Lunatic Ron Paul to Oversee the Fed

[Puppycow]

Linky (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/37515_Ron_Paul_Wants_to_End_the_Fed_So_the_GOP_Put s_Him_in_Charge_of_the_Fed/comments/)

Ed save us. :covereyes

[Normal Dude]

This a joke, right?



....




Right?

[portlandatheist]

FSM help us!

[Travis]

Looks like he'll get that completely redundant and unnecessary audit he's been clamoring for since Missouri joined the Union.....that is how old he is right?

[theprestige]

Any government institution or agency that cannot bear the scrutiny of an occasional crackpot elected official probably deserves to be dismantled anyway.

That said, I'm sure the Fed will be fine, and will probably emerge stronger from the ordeal of having Paul's beady little eye turned upon upon it.

Bill Clinton survived the ire of the entire Republican Party. The CIA (and the rest of the U.S. intelligence community) seems to have gotten over the 9/11 Commission's investigation. George W. Bush managed to spend 8 whole years in office, without getting indicted.

Personally, I think it's a brilliant plan by the Republican leadership: The Fed isn't in any real danger, and Paul is kept too busy persecuting it to get in the way of the rest of the Party.

[tyr_13]

Personally, I think it's a brilliant plan by the Republican leadership: The Fed isn't in any real danger, and Paul is kept too busy persecuting it to get in the way of the rest of the Party.

Unless he comes up with some inanely poor and weakly evidenced charges that he takes to the media. That will reflect poorly on the Republicans. But what are the chances that Ron 'Gold Standard' Paul will make crazy accusations and suggest insane economic policy?

[Travis]

I don't think he'll be able to bring it down either but this sure will be interesting to see.

[marplots]

It's genius! Now, if only the Dems could take a page from this book and put the most loud spoken 9-1-1 truther in charge of a commission to investigate that.

It will be as effective as Jesse Ventura running around with a camera crew.

[Skeptic Ginger]

From the OP head of the House subcommittee that oversees monetary policySomehow I don't think that means "Oversees the Fed" (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_oversight.htm)Board governors and staff testify before Congress frequently to discuss issues within the Federal Reserve's purview. For example, in 2008, governors and Board staff testified 35 times before Congress. During the first quarter of 2009, governors and staff have testified 12 times. Board staff also meet with Congressional staff to brief them on topics related to the Federal Reserve's operations and future direction.So Ron Paul will get to ask them questions.

A "board of governors" will get to conducts and supervises independent and objective audits, investigations, and other reviews of Board programs and operations to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness, and to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse. The OIG's work spans the Board's mission areas. As of March 31, 2009, the OIG had initiated 12 audits and evaluations, 5 investigations, and numerous law and regulation reviews; responded to a number of hotline calls, emails, and correspondence; and followed up on open recommendations. During 2008, the OIG completed 15 audits, inspections, and evaluations; closed 9 investigations; and issued a strategic plan and compendium of open recommendations.


It gets pretty vague from there as to who controls what the reserve does. But I think if it was Ron Paul's committee, I would think we would have heard about past Congressional involvement and I'm sure I haven't.


On a separate note, this reminds me of John Bolton's appointment to the UN, appointing the guy who thinks the agency should be disolved. :)

[Puppycow]

From the OP Somehow I don't think that means "Oversees the Fed" (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_oversight.htm)So Ron Paul will get to ask them questions.
From your link:
General
The Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress.
That's all I meant. Congressional "oversight" basically means the power to subpoena and ask questions. And he wants to "audit" the Fed.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not arguing with your post Puppycow. The news links are saying the same thing. It's clearly worthy of a thread.

I'm just pointing out what "oversight" means in this case. Not much as far as I can tell.

[Father Dagon]

I'm not arguing with your post Puppycow. The news links are saying the same thing. It's clearly worthy of a thread.

I'm just pointing out what "oversight" means in this case. Not much as far as I can tell.They satisfy him with a dog and pony show?

[Francesca R]

I'm just pointing out what "oversight" means in this case. Not much as far as I can tell.Effectively correct.

Officially the committee (http://financialservices.house.gov/singlepages.aspx?NewsID=406) can push for any radical change to the monetary system that it wants, but auditing the FOMC would still require legislation as far as I know. Ron Paul has been ranking minority member of the committee for some time, so has been in the frame to become chairman for as long as the republicans were likely to become the house majority (IE this is not really breaking news). Thanks to Paul, the committee had "audit the Fed" hearings in 2009 anyway, but they don't appear to have got anywhere.

Paul is on the International Monetary Policy subcommittee as well, but I doubt he will be able to get China to revalue, or abolish the IMF either.

[The True Scotsman]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Ron Paul an MD? Does he have any qualifications to discuss economic issues?

[The Don]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Ron Paul an MD? Does he have any qualifications to discuss economic issues?

I think the amount a US MD changes qualifies as macroeconomics

[theprestige]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Ron Paul an MD? Does he have any qualifications to discuss economic issues?

And most of the senators on the Armed Services committee aren't senior staff officers in the U.S. military.

Most of the senators on the Intelligence Oversight committee aren't spies or even espionage agency administrators, and never have been.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you actually have no idea at all what the point is, of having citizens elect representatives to oversee the activities of its government?

[Chaos]

Any government institution or agency that cannot bear the scrutiny of an occasional crackpot elected official probably deserves to be dismantled anyway.

The trouble with this is the trouble with Ron Paul... which is that, nutter that he is, he already "knows" what he is going to find.

If he finds anything that supports whatever his crackpottery says he should find, he´ll tout it as evidence of the government conspiracy against the American people, or whatever. If he doesn´t, he´ll keep searching and searching and searching, wasting lots of time (not just his own but also that of people who have real work to do) and taxpayer money, since obviously the Fed is hiding the evidence from him.

[WildCat]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Ron Paul an MD? Does he have any qualifications to discuss economic issues?
Yes, he read all about it in his John Birch Society literature.

[-Axiom-]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Ron Paul an MD? Does he have any qualifications to discuss economic issues?

Very few Politicians are qualified for their positions.
This is why we are in the mess we are.
Politicians are a bunch of lawyers for the most part, they exist to complicate simple things, and create the need for more lawyers.

[Undesired Walrus]

I'll stick my dunces economic head round the door and ask a question I've longed to ask but have been too ashamed:

What does the Fed do?

[drkitten]

I'll stick my dunces economic head round the door and ask a question I've longed to ask but have been too ashamed:

What does the Fed do?

Controls the fiscal policy, most notably the money supply and the fundamental interest rates, of the United States.

In its own words:



The Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States. It was founded by Congress in 1913 to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. Over the years, its role in banking and the economy has expanded.
Today, the Federal Reserve's duties fall into four general areas:

conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates
supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers
maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets
providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions, including playing a major role in operating the nation's payments system

[drkitten]

And most of the senators on the Armed Services committee aren't senior staff officers in the U.S. military.

Most of the senators on the Intelligence Oversight committee aren't spies or even espionage agency administrators, and never have been.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you actually have no idea at all what the point is, of having citizens elect representatives to oversee the activities of its government?


There's a difference between electing representatives and electing idiots. There's no reason that a typical MD can't read a book on basic economics and achieve a better understanding of macroeconomics than Ron Paul has. There's no reason a taxi driver can't read a book on basic economics and achieve a better understanding of macroeconomics than Ron Paul has. There's no reason a goat can't read a book on basic economics and achieve a better understanding of macroeconomics than Ron Paul has.

For that matter, there might not be any reason that Ron Paul himself couldn't read a book on basic economics and achieve a better understanding of macroeconomics than Ron Paul currently has. Or a book on the life cycle of zebra mussels. The bar is not set high.

[Undesired Walrus]

Controls the fiscal policy, most notably the money supply and the fundamental interest rates, of the United States.

In its own words:

So it's like the Bank of England?

[theprestige]

The trouble with this is the trouble with Ron Paul... which is that, nutter that he is, he already "knows" what he is going to find.
Well, yes. That was my whole point. Ron Paul is not some special kind of super-nutter. He's a bog-standard nutter of the usual type. Everything you've said about him I already assumed was given, under the heading "crackpot" ("nutter", if you prefer). Again: If the Fed can't survive the scrutiny of Rand Paul, it should probably be dismantled anyway.

Please note that I don't mean that Paul can't find evidence that convinces himself. As you point out, that's bound to happen anyway. What I mean is, Paul is probably not going to find evidence that convinces a majority of the committee, let alone a majority of the Legislature. But if he does, then the Fed is probably ripe for dismantling anyway.


There's a difference between electing representatives and electing idiots. There's no reason that a typical MD can't read a book on basic economics and achieve a better understanding of macroeconomics than Ron Paul has. There's no reason a taxi driver can't read a book on basic economics and achieve a better understanding of macroeconomics than Ron Paul has. There's no reason a goat can't read a book on basic economics and achieve a better understanding of macroeconomics than Ron Paul has.

This is all true enough, but has nothing at all to do with whether or not Paul's qualifications as an MD indicate a fitness for this committee post, since fitness for the post is based not on professional qualifications, job experience, or book-learning, or even a demonstrated lack of idiocy.

I was responding specifically to the point raised by No True Scotsman. What point are you trying to make (other than that Paul is an idiot, which has been stipulated already)?

[drkitten]

So it's like the Bank of England?

... or any other central bank.

[Chaos]

Well, yes. That was my whole point. Ron Paul is not some special kind of super-nutter. He's a bog-standard nutter of the usual type. Everything you've said about him I already assumed was given, under the heading "crackpot" ("nutter", if you prefer). Again: If the Fed can't survive the scrutiny of Rand Paul, it should probably be dismantled anyway.

Please note that I don't mean that Paul can't find evidence that convinces himself. As you point out, that's bound to happen anyway. What I mean is, Paul is probably not going to find evidence that convinces a majority of the committee, let alone a majority of the Legislature. But if he does, then the Fed is probably ripe for dismantling anyway.

Sure. He isn´t going to find evidence. With a rational politician, or a moderately nutty one, that would be the end of it. But with Ron Paul, it won´t. He´ll keep searching and searching and searching, at taxpayer expense. He cannot stop, because he knows what´s "really" going on and needs to find the evidence. He won´t be satisfied with any evidence contrary to his beliefs, any more than the typical Truther would ever be satisfied with any "independent investigation of 9/11" that only reveals what happened, not what the truther believes.

[drkitten]

Please note that I don't mean that Paul can't find evidence that convinces himself. As you point out, that's bound to happen anyway. What I mean is, Paul is probably not going to find evidence that convinces a majority of the committee, let alone a majority of the Legislature. But if he does, then the Fed is probably ripe for dismantling anyway.

Well, you have more confidence in his integrity than I have, if you think he's above active fabrication of evidence to "prove" what he already knows. Or if you think that the rest of the committee isn't simply going to follow his lead on this because they think it would get them headlines.

But beyond that,.... how much time will Paul choose to waste on this particular non-issue, and how much other important issues of monetary policy will be neglected or outright dismissed because of Paul's anti-Fed attitude?

[The True Scotsman]

And most of the senators on the Armed Services committee aren't senior staff officers in the U.S. military.

Most of the senators on the Intelligence Oversight committee aren't spies or even espionage agency administrators, and never have been.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you actually have no idea at all what the point is, of having citizens elect representatives to oversee the activities of its government?

One of the main purpose of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is to “review and study on a continuing basis the operation of Government activities at all levels with a view to determining their economy and efficiency.” If given the choice, I would not put a medical doctor with strong economic bias and a tendency towards conspiracy theories on a committee that reviews the efficiency of the Fed's monetary policies.

[theprestige]

Well, you have more confidence in his integrity than I have, if you think he's above active fabrication of evidence to "prove" what he already knows. Or if you think that the rest of the committee isn't simply going to follow his lead on this because they think it would get them headlines.
Again, I assumed that was all included under the heading of "crackpot". As for other committee members following his lead, if their primary goal is headlines, what's stopping them from taking the lead? At the very least, why haven't they followed his lead substantially already?

But beyond that,.... how much time will Paul choose to waste on this particular non-issue, and how much other important issues of monetary policy will be neglected or outright dismissed because of Paul's anti-Fed attitude?

You mean how much time and money do politicians waste on silly shenanigans in general, and how much better of the world would be if politicians (not to mention the rest of us) were much more honorable and competent people?

I don't really have an answer to that question, except to suggest you poop into one hand, and wish into the other, and see which one fills up first.

Also, you have much more confidence in the integrity of government in general than I have, if you think the priority should be for government get better organized and do more stuff.

[theprestige]

One of the main purpose of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is to “review and study on a continuing basis the operation of Government activities at all levels with a view to determining their economy and efficiency.” If given the choice, I would not put a medical doctor with strong economic bias and a tendency towards conspiracy theories on a committee that reviews the efficiency of the Fed's monetary policies.

Please note that the House Committee--like all House Committees--was invented and named by members of the House themselves, politicians all, not out of any desire to provide expert oversight, but rather to make themselves more important.

The whole point of the system is for the people to govern themselves. With predictable results, as this particular example demonstrates quite nicely.

[drkitten]

You mean how much time and money do politicians waste on silly shenanigans in general, and how much better of the world would be if politicians (not to mention the rest of us) were much more honorable and competent people?

No, that's not what I mean.

It doesn't really matter if Congress decides to take two days to decide whether or not to declare November 32 to be National Pancake Day. No one except perhaps IHOP will actually be affected by that decision. But when we're talking about fiscal policy, we're talking about real decisions that have real consequences for real people. Bernanke needs support in the legislature for some of his fiscal decisions; just as a simple example, the money he's spending to buy bonds under QE2 is Congressionally authorized spending. I'm fairly confident that Paul will not and would not authorize any further spending irrespective of circumstances, even if breadlines for the unemployed were stretching around the Capitol building itself.

[theprestige]

I'm fairly confident that Paul will not and would not authorize any further spending irrespective of circumstances, even if breadlines for the unemployed were stretching around the Capitol building itself.

It's a good thing that's not a decision Paul gets to make on his own, then, isn't it?

Not only does the committee chairmanship not give him that authority, but such authority as it does give him can be stripped away at will by his party leadership--and would be, the moment it became politically expedient to do so.

In the space of a few hours, you've gone from Ron Paul reducing the productivity of the government--as if he's unique in that respect, and as if a productive government is universally agreed to be a feature and not a bug--to Ron Paul singlehandedly causing mass starvation in America by refusing to authorize government spending.

This is not a realistic scenario.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Ron Paul an MD? Does he have any qualifications to discuss economic issues?

He sure does. He lea... nevermind someone already got it.

Yes, he read all about it in his John Birch Society literature.

[The True Scotsman]

Please note that the House Committee--like all House Committees--was invented and named by members of the House themselves, politicians all, not out of any desire to provide expert oversight, but rather to make themselves more important.

The whole point of the system is for the people to govern themselves. With predictable results, as this particular example demonstrates quite nicely.

Very well. Fair enough.

[Puppycow]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Ron Paul an MD? Does he have any qualifications to discuss economic issues?

He's an MD who believes in homeopathy, which should give you a clue about his sanity.

[Puppycow]

Controls the fiscal policy, most notably the money supply and the fundamental interest rates, of the United States.

In its own words:

The Fed controls monetary policy (http://www.investorwords.com/3097/monetary_policy.html), not fiscal policy (http://www.investorwords.com/1983/fiscal_policy.html). The congress and president control fiscal policy.

Yes, it is the central bank.

[angrysoba]

So it's like the Bank of England?

Yes, but the Federal Reserve is still a private bank unlike the Bank of England, which was nationalised after WWII. It's a magnet for conspiracy theorists some of whom even believe the Federal Reserve board of directors ordered JFK to be bumped off.

People like Ron Paul argue that the Federal Reserve has no business having any role in policy-making and say it is unconstitutional for them to have that power. They are also concerned that it has never been audited (although I think that a partial audit has been granted in the wake of the financial crisis).

I think that some of Ron Paul's claims are legitimate even if I don't endorse any of his other political views and even if he is supported by a very foul-smelling entourage of conspiracy theorists and anti-Semites.

[Sceptic-PK]

Yes, but the Federal Reserve is still a private bank unlike the Bank of England, which was nationalised after WWII.

The Fed is a quasi government institution. The Board of Governors is an indepdent government agency and the member banks that belong to the Fed are private.


People like Ron Paul argue that the Federal Reserve has no business having any role in policy-making and say it is unconstitutional for them to have that power. They are also concerned that it has never been audited (although I think that a partial audit has been granted in the wake of the financial crisis).

The Fed is regularly audited by the Government Accountability Office. Monetary policy is excepted from audits to ensure the Fed's independence from political meddling. It goes to the very fabric of what a central bank does and how it works.


I think that some of Ron Paul's claims are legitimate

And you'd be wrong.

[JihadJane]

He's an MD who believes in homeopathy, which should give you a clue about his sanity.


Your post gives me a clue about your understanding of what insanity is.

The Fed is currently waging a global currency war and helping to transform the US into a banana republic.

[Rockingham, AH Deist]

Their appears to be an assumption that their is nothing corrupt occurring at the Fed.

Question: Would we know if their was?

If yes, how? If no, then we can be pretty damn sure corrupt practices are occurring because power and secrecy combined always lead to corruption.

[Chaos]

Their appears to be an assumption that their is nothing corrupt occurring at the Fed.

Question: Would we know if their was?

If yes, how? If no, then we can be pretty damn sure corrupt practices are occurring because power and secrecy combined always lead to corruption.

Question: Is whatever Ron Paul will look for occurring at the Fed?

He is a hardcore woo with an anti-Fed agenda and an ax to grind. He will NOT look honestly for any corrupt practices, but will search for evidence for the deluded nonsense he believes.

Getting Ron Paul to oversee the Fed will not have any more constructive results than having Kevin Trudeau oversee the FDA or having Alex Jones oversee the 9/11 Commission.

[thaiboxerken]

Bill Clinton survived the ire of the entire Republican Party.

He was impeached.

[theprestige]

He was impeached.

An impeachment is just a Senate committee hearing writ large. Its purpose is to decide whether or not the president should be removed from office.

In Clinton's case, the impeachment concluded with him staying in office. How is that not surviving?

[drkitten]

An impeachment is just a Senate committee hearing writ large. Its purpose is to decide whether or not the president should be removed from office.

In Clinton's case, the impeachment concluded with him staying in office. How is that not surviving?

Not,.... quite.

Technically, an impeachment is a HOUSE hearing write large, to decide whether the president should be subjected to a trial in the Senate to decide whether or not he should be removed from office.

Clinton was impeached; the case therefore moved to trial, at which he was acquitted and remained in office.

Which I agree is a pretty good definition of "survived." If the grand jury votes to indict, and then the case collapses at trial and I walk free, in what sense didn't I survive?

[elbe]

Well, you have more confidence in his integrity than I have, if you think he's above active fabrication of evidence to "prove" what he already knows. Or if you think that the rest of the committee isn't simply going to follow his lead on this because they think it would get them headlines.

I don't think he's going to outright fabricate evidence, but I think it's likely he'll see evidence where there is none.

[mhaze]

Sure. He isn´t going to find evidence......

What an utterly ridiculous and stupid comment.

So you know the results of legal supoenas before they are made and before production of evidence.

All woo to u.

[Sceptic-PK]

Their appears to be an assumption that their is nothing corrupt occurring at the Fed.

Question: Would we know if their was?

Yes, at least as much as any other government agency.


If yes, how?

The GAO or committee hearings etc.

[Chaos]

What an utterly ridiculous and stupid comment.

So you know the results of legal supoenas before they are made and before production of evidence.

All woo to u.

I don´t. But I know that the delusions of a bat crap crazy conspiracy theorist nutcase are so removed from anything possible in reality that there is no way that evidence for them can be found - any more than you will ever find evidence that Obama murdered the Dead Sea or that the Beagle Boys stole Scrooge McDuck´s Number One Dime.

[JihadJane]

Getting Ron Paul to oversee the Fed will not have any more constructive results than having Kevin Trudeau oversee the FDA or having Alex Jones oversee the 9/11 Commission.

Or Philip D. Zelikow...

[mhaze]

I don´t. But I know that the delusions of a bat crap crazy conspiracy theorist nutcase are so removed from anything possible in reality that there is no way that evidence for them can be found - any more than you will ever find evidence that Obama murdered the Dead Sea or that the Beagle Boys stole Scrooge McDuck´s Number One Dime.

You've created an almost illegibal ad hominem argument, so let's step through the process.

1. Someone you really don't like is appointed to chair the committee and has supoena power on the Fed.
2. This guy you really don't like produces legal requirements for production from the Fed.
3. Said documents are produced (or are not) and reviewed by committee.
4. If there are constitutional, legal, moral or ethical issues in the documents produced these will be started on.

That's what is actually going to go on, your silly ad hom arguments won't affect it and have no or little relation to reality.

[A Christian Sceptic]

There's a difference between electing representatives and electing idiots. There's no reason that a typical MD can't read a book on basic economics and achieve a better understanding of macroeconomics than Ron Paul has. There's no reason a taxi driver can't read a book on basic economics and achieve a better understanding of macroeconomics than Ron Paul has. There's no reason a goat can't read a book on basic economics and achieve a better understanding of macroeconomics than Ron Paul has.

For that matter, there might not be any reason that Ron Paul himself couldn't read a book on basic economics and achieve a better understanding of macroeconomics than Ron Paul currently has. Or a book on the life cycle of zebra mussels. The bar is not set high.

Ron Paul has authored economic books - but that doesn't count, of course, because he's never read any economic books. :rolleyes:

[timhau]

Ron Paul has authored economic books

... and Erich von Däniken has authored books on archeology.

[drkitten]

... and Erich von Däniken has authored books on archeology.

And Kent Hovind has authored books on biology.

So, yes, I'm willing to stand by my criticism of Paul in this regard.

[BenBurch]

OK, now we see if The Fed is the evil conspiracy the loons claim it is; If it is, RP will suffer some unfortunate accident.

[Corsair 115]

Will Mr. Paul be spending any time further investigating the "North American Union" and "NAFTA superhighway" conspiracy theories which he has, at various times, expressed belief in? Or is he just going to stick to the Federal Reserve for now?

[Neally]

OK, now we see if The Fed is the evil conspiracy the loons claim it is; If it is, RP will suffer some unfortunate accident.Won't make a bit of difference to the Fed conspiracy nuts, any more than the 9-11 commission made on the 9-11 conspiracy nuts.

The result will be a response that the truth is really hidden deeper and a new really thorough investigation needs to be done.

[Sceptic-PK]

Ron Paul has authored economic books - but that doesn't count, of course, because he's never read any economic books. :rolleyes:

Anyone can publish a book. Have you actually read Paul’s books, and can you testify to their soundness with regards to economics knowledge and analysis?

[A Christian Sceptic]

Anyone can publish a book. Have you actually read Paul’s books, and can you testify to their soundness with regards to economics knowledge and analysis?

Yes I have. And yes I can. What's happening now is proving him correct (or rather the system of economics he's written about).

I thought he was a lunatic (because that's what everyone calls him) until I read his books. Now I think he's one of the most consistent, principled politicians out there. Of course, both sides can't stand him for that.

He's a follower of the theories of the Austrian Economics and his writings don't divert from that in any way I can tell.

[Sceptic-PK]

Yes I have. And yes I can. What's happening now is proving him correct (or rather the system of economics he's written about).

Your latter sentence indicates that perhaps your former assertion is inaccurate. Paul has an irrational fear of fiat. The economy’s problems were not caused by fiat, and very little of Paul’s ranting about the Fed, the gold standard, inflation, etc have anything to do with the many causes of the financial crisis. I mean, Paul is a freemarketeer if ever we’ve seen one, and lack of effective government regulation/oversight played its own role in the crisis.


I thought he was a lunatic (because that's what everyone calls him) until I read his books. Now I think he's one of the most consistent, principled politicians out there. Of course, both sides can't stand him for that.

Lunatics will attract others I suppose.


He's a follower of the theories of the Austrian Economics and his writings don't divert from that in any way I can tell.

The Austrian school aren’t real economists, they’re social theorists masquerading as economists. They provide no formulas or models or anything that can be considered robust economic analysis, which is why they are shunned by the mainstream. Every armchair lunatic bordering on economic conspiracy theorist touts the Austrian school in defence of their poor grasp of economic theory. It can’t be a coincidence!

[Puppycow]

Your post gives me a clue about your understanding of what insanity is.

Do you believe in homeopathy? For a non-doctor, that might just be ignorance. For an MD to believe in homeopathy suggests a level of willful ignorance bordering on insanity.

[JihadJane]

Do you believe in homeopathy? For a non-doctor, that might just be ignorance. For an MD to believe in homeopathy suggests a level of willful ignorance bordering on insanity.


No, but believing in homeopathy isn't a sign of insanity. That you think it is suggests unfortunate ignorance about what insanity is.

Your addition of "willful" undermines your case further. What is your evidence that the doctor's alleged ignorance is willful?

~~~~~~~~

World Bank President Robert Zoellick Calls For Return To "Old Money" Gold Standard (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/world-bank-president-robert-zoellick-calls-return-old-money-gold-standard)

[KoihimeNakamura]

> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/213e17aa-eb5d-11df-b482-00144feab49a,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=htt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F213e17aa-eb5d-11df-b482-00144feab49a.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fhome%2Fus

Hmm.

ror:

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20101108-719265.html

(for some reason that first page seems rather truncated.)

[dudalb]

Again, I assumed that was all included under the heading of "crackpot". As for other committee members following his lead, if their primary goal is headlines, what's stopping them from taking the lead? At the very least, why haven't they followed his lead substantially already?



You mean how much time and money do politicians waste on silly shenanigans in general, and how much better of the world would be if politicians (not to mention the rest of us) were much more honorable and competent people?

I don't really have an answer to that question, except to suggest you poop into one hand, and wish into the other, and see which one fills up first.

Also, you have much more confidence in the integrity of government in general than I have, if you think the priority should be for government get better organized and do more stuff.


I got a feeling the majority of comitee members with in both parties are not going to jump on the Ron Paul Anti Fed bandwagon.
The powers that be in the GOP have no desire to shut down the Fed, and this will result in nothng.

[WildCat]

He's a follower of the theories of the Austrian Economics and his writings don't divert from that in any way I can tell.
Austria doesn't even follow Austrian economics.

[Toke]

I don´t. But I know that the delusions of a bat crap crazy conspiracy theorist nutcase are so removed from anything possible in reality that there is no way that evidence for them can be found - any more than you will ever find evidence that Obama murdered the Dead Sea or that the Beagle Boys stole Scrooge McDuck´s Number One Dime.

Good examples, I wonder what sense of humour put Ron Paul in charge of the fed commission?

[AvalonXQ]

What does Ron Paul believe that's so ridiculous?

[stevea]

What does Ron Paul believe that's so ridiculous?

Nothing. There are a lot of Ron Paul haters on this forum who couldn't mount a logical argument if their lives depended on it. So they are reduced to hurling ad hominem fallacies and making outlandish farcical claims about what their opponents believe. News Flash - bigots hate without reason.

I see no evidence the RP believes in homeopathy, but even if he did WTF does that have to do with wether the Fed needs an audit and whether RP is competent to do it ? I'm not impressed with Dr.Paul's grasp of economic, but but he's no more economically incompetent that the typical congressman and at least has clearly stated positions on many issues.

DrKitten gives an incorrect definition of what the Fed does - it is MONETARY POLICY NOT FISCAL POLICY. And that is exactly the problem. The Fed underwrote debt of Euro banks to the tune of several trillion. They may or may not be sensible policy, but it certainly deserves to see the light of day. Now Activist Bernanke is implementing QE2 as part of ECONOMIC policy, which is not and has never been part of the Fed's task - and is actually quite dangerous.

It's clear the Fed is in serious need of oversight, BUT whether it's Ron Paul or Barney Fwank, there isn't much hope that politics can stay out of the issue - and that is very bad news. I don't think that the attitude "let the Fed do as they will" has much to recommend it.

It's peculiar that all the Lefties believe fervently (with little evidence) that lack of regulation was the core of the recent financial crises, yet they are absolutely opposed to regulating the Fed or the GSEs.

[Sceptic-PK]

Uh, the removal of regulatory oversight with the repeal of Glass-Steagall played a part in the crisis, absolutely. Nobody here said it was the “core” of the crisis. I merely referenced Paul’s obsession with small government while ignoring the contributions of deregulation to the GFC (and that’s not even touching on the failures of certain agencies to adequately regulate the derivatives market).

As for Ron’s lunacy, he described evolution as “just a theory”, is absolutely obsessed with gold and wants to return to some kind of gold standard, doesn’t understand that the politicisation of the Fed is a bad thing for monetary policy and central bank independence, wants to dismantle central banking anyway (also thinks it’s unconstitutional), borders on the conspiracy mindset with concerns about NAFTA and the supposed North American Union.

[WildCat]

What does Ron Paul believe that's so ridiculous?
That if he just digs deep enough he'll uncover the secret Jew banking plot to take over the world via the Federal Reserve Bank.

[Big Boss]

Nothing. There are a lot of Ron Paul haters on this forum who couldn't mount a logical argument if their lives depended on it. So they are reduced to hurling ad hominem fallacies and making outlandish farcical claims about what their opponents believe. News Flash - bigots hate without reason.

Hilarious.

You've apparently never seen Ron Paul on the theory of evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOO4puYp5F0

"I think it's a theory... the theory of evolution and I don't accept it. As a theory."

[Big Boss]

But more directly relevant to policy, what scares me more is Ron Paul's "We the People Act" (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.111hr539), where he pretty much pretends the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't exist.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

Then of course, he doesn't know jack relating to the Founding Fathers' views on religion. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html)

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."

Fail. And I shouldn't have to demonstrate why.

Sceptic-PK pretty much covered the fiscal issues with Ron Paul.

[Corsair 115]

What does Ron Paul believe that's so ridiculous?


See post #55 for an example. Unless he has subsequently renounced his belief in the two topics I mentioned in that post.

[drkitten]

What does Ron Paul believe that's so ridiculous?

What does he believe that isn't ridiculous?

[MikeMangum]

From your link:

That's all I meant. Congressional "oversight" basically means the power to subpoena and ask questions. And he wants to "audit" the Fed.

Speaking as someone who isn't a big fan of Ron Paul (sorry...Dr Paul ;) ), Ron Paul is unfortunately the Congress Critter that best understands the Fed and has the greatest understanding of the impact of monetary policy. The fact that he wants to return to the gold standard doesn't change the unfortunate situation that he is by far the most knowledgable in Congress on the subject (AFAIK).

I've watched Bernanke and Greenspan talking to Congress and I've never seen any other member of Congress that seemed to have nearly as good of a grasp of 1) how the Fed works, or 2) the impacts of monetary changes.

[Toke]

Ron Paul is unfortunately the Congress Critter that best understands the Fed and has the greatest understanding of the impact of monetary policy.If correct, the US is in serious trouble. :eye-poppi

[Father Dagon]

And Kent Hovind has authored books on biology.

So, yes, I'm willing to stand by my criticism of Paul in this regard.But Däniken probably ripped off Lovecraft. And economics is all about ripping of your predecessors, so I think it cancels out. :D

[Puppycow]

Nothing. There are a lot of Ron Paul haters on this forum who couldn't mount a logical argument if their lives depended on it. So they are reduced to hurling ad hominem fallacies and making outlandish farcical claims about what their opponents believe. News Flash - bigots hate without reason.Bigots like Ron Paul? What was in the Ron Paul Newsletters (http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-10/politics/paul.newsletters_1_newsletters-blacks-whites?_s=PM:POLITICS) again?

The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr. -- described as a "pro-Communist philanderer." One newsletter, from June 1992, right after the LA riots, says "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

Another says, "The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."

In some excerpts, the reader may be led to believe the words are indeed from Paul, a resident of Lake Jackson, Texas. In the "Ron Paul Political Report" from October 1992, the writer describes carjacking as the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."

The author then offers advice from others on how to avoid being carjacked, including "an ex-cop I know," and says, "I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."

But wait till you hear his excuse!
"Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea."
Libertarians can't be racist! :dl:
I see no evidence the RP believes in homeopathy, but even if he did WTF does that have to do with wether the Fed needs an audit and whether RP is competent to do it ?
Evidence is right here. Skip to about the 4:00 mark for the part about homeopathy.
JAo-4ZaXmyE
What does it have to do with the Fed? Nothing, but it has everything to do with "Dr." Paul's competence as a medical doctor.

Barney Fwank

Oh, what was that about ad hominem fallacies and bigotry again?

[elbe]

Bigots like Ron Paul? What was in the Ron Paul Newsletters (http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-10/politics/paul.newsletters_1_newsletters-blacks-whites?_s=PM:POLITICS) again?

I'm not a fan of him, but I don't remember any evidence to show that Paul shares the views printed in his newsletter. Granted, it demonstrated a complete lack of awareness of what's going on under his own name, but his idiocy doesn't mean he's also a racist.

[Puppycow]

I'm not a fan of him, but I don't remember any evidence to show that Paul shares the views printed in his newsletter. Granted, it demonstrated a complete lack of awareness of what's going on under his own name, but his idiocy doesn't mean he's also a racist.

He is responsible for everything in those newsletters whether he personally wrote them or not.

[Father Dagon]

Evidence is right here. Skip to about the 4:00 mark for the part about homeopathy.Er, women and minorities are groups and therefore you can cater to them, right? But homeopathy isn't a group. It's a (faulty) theory and can't therefore be catered to.

[dvictr]

there is nothing "lunatic" about Ron Paul's economics or his foreign policy belief's.

the Fed has failed in its dual mandate from Congress (price stability and low unemployment). - argue this

[tyr_13]

there is nothing "lunatic" about Ron Paul's economics or his foreign policy belief's.

the Fed has failed in its dual mandate from Congress (price stability and low unemployment). - argue this

But that's only part of what Paul says, a small part, and the rest is crazy nonsense.

What you're asking is the same as saying, 'prove that this car isn't a Jeep or else the statement, "Gold is the only true measure of wealth and because the evil Jews run the banks they want Reptoids to take over and therefore this car is a Jeep," is true.' Basically even if it can be successfully argued that the Fed has failed in its dual mandate from Congress (which I'm not granting by the way) that can't be used as evidence that Paul's economics aren't 'lunatic'.

[dvictr]

But that's only part of what Paul says, a small part, and the rest is crazy nonsense.

Basically even if it can be successfully argued that the Fed has failed in its dual mandate from Congress (which I'm not granting by the way) that can't be used as evidence that Paul's economics aren't 'lunatic'.

Ron Paul merely advocates the economic theory of reputable and respected academic economics including:

Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Friedrich Hayek, Murray N. Rothbard, Israel M. Kirzner, George Reisman, Roger Garrison.

these economists including a nobel prize winner shared a philosophical belief for classical liberalism.

[Puppycow]

Er, women and minorities are groups and therefore you can cater to them, right? But homeopathy isn't a group. It's a (faulty) theory and can't therefore be catered to.

Well tell that to Ron Paul. The point is that he thinks that homeopathy is a valid alternative to what he calls "allopathic medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopathic_medicine)" (a word used by believers in homeopathy for modern medicine).

For clarification, I found a transcript of his remarks here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul585.html):

16. There must be more competition for individuals entering into the medical field. Licensing strictly limits the number of individuals who can provide patient care. A lot of problems were created in 20th century as a consequence the Flexner Report (1910), which was financed by the Carnegie Foundation and strongly supported by the AMA. Many medical schools were closed and the number of doctors was drastically reduced. The motivation was to close down medical schools that catered to women, minorities and especially homeopathy. We continue to suffer from these changes, which were designed to protect physician’s income and promote allopathic medicine over the more natural cures and prevention of homeopathic medicine.

17. We must remove any obstacles for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care. We must remove the threat of further regulations pushed by the drug companies now working worldwide to limit these alternatives.


I think that the above makes clear that he is a believer in homeopathy as well as "holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care." It also makes it clear that he believes that doctors shouldn't be required to have a license to practice medicine.

[dvictr]

Ron Paul merely advocates the economic theory of reputable and respected academic economics including:

Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Friedrich Hayek, Murray N. Rothbard, Israel M. Kirzner, George Reisman, Roger Garrison.

these economists including a nobel prize winner shared a philosophical belief for classical liberalism.

most of these economists happen to be jewish, so clearly only an anti-semites would claim 'Ron Paul's' economics are crazy

[WildCat]

I've watched Bernanke and Greenspan talking to Congress and I've never seen any other member of Congress that seemed to have nearly as good of a grasp of 1) how the Fed works, or 2) the impacts of monetary changes.
This is parody, right?

[tyr_13]

Ron Paul merely advocates the economic theory of reputable and respected academic economics including:

Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Friedrich Hayek, Murray N. Rothbard, Israel M. Kirzner, George Reisman, Roger Garrison.

these economists including a nobel prize winner shared a philosophical belief for classical liberalism.

Oh, so you haven't actually read Paul's beliefs about the Fed. Nevermind.

[elbe]

He is responsible for everything in those newsletters whether he personally wrote them or not.

Oh, I agree he is, but I don't think he, himself, shares the views expressed in it when he took the eyes off of it - at least not all of them.

[dvictr]

Oh, so you haven't actually read Paul's beliefs about the Fed. Nevermind.

im not excatly peter schiff but i am the chief economist of a mid sized asset management firm.

[elbe]

This is parody, right?

People who are obsessed with something can become darn near experts on it - and still be wrong.

[Father Dagon]

Well tell that to Ron Paul. The point is that he thinks that homeopathy is a valid alternative to what he calls "allopathic medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopathic_medicine)" (a word used by believers in homeopathy for modern medicine).

For clarification, I found a transcript of his remarks here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul585.html):16. There must be more competition for individuals entering into the medical field. Licensing strictly limits the number of individuals who can provide patient care. A lot of problems were created in 20th century as a consequence the Flexner Report (1910), which was financed by the Carnegie Foundation and strongly supported by the AMA. Many medical schools were closed and the number of doctors was drastically reduced. The motivation was to close down medical schools that catered to women, minorities and especially homeopathy. We continue to suffer from these changes, which were designed to protect physician’s income and promote allopathic medicine over the more natural cures and prevention of homeopathic medicine.

17. We must remove any obstacles for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care. We must remove the threat of further regulations pushed by the drug companies now working worldwide to limit these alternatives.I think that the above makes clear that he is a believer in homeopathy as well as "holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care." It also makes it clear that he believes that doctors shouldn't be required to have a license to practice medicine.:eek: And exactly what kind of doctor is he? I wonder what he thinks of France? I've heard that one third of the drugs at the pharmacies are homeopathic; because the homeopaths elbowed their way into the tax funded health insurance system. I hope that I'm wrong, someone please correct me.most of these economists happen to be jewish, so clearly only an anti-semites would claim 'Ron Paul's' economics are crazyIf we're going to have a smorgasbord of different things, how about this (http://www.ironskypublishing.com/about.html):The sort of novels we are looking for involve thermonuclear holocausts, apocalyptic viruses, doomsday asteroids, environmental collapse, revolutions, war, economic depressions, or Nazi UFOs, in scenarious that can be alternative histories, futuristic dystopias, space operas, or disaster novels, told from (but not limited to) Traditionalist, Conservative Revolutionary, Ariosophical, Apollonian, Occultic, Austrian economics, neo-Pagan, or Nietzschean perspectives.Not that it makes Austrian economics better or worse. But even if it's something good, it won't change the big picture.

[tyr_13]

im not excatly peter schiff but i am the chief economist of a mid sized asset management firm.

That's related to what I said how?

[dvictr]

That's related to what I said how?

yeah, ive read 'all' of Paul's thoughts on the fed, and i agree with him and other economists when they propose slowly phasing out the federal reserve.

it would be completely realistic and practical for private organizations/ 3rd parties to issue paper currency and credit backed by physical assets such as silver/gold to compete with the US dollar. there is nothing "tin foil hat conspiracy" about that.

[Sceptic-PK]

yeah, ive read 'all' of Paul's thoughts on the fed, and i agree with him and other economists when they propose slowly phasing out the federal reserve.

it would be completely realistic and practical for private organizations/ 3rd parties to issue paper currency and credit backed by physical assets such as silver/gold to compete with the US dollar. there is nothing "tin foil hat conspiracy" about that.

Yeah, because individual bank-issued currency worked so well before, right?

And who are these economists that favour the dismantling of the Fed? All Austrian School loonies no doubt? Is there anyone who actually rates a mention in the real world?

[timhau]

im not excatly peter schiff but i am the chief economist of a mid sized asset management firm.

I pity the fool who hired you, then.

BTW, what does "I'm not exactly Peter Schiff" mean? That you're not as cuckoo as he is, or is that supposed to be some sort of an attempt at modesty?

[dvictr]

Yeah, because individual bank-issued currency worked so well before, right?

paper money and commodity certificates are completely different.

the 'game changer' is really the invention of the computer and proliferation of the internet. the telecommunications revolution would solve alot of the price transparency problems associated with the pre civil war system.

a -business- could now issue a certificate exchangeable for units of a commodity on demand.. it could be gold/silver/gasoline/milk/oranje juice. it appears people have this conception that a "gold standard" would mean having to carry around fannny packs of coins. the reality is that gold as a unit can be divisible into fractions of a gram and silver even more practical.

i believe many people would happily apply for a checking account backed debit card linked to a commodity price. - what is loony about this??

the point is that this is currently illegal! if you legalize competing currencies there is no need to 'end the fed'.

[dvictr]

excellent artice in todays new york times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/opinion/14grant.html?_r=1&hp

[tyr_13]

paper money and commodity certificates are completely different.

the 'game changer' is really the invention of the computer and proliferation of the internet. the telecommunications revolution would solve alot of the price transparency problems associated with the pre civil war system.

a -business- could now issue a certificate exchangeable for units of a commodity on demand.. it could be gold/silver/gasoline/milk/oranje juice. it appears people have this conception that a "gold standard" would mean having to carry around fannny packs of coins. the reality is that gold as a unit can be divisible into fractions of a gram and silver even more practical.

i believe many people would happily apply for a checking account backed debit card linked to a commodity price. - what is loony about this??

the point is that this is currently illegal! if you legalize competing currencies there is no need to 'end the fed'.

I've highlighted (most of) the loony parts.

[Sceptic-PK]

paper money and commodity certificates are completely different.

But you said paper money, so I pointed out that the last time this was possible, it was an unmitigated disaster with bank collapses and funny money all over the place.


a -business- could now issue a certificate exchangeable for units of a commodity on demand..

They can already do this, they’re called gift vouchers.


it appears people have this conception that a "gold standard" would mean having to carry around fannny packs of coins.

I don’t know anyone who thinks this. But I do know that a gold standard has a contraction bias and is highly inelastic making it unable to respond adequately to changing market conditions.


i believe many people would happily apply for a checking account backed debit card linked to a commodity price. - what is loony about this?? [

the point is that this is currently illegal! if you legalize competing currencies there is no need to 'end the fed'.

Right, so when I go to the store there’s like 10 different prices for each item? Or maybe there’s only 5 because a store chooses not to accept the other 5 currencies? The “loony” part of it (competing currencies) is that would be a complete mess and a nightmare for consumers, retailers and banks. It would also negate the ability for effective monetary policy.

[dvictr]

Yes I have. And yes I can. What's happening now is proving him correct (or rather the system of economics he's written about).

I thought he was a lunatic (because that's what everyone calls him) until I read his books. Now I think he's one of the most consistent, principled politicians out there. Of course, both sides can't stand him for that.

He's a follower of the theories of the Austrian Economics and his writings don't divert from that in any way I can tell.

+1

[dvictr]

The Austrian school aren’t real economists, they’re social theorists masquerading as economists. They provide no formulas or models or anything that can be considered robust economic analysis, which is why they are shunned by the mainstream.

liar

there are PHd programs in the UNited States and other countries for "austrian economics".. if you have 3 minutes i would highly recommend this powerpoint presentation from an Auburn University professor, not exactly Harvard but Roger Garrison is a leading academic figure in this theory of economics.

http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/lvmi.htm

[Toke]

The different currencies backed by assorted commodities sounds a bit impractical.

The grocery store might not take the vouchers from other stores, and what is the exchange rate between liters of milk and punches on a bus card?

They would have to set up some system with a commonly accepted unit of value, and have some organisation to oversee and enforce it.

[thaiboxerken]

Currency backed by commodities is a bit like bartering, isn't it?

[Sceptic-PK]

liar

Prove I was lying. Being in error is not the same thing.


Critics have concluded that modern Austrian economics generally lacks scientific rigor, which forms the basis of the most prominent criticism of the school. Austrian theories are not formulated in formal mathematical form, but by using mainly verbal logic and what proponents claim are self-evident axioms. Mainstream economists believe that this makes Austrian theories too imprecisely defined to be clearly used to explain or predict real world events. Economist Bryan Caplan noted that, "what prevents Austrian economists from getting more publications in mainstream journals is that their papers rarely use mathematics or econometrics."

A related criticism is applied to Austrian School leaders; these leaders have advocated a rejection of methods which involve directly using empirical data in the development of (falsifiable) theories; application of empirical data is fundamental to the scientific method. In particular, Austrian School leader, Ludwig von Mises, has been described as the mid-20th century's "archetypal 'unscientific' economist." Mises wrote of his economic methodology that "its statements and propositions are not derived from experience... They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts."

Murray Rothbard was also an adherent of Mises's methodology, and though Rothbard assigned a quasi-empirical description to it, he comments that "it should be obvious that this type of 'empiricism' is so out of step with modern empiricism that I may just as well continue to call it a priori for present purposes". Additionally, the prominent Austrian economist, F. A. Hayek, stated his belief that social science theories can "never be verified or falsified by reference to facts." Such rejections of empirical evidence in economics by Austrian School leaders have led to the school being dismissed within the mainstream.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

[stevea]

Uh, the removal of regulatory oversight with the repeal of Glass-Steagall played a part in the crisis, absolutely. Nobody here said it was the “core” of the crisis.

I'm still awaiting a coherent argument about how GS was a substantial contributor to the problem. Point to exactly which transactions would have been illegal before Bill Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal.

As for Ron’s lunacy, he described evolution as “just a theory”, is absolutely obsessed with gold and wants to return to some kind of gold standard, ...

and

Hilarious.

You've apparently never seen Ron Paul on the theory of evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOO4puYp5F0

"I think it's a theory... the theory of evolution and I don't accept it. As a theory."

So please make a list for me of all the congressmen who DON'T believe in deist woo. AFAIK three are none who are openly agnostic or atheist. The current president claims to believe that some jewish guy 2000 yrs ago was a deity and also claims that this has a direct impact on his thinking. I wasn't arguing that RPaul is any better than the average representative, just that he is no worse than most.

I have learned a little more of RP following the links here, he's pretty far off the beaten path, but I'm still not convinced that makes him nuttier than Barney Frank who nominally believes he's part of gods chosen ppl.

Try to parse the argument before you rebut.

[WildCat]

People who are obsessed with something can become darn near experts on it - and still be wrong.
I've seen no evidence at all that Ron Paul is an expert on the Fed. Quite the opposite actually... much like truthers are not experts on 9/11 despite being obsessed with it.

[Chaos]

I've seen no evidence at all that Ron Paul is an expert on the Fed. Quite the opposite actually... much like truthers are not experts on 9/11 despite being obsessed with it.

One can know quite a lot about something - disconnected facts and trivia and stuff - without understanding it, and some people have much looser standards for "expert" than others.

So you might kind of make the case that Ron Paul is sort of an expert on the Fed by some peoples´ standards, more or less. ;)

[drkitten]

I'm still awaiting a coherent argument about how GS was a substantial contributor to the problem. Point to exactly which transactions would have been illegal before Bill Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal.

Er, mortgage securitization by commercial banks? Am I missing something?

[elbe]

I've seen no evidence at all that Ron Paul is an expert on the Fed. Quite the opposite actually... much like truthers are not experts on 9/11 despite being obsessed with it.

To echo Chaos, I was using "expert" rather loosely. The CT world is filled with people who know insane minutia of a topic, but being an anorak doesn't make you always right. I honestly don't know how much Paul even knows about the Fed (other then it being bad), but I'll take people's word on it that he knows far more than the average guy.

[Skeptic Ginger]

What does Ron Paul believe that's so ridiculous?He believes in a magical fantasy world where the free market forces take care of all greed and corruption. And apparently the influence of marketing is not an issue in distorting the free market in magical land.

[dvictr]

He believes in a magical fantasy world where the free market forces take care of all greed and corruption. And apparently the influence of marketing is not an issue in distorting the free market in magical land.

so youre saying that believing in libertarian principles constitutes lunacy?

[Skeptic Ginger]

so youre saying that believing in libertarian principles constitutes lunacy?
That's a bit of a distortion of what I said. So to clarify, Ron Paul's Libertarian version of reality is a bit more loony than your average Libertarian. I just listened to a Ron Paul interview a couple hours ago on this subject on the news. Paul doesn't discuss the issues, he spews his version of reality and continually laughs claiming his view is the only reality and there is just no question about it. Any challenge is simply dismissed and he again repeats his dogma. There is no discussion supporting why his version is correct, Paul simply declares it is.

Not all Libertarians have their own version of reality divorced from ever having to consider they are not necessarily correct. Rand Paul, for example, made a claim about private property rights and when that was carried out to its conclusion by Rachel Maddow asking him would he have allowed blacks to be excluded from lunch counters, Rand at least recognized his Libertarian position was untenable. He refused to discuss it further.

Had that been Ron Paul, I think he would have just denied reality, brushed it off as nonsense and kept on with Ron's personal version of reality.

[stevea]

Well tell that to Ron Paul. The point is that he thinks that homeopathy is a valid alternative to what he calls "allopathic medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopathic_medicine)" (a word used by believers in homeopathy for modern medicine).

For clarification, I found a transcript of his remarks here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul585.html):

I think that the above makes clear that he is a believer in homeopathy as well as "holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care." It also makes it clear that he believes that doctors shouldn't be required to have a license to practice medicine.

I personally think homeopathy is bunk, woo, whatever ... OTOH I have absolutely no interest in using the force of government to support a version of the medical "one-true-faith". The fact is that governments have repeatedly made vast and serous error in declaring one medical practice valid and others invalid. To my mind it's arbitrary and certainly totalitarian for a government to make such decisions. Exactly to that extent I support these alternative belief systems and oppose anyone who would seek to use the power of state to abolish them.

About 98% of our Congress proclaim a belief in deist woo. Many have espoused beliefs what I consider social woo - clear violations of the social contract. So why are you selectively picking on RPs reputed support in homeopathic woo when the topic is economics ? Are you equally concerned that our president believes that a Jewish son of a carpenter was divine, cured ppl by miracles, and further claims that modern US physicians prefer to perform amputations for profit motives ? The woo-believing, contra-factual believing president then proposes a vast overhaul of the medical services delivery system. Where is your proportional outrage there where the president's clear and present woo is directly related to his agenda ????

No - your ire is quite selective against those who are not of your political clan.


I've seen no evidence at all that Ron Paul is an expert on the Fed. Quite the opposite ...

I see no credible evidence the RP is an anti-semite, which didn't prevent you from proposing a vile, unevidence character assassination in post #69. Go away potty mouth.


Er, mortgage securitization by commercial banks? Am I missing something?

Yeah - you are missing something. COMMERCIAL banks have been permitted to engage in non-trivial amount of mortgage securitiization since 1987 change to GS. I see absolutely no coherent argument that the same amount of securitization would not have taken place via the investment banks alone even if the Commercials were still restricted to a 5% share as pre-1987. Lehman did (investment bank issuing MBAs) as a large player, others did too. Why wouldn't the IBanks take up the slack if the market forces were the same and the CBanks were prevented ?? Makes no sense.

Again - once the motivations were present in the form of an accepted miscalculation of risk, then the rest was inevitable. The securitization could have been outside US jurisdiction and that would only have modestly changed the total damage. You can't regulate gravity away.

Now I agree that the FDIC is foolish to insure commercial bank accounts where the bank is allowed to take "excessive" risk, but such is the nature of bureaucracies.


That's a bit of a distortion of what I said. So to clarify, Ron Paul's Libertarian version of reality is a bit more loony than your average Libertarian. I just listened to a Ron Paul interview a couple hours ago on this subject on the news. Paul doesn't discuss the issues, he spews his version of reality and continually laughs claiming his view is the only reality and there is just no question about it. Any challenge is simply dismissed and he again repeats his dogma. There is no discussion supporting why his version is correct, Paul simply declares it is.

Yeah - that's so different from other politicians. Like for example the president. Every other word from this highly acclaimed orator is "uh" and he spins he recent losses in Congress as due to the populace not understanding ... right. He was as adept as any other politician at giving the answer he wants to spew regardless of the question asked. Ron Paul is not among the worst half of slimey spin-master politicians.

Of course RP isn't presenting for his positions in an interview; it's silly for you to expect that. In case you haven't noticed, any real argument in the mainstream media is dissembled into small and easily mischaracterized bits and then lampooned for the ignorami. So for example Rand Paul states the arguable proposition that the Federal government overstepped it's bounds by forcing private lunch counters to de-segregrate and this is then characterized as Rand Paul is a bigoted racist who would have oppose the civil rights act. Or Paul Krugman makes some mal-statement about "death panels" and Fox plays it in a loop for a week as proof the government plans for death panels as part of health care.

Nope - there is a very good reason why nearly all politicians spew only well digested pablum in interviews, and why they try to present only the polished sides in debate (or else avoid debates).

You'll have to read to understand any politicians at any depth. OTOH they often lie in their writings too. I suggest you lookup up Obama's campaign energy "bluebook" on the wayback to see a steaming pile of half-aked baloney - abandoned on day 1.

[Drachasor]

I personally think homeopathy is bunk, woo, whatever ... OTOH I have absolutely no interest in using the force of government to support a version of the medical "one-true-faith". The fact is that governments have repeatedly made vast and serous error in declaring one medical practice valid and others invalid. To my mind it's arbitrary and certainly totalitarian for a government to make such decisions. Exactly to that extent I support these alternative belief systems and oppose anyone who would seek to use the power of state to abolish them.

We're talking about Medical Science here. It's not made-up witch-doctor claptrap like homeopathy or the like.

Or are you against teaching evolution in the schools too? Do you also have reservations about physics? Maybe we should teach the alternative crap to those too. We also need a return of alchemy.

Let's not teach people that 2+2=4 either. That's just totalitarian garbage too, right?

Do you even think about what you are saying?

[stevea]

We're talking about Medical Science here. It's not made-up witch-doctor claptrap like homeopathy or the like.

Or are you against teaching evolution in the schools too? Do you also have reservations about physics? Maybe we should teach the alternative crap to those too. We also need a return of alchemy.

Let's not teach people that 2+2=4 either. That's just totalitarian garbage too, right?

Do you even think about what you are saying?

Do you comprehend how weak and incomplete medical science is compared to physics of chemistry ? Do you understand why the certainty that 2+2=4 is categorically different from the results of the physical sciences ? No - you are one of the unwashed illiterati - you know nothing of science except that it's always tentative conclusions deserve your blind closed-minded faith. You think science is a religion, and you want the state to dictate it's conclusions.

To answer your idiotic question - yes I support the right to question all of science; in exactly the way Einstein demolished Newtonian physics - all of science is open to revision based on new observation. In your totalitarian science-faith that sort of fact based revision is not politically possible.

All of science changes regularly. Mostly "around the edges" but sometimes to the core. The model that science presents today is not the same model that will appear in a few years nor in the past - it changes regularly. It can never represent more than a current-evidence-consistent model that follows certain minimal precondition precepts.

--
Consider for the moment the controversy of the optimal mix of macronutrients (fat, protein, carbs) in the human diet. Or consider the very weak evidence and the optimal amounts of minerals and co-factors in the diet (iodine and zinc). Or consider saturated fats - looked on as carcinogenic for a few decades and then recent large scale studies show this is probably false. Yes there is some evidence on these topics, but not enough to allow a government to dictate your intake.

Homeopathy certainly does NOT make the cut when we are considering rational evidenced based theories of medicine, but freedom can only mean the freedom to choose things that others find wrongheaded.

So yes - I choose freedom, even if some people will act very foolishly to my way of thinking. I reject the idea of a government forcing it's scientific conclusions on anyone.

BTW - I'm a physicist.

=====

Back on topic - Ron Paul may or may not believe in homeopathy, Supporting it's right to be practiced does not demonstrate he is an adherent.

Many ppl on this thread expressed an amazing bias - pointing to Ron Pauls reported woo beliefs about medicine as a disqualification on economic matters, while totally ignoring that nearly all other politicians and most of the population express equally kookie woo beliefs. This selective ire is almost certainly due to their political opposition to RP, which rather deflates their arguments.

[elbe]

Many ppl on this thread expressed an amazing bias - pointing to Ron Pauls reported woo beliefs about medicine as a disqualification on economic matters, while totally ignoring that nearly all other politicians and most of the population express equally kookie woo beliefs. This selective ire is almost certainly due to their political opposition to RP, which rather deflates their arguments.

Yes, I know tu quoque arguments are fun.

Anyways, I seem to recall people actually talking about Paul's own economic positions. Something about them being not actually reflective of reality.

[jakesteele]

One thing I've never understood about all the hate against Ron Paul is if he's so bad, how on earth did the get into the position of head of the House subcommittee that oversees monetary policy? Do you pundits know something that the people instrumental for his position don't know? You should email them with the facts.

[Chaos]

One thing I've never understood about all the hate against Ron Paul is if he's so bad, how on earth did the get into the position of head of the House subcommittee that oversees monetary policy? Do you pundits know something that the people instrumental for his position don't know? You should email them with the facts.

So, in other words, you admit that all his arguments are worthless, and the only reason he might not be a total nutter is because he´s a member of some subcommittee?

[JihadJane]

So, in other words, you admit that all his arguments are worthless, and the only reason he might not be a total nutter is because he´s a member of some subcommittee?


What psychiatric qualifications do you have?

[timhau]

One thing I've never understood about all the hate against Ron Paul is if he's so bad, how on earth did the get into the position of head of the House subcommittee that oversees monetary policy?

In politics, party affiliation + interest + seniority trumps expertise (and it's not even close).

[Chaos]

What psychiatric qualifications do you have?

I have something which is much more suitable for evaluating Ron Paul´s ideas: economic qualifications. Which, I might add, Ron Paul himself lacks completely.

[CDFingers]

I find nothing wrong or amiss about a requested Fed audit by Paul. I hope he can pull it off.

CDFingers

[Chaos]

I find nothing wrong or amiss about a requested Fed audit by Paul. I hope he can pull it off.

CDFingers

I am sure you would also not find anything amiss with an audit of NASA by Richard Hoagland and Bart Sibrel?

[CDFingers]

The Fed and NASA hail from two different kettles of fish. I think such a comparison has no merit for many reasons.

An audit of the Fed could uncover malfeasance with our money, which affects the national economy. That exactly is why the powers that be are reluctant to pursue an audit. I welcome it. NASA's budget compared to the Fed is a ten cent piece compared to an 80 pound bar of gold.

CDFingers