Campaign contribution limits, term-limits etc are red-herring solutions. They distract from the real problem. As long as there is 20, 30, 40 or >50% of the GDP concentrated in the beltway, the crooked-politicians, crony-capitalists and the money-changers that created them will always find a way to get their hands on that mountain of buying power. You can erect no barrier to effectively block greed.
Fiat money reverses financial gravity and eventually pulls all assets into the hands of the money-changers.
Metal money (chosen by the free market) restores natural financial gravity and eventually moves all assets (including commodity money) into the hands of the producers.
The producers/people will then find their political power restored.
Therefore the correct answer is elimination of the legal tender laws.
The wrong turn that lead to this mess was made in 1812 with lopsided laws that allowed banks to satisfy debts with paper and simultaneously allowed banks to demand payment of the debts they held in specie.
See Ron Paul and Louis Lehrman, The Case for Gold:
His plan? Toss out the First Amendment.
Bad man is bad.
You can always tell when their 'solution' to the problem created by too much government, is more government, and further erosion of individual liberty.
The problem isn't money in politics, it's politics in money. So long as government is empowered to take, it will always be the rich who do most of the taking.
People need to stop buying into government as savior from the government.
If they obeyed the Constitution the lobbyists would disappear like roaches when the light (of freedom) goes on.
Congress would have nothing to offer them.
Lobbyists and their employers would have to find gainful employment providing something of value to their fellow man that their fellow man was willing to trade for.
Stockman was explicitly clear that you could not pass a law that banned corporate political contributions, thus a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED.
That is not "tossing out the First Amendment" any more than 17th and 22nd Amendments "toss out free speech."
Yes it would take another amendment to toss out the first amendment. That is still his plan. It's still a bad plan to toss out the first amendment.
The 17th tosses out state sovereignty, which put us on the road to tossing out the Constitution, since the States were part of the baffle against statism. 22A was a good though temporary patch to a Constitution well on the way to being vitiated.
You confuse speech with power.
Then you want to ban speech.. because of abuse of power. How about ban power?
You want to ban corporate speech, corporations being a group of people, because government has too much power and sells some to corporations. Your solution is give government more power.
Essentially you want the government to be the only one free to talk about the government and to have censorship over such speech. That's a really really bad idea.
If corporations having free speech is a conflict of interest how is the government being the only organization that has free speech less of one??
Its always good when Mr. Stockman (CFR member)weighs in on whats wrong with government and business. We need more leadership here at the DP from notable investment bankers. Last time he was trying to get everybody to get ready for the age of Austerity. My hero. I am going to pass on your book and spend more money with Dr. Paul, Alex Jones and David Icke.
This time don't give us Barabbus!
Club of Fed is a beast! David of Stockman is fighting a giant! Submitted by Mark Twain, 01/05/2011
Tenacious Budget Cutter
Budget Cutter: Faster than a Yankee Clipper!
He was slated to be a hero of the President Regain revolution. David of Stockman argued for & won the largest (the only?) budget cuts in modern US history. President Ronald Reagan challenged David of Stockman to significantly cut our Federal Budget. Much to the chagrin of the "Tax & Spend" Congress, David of Stockman won massive budget cuts. The ink was still drying, when the lights went out...
[Please read the Adventures of David of Stockman at the link provided. 1 page.]
Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul ☑
He said he would cut taxes. Then he did it! He is to be commended.
History does not record it so. History is rather harsh on those that reduce government spending. He did it anyway.
Then, Paul Volcker had his way with the US economy. 20% prime interest rate... Slam! Down went the economy. David Stockman inflation adjusted cuts in spending vanished.... along with price inflation.
If you read school history books, if anything is explained at all, Volcker is the hero (stopping inflation that the central bank creates by print paper-money ont-of-thin-air).
David Stockman rarely gets even honorable mention for his steadfast quest to cut spending "cross the board." He succeeded... In nominal Dollars. He carried out his orders to cut Federal spending. He was undercut by the Fed.
I find this to be a very revealing interview. Stockman identifies names, connections, and consequences thereof. He mentioned several times the problem of not allowing the necessary market "corrections" to take place vs. bailouts.
He makes the whole issue easy to follow and understand in his explantions to Bill Moyer. Makes no bones about either political parties being a part of this cronyism.
Great video to send to friends and family who still don't understand what is going on in the financial debacle.
Reagan was foolish to appoint Stockman as the budgetary chief. Probably by 1980s there were not many sound economists left who wanted to serve big government....
Stockman's complain about leveraging reveals he does not understand Wall Street workings. He focuses on the wrong thing. By encreasing the risk, the traders encrease both loss and profit. They usually set margins and hedges to make it manageable. The betting risk cannot bring economy down, since for every loss on one side there is equal gain somewhere. Lenders of the leveraged money, banks, should be alert, however.
But banks are "too big to fail" and FDIC insured being SYMBIOTIC part of USA corporatism (big gov + big business + big labor.)
problem he was getting at though is that a company will leverage based on the risk available....when the FDIC or fed step in and basically guarantee everything - that significantly warps the risk that these companies are willing to take on....much more so than would happen in a free market.
Ron Paul actually voted against repealing GS I believe.
Point I stopped watching at:
"Bush suspended the rules of the free market when we needed them the most. You can't save the free market by stopping the free market."
Yes very true, I agree.
"We need to re-institute more government (Glass-Steagall)."
Can I tell you something
Got to tell you one thing
If you expect the freedom
That you say is yours
Prove that you deserve it
Help us to preserve it
Or being free will just be
Words and nothing more
There are free market economists who argue that a regulatory separation of investment and commercial banking is prudent if you have a fractional reserve system and central (government) banking. I think Stockman regards it as a necessary evil.
It would sort of be like imposing term limits of congress.
In a purely free market i would be against this regulatory separation...but this current crony capitalist system that allows leveraging out 30-40 to one and fractional reserves all the while guaranteeing this money with taxpayer dollars sets up for catastrophic failure....and the failure winds up on the taxpayers back.
FDIC insurance can simply state that private Banks may NOT lend to traders more than their actual assets (cash reserves excluded.) Then banks may be allowed to go under. Sold assets will recover the loss and a take over by other private banks will spare FDIC from expense. The FED may step in to temporary stop/satisfy the run on the bank(s.)
idea....if they do they aren't covered under FDIC....pretty much solves the problem right there.
What I like best about Stockman is that his sense of right and wrong matches my own. He's very effective, in this interview, describing what is wrong with our financial system.
I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein
he kind of weeds through the BS and gets to the heart of the issues, and explains it in a way that most people ( i think) can understand.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: