12/10/10 Baltimore, Maryland – This morning, Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX) held his first interview since being appointed chair of the House Monetary Policy Subcommittee. From what he says in the video below, he’s going “to think things through and not overdo things too soon,” but ultimately plans to stick to his guns, and “emphasize the oversight of the Federal Reserve.”
He also points out why he views his new role as important in these times…
“Obviously, it is very popular with the American people to audit the Fed and know what they’re doing when they can spend trillions of dollars and we don’t know where it goes. They have a bigger budget; they spend more money than the Congress does. Yet, we have no oversight. It was never intended
that a secret body like this could
create money out of thin air spend to take care of some banks and big
business and foreign banks and the
American people struggle? We have to look into it and we have to start to consider reforms.”
You can see and hear more details in the clip below, which came to our attention via Bloomberg Television in its recent exclusive interview with Ron Paul.
see link for video
*... all in bed together, to F us over...^ !!!
OMG... Are you aware how paranoid you sound? Maybe you should take up arms and share a bunker with, cdbuyer and his kissin cuzzin... I understand canned tuna is like wine, it gets better with age. LOL
There are inconsistencies that's for sure..
what might seem bad for Venezuela is somehow good for the US it seems.
Methinks it's maybe a political bias and who is in the WH that clouds things up a bit.
Happens on both sides of the political spectrum.
Nice try musk
There all in bed together, to F us over. The Fed, the banks, Wall St. and the Congress.(save a few souls like RP.)
My ideology went out the door of my mind about five years ago... I'm a slow learner.
Less regulation is what got us into the recent financial crisis. That is the historical record.
I try not to allow an ideological agenda to color my perception of reality. The government should not be in the business of capital allocation but it should protect citizens from the rapacious forces of the market and it should ensure the survival of the institutions which allow the economy to function.
<<I do not believe in the long term nor in the existence of free markets.>>
Just curious...How about public sector unions?
Allocation of capital by the many is an important part of why the US made such progress in the past.
I take it you prefer to have govt have more of a role in these matters because you 'trust' it to do the right thing.
I don't. I've seen far too much corruption that becomes established and that has an idirct effect of stifling innovation.
Good thing you don't believe in the long term.
<< I find reprehensible these ease with which you would put millions out of work and into an economic wasteland.>>
What you fail to see is that misallocation of capital over the LT can have even more disastrous impacts on the economy and jobs and govt generally has a poor record in that regard.
The greater good is what this is all about and history is on the side of less govt and less regulation, not more.
That's the historical record.
Of course, there are lots of gray areas but in the end, it comes down to just how much overall govt we should have (including how much infuence it should have) and right now it seems to me it's pretty clear that there's too much govt.
Note the differences in states' and cities' economic performance vs their style of governance and influence.
When govt can't pay its bills on a current basis over the business cycle and keeps adding to the debt at a rate faster than the economy is growing, it's time to look in the mirror.
Countries like Greece illustrate what can go wrong and there are many others that will rear their ugly heads in the next year or two.
And we'll see the same thing in various states and cities because of many of the same reasons.
Keep in mind, the financial picure is worse than we are told because of creative accounting.
At some point, we have to stop bailing out those that aren't responsible or we run the risk of failure of the country as a whole.
And loss of lots more jobs.
You favor bailing out California, Illinois et al by increasing taxes on states that acted responsibly?
Where will you invest your $$ if that happens?
Outside of the US?
Do you also favor capital controls and restrictions on where US citizens can invest?
1. I do not believe in rewarding bad behavior but I do believe in saving those who have suffered collateral damage as a result of the acts of others.
2. As an institution, the Fed has become more transparent over the course of its existence and the current Fed is the the most transparent ever.
3. My investment returns are a minor influence on my perception of things in the real world. Generally, I try to rely on data, the facts. Current economic policy has been effective at meeting its goals of underpinning the financial system and promoting economic activity. The facts support this conclusion. Its worth noting that my investment returns have depended on being mostly long, as opposed to short, and mostly US investments, as opposed to EMs.
4. I do not believe in the long term nor in the existence of free markets.
5. I believe the institutions of Wall Street needed to be saved, but that many more of the leaders of those institutions should have been punished.
6. You suggest I am selfish, but I find reprehensible these ease with which you would put millions out of work and into an economic wasteland. You want to dish out pain, but you do not seem to care who suffers -- including yourself. This is similar to the psychological profile of suicide bombers.
7. I think we can agree to disagree.
I know you have me on iggy so, please, don't respond.
You wrote: "The notion of letting *natural processes* rule our economic life is even more absurd than the notion of free markets."
You consider the free market system an "absurd...notion"?
What system do you prefer or are YOU working toward?
When you see Chinese Aircraft Carriers; coming on line in July '11'; off the East Coast you, now, have someone to blame. That would be you Musk, you dirt bag. When China starts selling TBs on the open market and the dollar goes to zero, we now have someone to blame; other than the Fed. douche.
Musk, if you don't see the damage that Bernanke is doing by bailing out WS with the printing presses and virtually rewarding bad behaviour, there's not much I can say to convince you.
And I don't mean just the formallly announced bailout plans and programmes.
there have been undisclosed activities that dwarf the scale and scope of the announced programmes that should bother the hell out of you.
Yet you believe in transparency???
You seem like an intelligent enough guy but it seems to me you are looking at your very recent investment returns and are using that as a guage to evaluate policy over most everything else.
i prefer to look at things from a more LT (and less selfish) perspective and I honestly believe bad behaviour should not be rewarded.
Issues related to moral hazard here are not lost on me and free markets must be allowed to work.
wall street banks equity should be allowed to be wiped out just like should have(but didn't) happen at GM.
Do you support what happened at GM in order to bail out union interests because if you do, there's no way we see eye to eye on how markets should work.
Bondholders would have been waiting in the wings of GM (and these WS banks) and I would much prefer that reorganizations were made after some pain had been dished out.
Pain is important. It reinforces lessons.
It also forces business to downsize and refocus when it becomes necessary ...with an eye on the pain that was previously suffered.
But instead we see central planning( US style)...the sort of thing you might criticize if it was say in Brazil???
*the Fed is doing is a lot more damage to the currency than loose fiscal policy right now.*
I am not sure what you mean by this?
I think we agree that the dollar is relatively weak right now and likely to get weaker -- at least against EM currencies. This is ok, IMO. A weak dollar is in our national interest... good for exporters, good for repatriating profits, good for sellers of domestic assets.
There is no serious inflation problem at this time and none for the foreseeable future. So, what damage are you talking about? Or is this just part of the conspiracy that will hurt us then, at some point?