh*t he's been exposed to. Adam Kokesh, in some respect, may be a positive inclusion due to his relatively recent combat experience. All these individuals are anti-preemptive war people.

"The rich man writes the book of laws the poor man must defend, but the highest laws are written on the hearts of honest men."


And just a sidenote: ever hear of a lady named Dina Rasor? She wrote a book under the title The Pentagon Underground back in the 80's. The subtitle reads, "Hidden patriots fighting against deceit and fraud in America's defense program." Interesting stuff in there. Here are a couple links to find out more about her:

Follow the Money Project
Whistleblower Consulting Site

"The rich man writes the book of laws the poor man must defend, but the highest laws are written on the hearts of honest men."

Bow tie guys are great, I wear one ALL the time.

Makes me look as smart as I am. I am at least smart enough to know that Ron Paul HAS to be our next president. Its Amerkia's last chance!