80 votes

Another Billionaire for Paul

On May 1st, acclaimed investor and hedge fund manager Mark Spitznagel will host Ron Paul for a fundraiser at his beautiful estate in Bel Air, California.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb will speak. Taleb is a longtime friend and colleague of Spitznagel, and author of the non-fiction work The Black Swan, a book credited with predicting the financial industry collapse in 2008.

Spitznagel on Ben Bernanke: “easily the most significant market manipulator in history.”

Ron Paul doesn’t have as many billionaires as the other guys, but he makes up for it with quality. One Thiel or Spitznagel equals at least 10 Adelsons.

Maybe Jennifer Lopez will drop by. She used to own the place.

Tickets and Details at campaign website

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

No billionaires pushing for Revolution SuperPAC : (

We'll see if he donates to the Revolution SuperPAC-- the only true PAC that is making an impact on Ron Paul's election campaign.

So far none of the RP-supporting billionaires have donated to the Revolution SuperPAC. Nothing from Jim Rogers, Peter Thiel, nor Spitznagel.

Great.. I'm surprised "free

Great.. I'm surprised "free markets, no/low taxes" doesn't attract more billionaires. I really am. Seems to me it's in their interest to get the economy in order most of all. They have the most to lose. So why not back the guy who wants to do it without raising taxes or increasing regulations?

Free markets means that they

Free markets means that they would have to compete. They would much prefer crony capitalism.

the very wealthy, yes

It's not that way in general.

The libertarian economic arguments (or whatever you want to call advocacy of free markets) historically gets most votes from the lowest income people.

The people with the most to lose by changing the current system are the wealthiest, so they are most resistant...they also have the most clout.

The people who are most responsive to a freedom message are those with nothing or close to nothing.

You see that most obviously when people in initiative/referendum states vote on new government spending...the people who want the spending are the most comfortable...those opposed are the low income.

So, go tell all your poor neighbors about Ron Paul. THAT is where the votes are.

Yeah that makes sense. Still,

Yeah that makes sense. Still, it indicates how wrong the current system is.

I think it's more a moral question than a logical one

Taleb, the economist I mention in the original post and who will be the featured speaker at the event has been coming on extra strong in the last few years and is endorsing Paul because he knows the economy will collapse.

He's testified before congress, on the subject of bailouts. At one point he explained how out of whack the system is by providing different examples of how the competent, wise and prudent bail out the idiots.

One of his examples was the absurdity of having financially stressed taxpayers (almost everyone) pay civil servants exorbitant salaries.

Civil servants are protected from the spikes in the market...and who creates them?

It's an interesting concept. He's been saying pay me now or pay me later. He likes to draw the analogy that what we are doing represents giving the patient novocaine, constantly novocaine when what is needed is root canal.

He says that's why he supports Ron Paul. Ron Paul is the only guy who is trying to do the right thing. \

You cannot have prosperity until you rein in the government spending.

It's basic stuff...they call him an extremist, alarmist, etc.

I'll probably post something else, there's alot of good video he's done.

Yeah true.. and about Ron

Yeah true.. and about Ron being extremist.. I mean, how insane do you want it? The Dutch socialist party is more conservative on budget and deficit issues than the GOP while still finding the money to smother everything and everybody in sight with welfare and subsidies.


Kennedy and LBJ today would be unelectable. Both ran on "balanced budget" plans.

Neither actually would understand today's shenanigans. While each did it, to some extent, they'd be awestruck by how far it has gone. D's and R's of those days wouldn't have a home in either party today, they'd probably all hang out with Ron Paul in the basement somewhere, shooting dice or something.

Exactly.. that's why I think

Exactly.. that's why I think Ron Paul represents more of a restoration than a revolution.

Even people that love the current system have to admit it's way too complex to effectively manage. They know the elephant is in the room, but they probably think it's somebody's lunch order and pray it doesn't s**t on their desk. That's the kind of people we have at the top.

Because you put a target on your back.

The Leftist machine will come after you.

Depends on how they got their billions

You can bet your bottom fake dollar (FRN) that Adelson and his ilk are fighting tooth and nail to keep the regulations in place that got them their billions in the first place.

So, like most things it comes down to right vs. wrong, good vs. evil.

Yep, Adelson is sure gonna

Yep, Adelson is sure gonna hate it if gambling becomes legal.


We are blessed that there ARE wealthy people out there that do care about the future of our country and the future of the American people. Kudo's to both of these gentlemen for standing with Ron Paul and standing up for Freedom and Prosperity!!

Come on in Billionaires, the water's fine....

Never too late to join the right side of history. Just donated again in fact, keeping the moneybomb up top.

It never ceases to amaze me how many billionaires and multi-millionaires are misinformed about Dr. Paul's stance on things like monetary policy. Ron Paul isn't calling for an end to the whole banking system, he's calling for an end to fractional reserve lending.

Basically Dr. Paul will institute orderly reforms that will end the Federal Reserve board, who'll be escorted off to prison.

The Cartel who oversees most of the national banks, will be given the pink slip. In their place will be free market supervisors, economists and state accountant authorities to oversee currency evaluation.

The family of banks which makes up our national banking system, will very much remain however. We will still have Wells Fargo, JP Morgan, Lehman Brothers & Bank of America running their ship just fine. Every bank will also be free to compete head to head, under the free competition act of 1800.

Goldman Sachs is a big question mark, though they'll most likely exist in a much smaller less invasive format. But the point is, if Jamie Dimon or someone exits JP Morgan & goes to prison...it doesn't mean JP Morgan suddenly ceases to exist.

It *only* means there is no more private Federal Reserve cartel, manipulating and price-fixing all of them. Not to mention defrauding investors with derivatives. Come to think of it, this would wind up working a heck of a-lot better for banks since they'd finally be out of the FDIC & free to compete head to head w/ Key Bank & state charter banks.

Fractional reserve borrowing would be history. And the only people who receive stiff penalties, are those who caused the financial crisis to begin with. The Madoffs, Bushs, Ackermanns & Schultz...the utter egaltarians of our time.

tasmlab's picture


I believe that paul's policies would wreak wholesale destruction to the banking sector as it stands today. It wouldn't just be a leadership change at jpmorgan-chase, but the bankruptcy of all TBTF institutions. And the stock market might very well de-consumerise ie, it would just be a thing for rich people who can afford the risk, not a 'saving' vehicle for everybody's retirement.

Also, fractional reserve banking can still exist even with private commodity money as long as banks are able to issue money certificates, check money, etc. Albeit not on the killer scale done now.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

Fractional Reserve Banking

Fractional Reserve Banking can still exist if bank's reserves are transparent to the saver. Those banks with the highest reserves will gain the most trust and business; those with the lowest will either a) have to compete with the banks with the high reserves or b) go out of business.

The market would determine the reserves and prudent banking practices; not a central authority. My feeling is, the market would support reserves around 50% ... not the current 10%.

tasmlab's picture

Totally agree

I wonder if some people would pay a premium (like a lower rate of savings return or higher fees) to bank at a 100% reserve bank.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

saving vehicle?

How's that working for you?

What exactly happened to cause people to lose 30%-60% of their savings? That's what disappeared in those recent ugly years---all of those things are based on appearance as opposed to reality.

Have stock? Good for you. It's without value except what anyone is willing to pay at any point in time.

ALL value in stock, in investments is appearance. It's perception. When the perception says it has no value, it has no value. Facts are aside from the point. What matters is what any buyer is willing to pay you for what you hold. That's the only price for anything, all the time.

That's the free market. In those recent ugly years, people lost huge amounts, some lost everything, and it just evaporated almost overnight.

So, how safe are those things?

They are not safe. It's due to the mandates.

Who in the hell expects a government mandate ever to work for all?

People who have a "savings vehicle" in government mandated programs are not safe---that's EXACTLY and SOLELY what is meant by such lunacies as 401k, etc, etc.

Those lunacies are no better than Social Security. It's because of the mandate. To have such a "vehicle" one must follow the rules, the mandate, rather than being free to use their own judgement.

Who the bleep cares if the banks go down? The system is rotten to the core. It's going down anyway. It cannot be stopped.

Sooner or later, always, the market asserts itself.

I'm sure as hell not interested in saving Wells Fargo.

Who is?

tasmlab's picture

Agree - almost all

I agree with your post, except, sadly, that there seems to be an entire government who wants to save Wells Fargo with bail outs and QE.

It seems to me that the Stock Market changed right around the time we left the last part of the gold standard. If I talk to my older parents, nobody used to invest in it. It was only for high fallutin investors and everybody else used savings accounts.

Then inflation kicks in and savings accounts won't cut it so normal people are bullied into the newly invented mutual funds and the stock market. And now will lose their money either way.

I'm personally cheering for the end of the banking sector and Wall St. and the stock market as we know it. I'd like banking to be boring little local businesses. And the stock market to be so risky that only people who can afford the risk will enter.

Then we can also do away with all of the calendarization of the business year that is based on corporate filings (this screws with my own business terribly). And all of those regulations and accounting standards that are supposed to keep the stock market "safe".

And why have such a huge accounting industry? Accountants are just supposed to see if you have enough money to pay bills, yet we have this huge industry to file quarterly and annual reports and be compliant with regulation etc.,

I think it may be a terrible time to be a late baby boomer or early retiree. I think these people are going to get screwed.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football


Yes, I'm a boomer and we're screwed...except with the vote, we'll try and screw younger people...that's the way the system works.

You are right about accountants...and it isn't only them. I'm a political consultant. Talk about the non-productive economy.

People were forced into market investing via employee/employer relationships and changes in the law which redirected what would have been sound investments into unsound, things like money market funds, 401K, etc...instead of self-directed accounts people were forced to accept accounts run by others, to invest in securities rated by others.

It isn't freedom.

Is That Really His Stance?

I wasn't under the impression Dr. Paul is against fractional reserve banking. I know he's against bailouts though. He does want banks that do a bad job to fail and get bought out/restructured by the next guy (I know he's said something along the lines of "you can't have freedom without the possibility to lose"). Plus he's for much smaller, less powerful government. That prevents government from being able to peddle their influence (a la Newt) since there would be nothing to peddle. And he's also for allowing competing currencies as a way to phase out (and eventually eliminate the Federal Reserve). That would be another check and balance against excessive money printing (a.k.a. inflation).

another way to explain it

Dr. Murray Rothbard used to explain it like this (paraphrasing, and anyone feel free to correct anything I get wrong):

What if the Tooth Fairy came tonight and put 1 million dollars under every pillow?

In the morning, would more people be rich?

Short answer: No, because there'd simply be more dollars chasing the same amount of goods and services, thus prices would skyrocket and no one would be better off...

Longer answer: Well, some people would wake up first, find the million bucks and rush out to spend it. They'd be able to buy up goods and services at the old, lower prices, so they'd make out great. As more and more people came awake, prices would begin to adjust.

That's fractional reserve banking. He was trying to make the point that some few in society get to spend the fiat currency first...and they make out to the detriment of all the rest of us.

Thank you!

I'm surprised I didn't know that but thank you for informing me.

I belive it is his stance.

He supports sound money.
You can't have sound money with a fractional reserve system.

why wait until it's almost too late??

we needed this back prior to the iowa caucus. it's almost halftime now, and we have fallen way too far behind.

well, we still have to be grateful for any and all help we receive, and make sure that we keep working hard.


Fallen way behind? It's only in your mind...

Have you heard that "What you think about you bring about."

This is the nature of things and this is why that when we desire a certain outcome we can have it by simply thinking it the way you would like it to be.

There may be a lull in progress. We have been going strong for the 100 percent activity and we are experiencing a "Spring TIme" mini break. Things are about to go into high gear once again with even more pleasant surprises.

What you think about you bring about. Think only about the good happening in the Ron Paul Revolution. Thank you so much.

fearless brave joyful peaceful loving grateful, compassionate

Debbie's picture

California has not yet had it's primary, where this is being



St. Pierre Rd in Bel Air, CA..hope security would be lenient for

us Ron Paul Los Angeles supporters. Money is tight right now, but I do plan to be there...to greet, see and support our next President Ron Paul.

it can be done

There's a ton of security. Probably they'll be lawful, but I don't know if it could be called lenient.

I haven't been down there in many years. When I was the way it always worked in and around Bel Air was alot of government cops but perhaps even more private security cruisers.

If you're talking about doing some meet and greet on the side of the road or anything outside the event, check it out first.

I know part of Bel Air is gated anyway (not most was gated, not some years back anyway), so you couldn't get in to some parts.

Maybe ask someone from the campaign. There's surely a way to do it but you don't want to bother the neighbors or anything.