Ron Paul to Congress: End the Fed




Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives

Statement on Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act

February 3, 2009

Madame Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America’s economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.

From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the current economic crisis caused by the housing bubble, every economic downturn suffered by this country over the past century can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial “boom” followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.

With a stable currency, American exporters will no longer be held hostage to an erratic monetary policy. Stabilizing the currency will also give Americans new incentives to save as they will no longer have to fear inflation eroding their savings. Those members concerned about increasing America’s exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation.

Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of special interests and their own appetite for big government.

Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.

In fact, Congress’ constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation’s founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true freemarket economy.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans’ standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.



style="display:inline-block;width:728px;height:90px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-3666212842414688"
data-ad-slot="9478233584">

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

137 Comments:

  1. American's switch over there 401k into savings bonds(national deficit).. As of 2009, regular working american's have invested 6.4 trillion dollars in bonds or our debt, because it can be a very wise investment. So over half our deficit comes from the incomes of hard working people. It is just natural that the deficit will rise as more savings get put in. Savings bonds doubled in the past 10 years because it is considered as a safe haven for money...

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. The saving investments or the deficit or treasury securities really dont just depend on the value of the dollar... You compare the dollar to gdp. When there is dollar is weak and gdp is high, you really want to invest. When the dollar is weak and gdp is low, its a bad decision to invest in treasuries.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. as long as the value of the dollar doesn't drop, the investment is good.. For those who are worry about the dollar, there are inflation risk free bonds.. The reason the dollars been losing value is bc of our trade deficit and oil makes up 50% of our deficit. So thats our problem.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • There's no such thing as risk free anything when it comes to investments. Gold, silver, agriculture, and oil are looking pretty damn good at the moment though.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • "Inflation-indexed bonds (also known as inflation-linked bonds or colloquially as linkers) are bonds where the principal is indexed to inflation. They are thus designed to cut out the inflation risk of an investment."-wiki

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • I don't care what they're DESIGNED to do. Completely eliminating risk from an investment is an impossibility. Especially when you have governments and central banks lying about the rate of inflation. Remember, inflation is an expansion in the supply of money/credit.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • The return value on bonds is adjusted to the CPI, the consumer price index which is the way to mesure inflation, or the rise in general level of prices of goods and services.. They guarantee you that money. This is paid for out of like 2% of our tax dollars.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. It is very difficult to debate with Sean because he operates with the wrong definition of inflation. Anyway...

    "we haven’t printed enough money to pay for our trade imbalances."

    This is an impossibility. Imports have to be paid for with exports. You can't just print money to pay trade imbalances. It doesn't work like that. Sure you can fool people for a while (and the gov/fed have) but eventually the other countries say enough is enough. This is why I stated that it appears you think Money = Wealth. Because you do!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • agreed! Wealth is somehow associated with money, it's sad we think this way.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • You should check out our trade deficit. This means that we import this much more than we export.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USTrade1991-2005.png

      There are plenty of Federal Reserve hearings to the government and published articles from the Federal Reserve warning us of our trade deficit. Alan Greenspan Warned President Bush. There was nothing he could do so he said he welcomed the trade deficit and said it would balance itself out.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • again, you should read up on savings bonds.. Warren Buffet has 100% of his net worth invested in the deficit. You know why??? because thats one of the best investments you can make.. My grandfather was an insurance accountant for 50 years and he always invested in saving bonds.. Other countries make alot of their money off our bonds so they like to keep there money invested in the deficit. That plus the better investment saving bonds are 30 year contracts, so they can't just take there money back. MOst of those who make money off it chose to rollover their bonds when time elapses... Just sign new contracts.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Someone please ban this rat “Sean” and his rate teammates.

    Thanks.

    D. Dixon

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Someone please ban this rat “Sean”.

    Thanks.

    D. Dixon

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • ban me? because i'm right? because i'm the only person who actually knows what they are talking about? this is the reason why nobody knows about our problem, because the media "bans" this type of knowledge. Your trying to replace truth with ignorance. If not, i would like to hear oppsing statements. I'm a very nice person and would love to debate friendly about these things. Calling people names is just immature. I understand that most of the people on this web page are young, but I was under impression the that they were grown up. If you can't handle a debate, than please step out of our conversation and let us be. I have the same rights to be here as you, please respect me as I would love to treat you with the same.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. ok, first of all.. The fed sets interest rates and controls the supply of money. The interest rates effect exchange rates, or the value of the dollar.. This is a tool to combat core inflation. This is very important to stabalizing our money.. The fed uses precausions to control our spending thru the supply of money.. This is the same exact theory behind the gold standard, to control spending and save the value of the dollar... The problem is that we have to spend money on gas because its how the economy functions, so we have to create and spend money in order to keep everything working. Driving to work; delivering goods etc.. Well we keep trying to save the value of the dollar and control spending, but its really out of control. Its gotten out of hand for any monetary system.. If we went back to the gold standard, we would limit the amount of cash being put into the economy and too much would be taken out through our trade imbalances. This is the importance of fiat money. It can replace the money spent over seas, but as the trade deficit grows, we have to print more money and devalue the dollar which is what all monetary theorist try to contorl, but you can't control our demand for gas. It is a necessity, we depend on it, wheather our money is backed by gold or nothing.. If it was backed by gold, the saudi's would have gained control over most of our gold.. Peak oil occured in the sixties and i would bet my life that the gold standard was abolished because of future import obligations.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • "The fed sets interest rates and controls the supply of money" How is this good? For a private company and yes they are very private, to control our money system?

      "Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws." — Mayer Amsched Rothchild

      The laws the FED makes far out weigh any law.

      "The problem is that we have to spend money on gas because its how the economy functions" You do realize that there are oil independant nations. There is no reason why we can't either.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Someone has to control the money... We ran out of oil. Check out the peak oil website. Thats why we started going to saudi arabia for oil. We used to be the largest exporters of oil in the world. We were considered the saudi arabia but we've pretty much ran out.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. I don't even know where to being, you close minded person. "You have to print or borrow money to pay for the gas". Really? I never knew money had such value, guess i'll buy a printing press myself! No! Goods have the value, it's the simple fact that I don't want to trade my "corn" for things I want. So we indtroduced money so trade could be easier. "printing money didn’t cause the shortage of money"... I think you answered your own question there. I think you ment to say, printing the money didn't cause the devaluation of money. Here look at how much money we have today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ8q8YBJZ2A. We have plenty, there is not a shortage only a shortage on value.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • printing money did devalue the dollar. we had to print money to pay for the trade deficits.. Or run our american empire as ron paul would say. live beyond our means..

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • if we cut our trade deficit in half. GDP would raise to 25%... That would be the largest growth rate in history.. Instead our gdp is being taken from other countries thru trade. Our country isn't growing because other countries are taking our wealth and money. Wasn't it you who said that production brings wealth to a country?? Well saudi arabia is producing, not us. They are gaining wealth or taking it from us.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • I'm a different Nate, I'm Nate D

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • well, its true. Wouldn't you say saudi arabia is wealthy, or the leaders of saudi arabia are wealthy? Where do you think they aquired that wealth? They took it away from other countries bc of their raw materials. The world spends about 150 Billion dollars a month on oil, or 1.8 Trillion dollars a year.. We spend .45 Trillion a year on oil.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Month after month, year after year we give away money. In the past 10 years we would have roughly spent 5 trillion dollars on oil.. You have to wonder how we can afford that, or replace that money.. We have to turn on the printing machine faster and faster to keep up. The problem is, we havn't been able to print enough money and our trade deficits have caught up and bankrupted us.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Yes, they are wealthy because they are providing goods (tangible items). I agree that it is unhealthy for us to continue purchasing oil, but what does that have to do with the topic of abolishing the FED? Give me some reasons why the FED it not a bad thing? Seriously? Otherwise I think your posts will better serve the alternative fuels threads. Go there and tell them how much we waste on oil, and how that money could go towards the developing of new scientific breakthroughs for alternative fuel. That's the only way you can fix this oil problem. PERIOD.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Someone please ban this rat "Sean".

    Thanks.

    D. Dixon

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • someone please ban this rat dick.
      He keeps posting the same thing over and over and is not contributing to the conversations.

      Thanks,
      Sean

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. You have to print or borrow money to pay for the gas, just like we do the war except gas cost 4 times as much.. Where else is the money going to come from?... i guess even an idiot can understand that.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • I do want a revolution but you have to understand that printing money didn't cause the shortage of money, or recession we are in right now.. It was the outragous trade deficit that all economists from all sides of the isle have been warning us about for years.. Even ron paul really focused on the trade deficit at the beginning of his presidential debates and still does to a certain degree.. Oil consumption is responsible for 50% of our trade deficit. Its like a cut that slowly never stops bleeding. Blood, or money will be replaced, but eventually there will be so much blood loss that the body cannot withstand it anymore.

      http://www.usagold.com/analysis/disturbing-trends-2007.html

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • No one is arguing that the printing of money caused the shortage of money. Why is no one arguing that? Because it makes absolutely no sense. It is impossible in increase (print) and decrease the supply at the same time.

        The problem is that there is TOO MUCH money and credit. That is, too much inflation and too much borrowing. But you don't understand inflation so I don't know why I bother.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • You have to understand what the trade deficit does, it removes money from our overall money supply, gives to other countries, and gets exchanged for foreign currencies. So we give away money... A recession happens when there is too much demand for money and not enough supply.. The point is, we haven't printed enough money to pay for our trade imbalances.

          "[U]nder the placid surface there are disturbing trends: huge imbalances, disequilibria, risks -- call them what you will. Altogether the circumstances seem to me as dangerous and intractable as any I can remember, and I can remember quite a lot. What really concerns me is that there seems to be so little willingness or capacity to do much about it. . . We are skating on thin ice."

          - Paul Volcker, Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve
          Barack Obama's Economic Advisor.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Huh...

            While the Fed is one of many problems, it is a huge problem. And, I suspect, that there are layers upon layers of evil dealings there. Historical analysis of the Fed and it's market manipulations and it's inexplicable secrecy leaves no other conclusions. This may sound as though I am a "Conspiracy Theorist". Please read Webster's dictionary for the word conspiracy. Secrecy of any sort, in a Democratic Republic, is inadmissable and immoral.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • well, everyones arguing that printing money caused this problem, to run our american empire as ron paul would say.. Well we have to print money to pay for gas, or "run our empire." The problem is not that we created too much money, but that we have to continue printing money to keep up with the money spent over seas.. With high interest rates to combat foreign exchange bc of our large deficits, it has been impossible to create new money.. The problem goes in circles if you can really understand delimma, or the equally undesirable alternatives.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. Just ignore this idiot. What does oil have to do with printing money? If you want to solve oil consumption then look to the things that consume it. Why do we use cars that still use oil? Because it makes a lot of money for some rich people. Including the companies we just bailed out. Ron Paul is trying to fix the base of the problem, not everything associated with it's causes. Wake up you dumb Britains, oh what wrong with the king (Fed) taking our money. History repeats its self. It's time for a revolution, and if you don't like it then continue doing what you are doing.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Someone please ban this rat "Sean" and his rat teammates.

    They are polluting every topic on this forum.

    Thank you.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • We can't ban them. I'm just happy that no one gives the slightest weight to their arguments. Pretty much everyone who posts here can destroy the nonsensical ideas they advertise anyway. So it's all good.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Check every topic on this forum, to see useless spam from this rat "Sean and his rat teammates...

    They are here to pollute the forum with garbage to take people off discussing the truth...

    Please ban this rat "Sean" and his rat teammates...

    Thank you.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. you don't even know your freedoms... freedom of speech, there should be a freedom of ignorance. That would eliminate you.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. you can't even come up with one thoughtful idea..

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. what is the truth? what did i say wasn't true? your never going to be free because oil has you grabbed by the balls, not the government.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • The oil that is imported here to the Americas are bought by American dollars. Those who supply the oil are, and will not be willing to accept inflated American dollars because of its inflated (or imaginary) value.

      Oil is an intrument, such as dollars (i.e. current paper money) that moves the industry (literally and logically speaking), and it is true that the injection of money does stimulate the economy. But for you to say that is is necessary to continue to inflate dollars to keep up with the deterioration of oil is illucid (for me that is), because it is as though you are saying we should back (inflate) our dollars with oil, instead of a ideally fixed resource, such as gold, silver, precious metals, or any limited valuable resource on this earth.

      Oil is essential for it's ability to combust energy, and because of that we can harness the energy it provides. Even you Sean, have said that oil is depleting, so why continue to waste our energy and money trying to harvest what is depleting or being exploited rapidly? Why not place your argument (if there is one), on renewable or green fuel sources (i.e. wind, solar, and water)?

      Please explain your logic,
      Anon

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • I have placed many arguments on alternative resources.. I don't think its good to continue inflating the dollar. I don't think there is much we can do other than turn to alternative fuels.. We can't get off the fiat currency because it is supporting the oil. If we switched monetary policies, it would bankrupt us. THe gold standard was removed because the trade deficit went up after running out of oil in the sixties.. Fiat money is the only way that will work.. We r going to have to turn to alternative fuels if we want to change our money policies.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Yet another contradiction! You don't think it's good to inflate the dollar but you want a fiat currency backed by legal tender laws?! This makes no sense. Why? Well if you had the slightest shred of common sense and the vaguest idea of human action, you'd know that this deadly combo inevitably leads to the redistribution of wealth, most of the wealth in the hands of very few people, trade imbalances, wars, civil unrest, unemployment, stifled innovation and production, etc.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • I don't want fiat currency! I never said i did, I said its the only way for us to continue purchasing oil. We have to have a fiat currency or else we will give all our money away. I don't know how many times i've said that. We need to fix our oil dependency and then we can go back to commodity backed money. Thats why we changed money in the first place. We have to fix our problem to change it back.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • I don't know where you get off thinking that i want fiat currency and that i want all of this to happen. I'm a rational thinker, I understand that we can't just change our monetary policies to fix our spending problem.. Your trying to build a massive building without a foundation. That building is going to sink into the ground. You have to understand that construction has to develop with specific steps in certain orders to be built correct.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Okay then. Good that you don't want a fiat currency. But this idea that a fiat currency is "the only way for us to continue purchasing oil" is completely ridiculous. Why in the world would those selling oil (or anything for that matter) prefer a fiat currency (with the inflation and loss of purchasing power that comes with it) over commodity/certificate money? I can't see why they would in a free marketplace. However, let's at least find out. What people are arguing for isn't a government decree that we return to the gold standard. All they're asking for is to repeal legal tender laws and let private curriencies backed up by a commodity or commodities compete with the fiat currency. If what you say is true, and the only way for us to purchase oil is through counterfeit federal reserve notes, then fiat dollars will win and the private currencies will disappear.

            You have to understand that efficient economies come about organically through the free market. That is, as the result of trillions of individual value judgments made by billions of people. These value judgments cannot by their nature be quantified. Your building analogy is really an argument for central economic planning. But economies can't be planned or engineered. You have to put your engineer's mind on hold for a bit and start looking at economies from a standpoint of human action. You can't understand economics through the same framework we understand chemistry, physics, or their application (engineering) because those sciences do not involve rational agents (humans) acting in their own self-interest.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • We would run out of money if it wasn't fiat. Thats the whole point of the system, to create money out of thin air so we wont run out because of our foreign dependency..

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • We don't produce enough commodities to support our dependence. Thats why it wouldn't work. How do you know that foreign countries wouldn't just ask for our commodities in exchange for american dollars that we give them in our trade deficit? They could take control and own America.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • You or whoever could make their own currency, the question is who is going to create and fund it, and who is going accept it if it doesn't work with the banks money..

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • The argument that we would run out of commodity money is false. Why? Because prices adjust. You can have a completely stable money supply and never run out of it. What happens when more goods/services are produced in an economy with a stable money supply? Prices go down. There would be absolutely no need to worry about running out of money if a commodity (like gold) was chosen as the preferred currency.

            Also, it doesn't need to work with the banks money (fiat dollars). That's the whole point! The private currency(ies) would be competing with the banks' money not working with it.

            You have to begin to understand that it is the fiat currency that allows trade deficits to get out of control, redistributes wealth, wipes out the middle class, etc. Combine it with fractional reserve banking (which is the source of speculative bubbles) and you get superbubbles that last for a long time but when they pop (as they always do) effectively destroy the world and unleash hellish amounts of misery on the people.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Read this...

            http://mises.org/story/1914

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • I understand sound money, I think we should have it, but the trade deficit does make it impossible. The deficit effects our monetary policies, not the other way around... Money supply doesn't "run out," it spreads out, to foreign countries making less available here, until it would bankrupt us...
            Misses and all other Austrian philosphers could not comprehend the trade deficit we racked up. They were probably thinking more rational numbers, so they excused trade deficits with more investments. But the gap between our trade deficit and new comming investments is deterorating. We give away 1,000,000,000,000 dollars more than we recieve every year. We give that much more to other countries than we take in. Its only common sense to realize that we can't afford these figures.
            I understand that any new currency would compete with the banks, but 100% of people owe the bank money, and the banks wont accept any currency other than its own. So you couldn't make a house payment, car payment, etc.. Money works in the free market also, anyone can open their own bank and create their own currency, but people don't because 1. opening a bank is the riskiest investment you could possibly make.. 2. You can only create so much currency to wealth you have, so any individuals currency can't expand beyond their wealth. The likely hood that you would see a currency large enough to compete with the dollar is slim to nothing.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • You should look up the word protectionsim. This is one option that other countries are warning us not to do because it would help us, but hurt the world economy..

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Our forefathers were against free trade, so was abraham lincoln and all other republicans, it wasn't until the democrats took control and started our free trade trend and it became accepted.. Now it has become a burden on society.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • You're completely wrong again. Protectionism doesn't work. It leads to retaliation and trade wars. Often, trade wars lead to hot wars. Protectionism would not be good for us, it would further impoverish the country.

            Also, a person can't open a new bank and create a new currency. In order for that to happen, legal tender laws would have to be repealed.

            Also, your posts make absolutely no sense and are not founded in reality. If 100% of the people owe the banks money, how in the hell would opening a bank be the riskiest investment you could possibly make. Your thinking is so muddled and confused it's impossible to respond. It's like reading postmodern garbage or religious apologist nonsense.

            You are the one who has it backwards. The monetary policy allows the deficits to get out of control. Again you confuse cause and effect. It's quite understandable since you tend to do it in all of your economic thinking. The perfect example is your misunderstanding of inflation.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Botttom line, who is going to fund a banking system that gives all its money away.. 100% was an exaggeration if your not smart enough to tell... Again you have it backwards, we print money to pay for the things we need, we don't need things because we pring money. That makes no sense whatsoever, but i give you a C for effort.

            American School of Economics..

            “1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and some include through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
            2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
            3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises.[8][9][10][11]

            It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program.[12] The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.

            The American School’s key elements were promoted by John Q. Adams and his National Republican Party, Henry Clay and the Whig Party, and Abraham Lincoln through the early Republican Party which embraced, implemented, and maintained this economic system.[13]

            During its American System period the United States grew into the largest economy in the world with the highest standard of living, surpassing the British Empire by the 1880s.” wiki

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Your saying that you want it back to how it was before the federal reserve, well this is how it was. I'm sorry if you can't comprehend the limitations of monetary policy with free trade. This is obviously all way over your head. You don't understand a bit of monetary policies and your trying to make solid arguments. I'm sorry but your just wrong.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • You have no idea what you're talking about. Everyone here knows you just spout nonsense. You have no understanding of economics or sound monetary policies no matter how many wiki quotes you post.

            Let's just list a few of your absurd beliefs:

            Inflation is higher prices
            Monetary policy isn't a cause of trade deficits
            Tariffs/protectionism is good for the US (or any country)
            Our Forefathers were against free trade
            Money is wealth

            Don't even try to deny any of these. Your posts already prove you do and everyone can see it.

            Also, where did I say or even imply that we need products because we're printing money? What?! You are the worst kind of debator. You provide nothing but unintelligible positions and when you respond to others posts, you straw man their arguments. No one here buys your nonsense. It appears you have worn out a few others with your jibberish. I must admit I'm growing tired of it as well. So I will be employing a new strategy.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Inflation by definition a rising level in price. Go look in any dictionary.. 2. Starting the fed ended the money system that supported sound money called the national system, or protective system, or protection policy, or protectionism. Alexander Hamilton was george washington's secretary of treasury who set up the system of sound money. When the democrats took control, they opened free trade, then abraham lincoln forced protectionism and our economy surpased all economies. Then it was replaced with the federal reserve.. I never said money was wealth, i said commodities were wealth. I'm pretty sure i said that you had to have wealth to create money since we were talking about commodity backed money. you need to think before you talk.. You have not given me one inch of proof to prove me wrong, so this is more like a one sided debate.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • check this out..

            “They say] if you had not had the Protective Tariff things would be a little cheaper. Well, whether a thing is cheap or dear depends upon what we can earn by our daily labor. Free trade cheapens the product by cheapening the producer. Protection cheapens the product by elevating the producer. Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man.

            [It is said] that protection is immoral…. Why, if protection builds up and elevates 63,000,000 [the U.S. population] of people, the influence of those 63,000,000 of people elevates the rest of the world. We cannot take a step in the pathway of progress without benefitting mankind everywhere. Well, they say, ‘Buy where you can buy the cheapest’…. Of course, that applies to labor as to everything else. Let me give you a maxim that is a thousand times better than that, and it is the protection maxim: ‘Buy where you can pay the easiest.’ And that spot of earth is where labor wins its highest rewards.”

            - Abraham Lincoln

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. Contact your representative and urge him/her to support this legislation. You may even get a response from an intern/aide haha.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. You have to realize that we have to inflate the dollar or print more money to pay for money spent over sea's on oil.. We've been running out of oil since the sixties so imports have skyrocketed. This chart is real interesting. It shows the quality of music compared to oil production.. It is true throughout history, whenever a country obtains wealth and prospers, the quality of life improves. Wealth leads to virtue.. We prove this by comparing art to the time and place it was made. Just look at Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire... We are trying to withold the age of oil, but its fading away.. So the quality of life and wealth is going to leave America.. Since the 60's we've been running out of oil. Our imports since that time is now catching up and bankrupting us. The quality of life is deteriorating only in our subconscious.

    http://johnnytron.info/files/zrclip-006n477de7a8.png

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Abolishing the fed isn't going to balance our trade and fix the economy.. Our oil deficit is going to destroy American wealth with or without the fed. Alot of people complain about the cost of the war. THat has nothing on the cost of oil... THe cost of the war is 9 billion a month. The cost of gas is 38 billion a month. It doesn't take a math genius to realize our true problem. This goes way over head of austrain and keynesian economics. This goes way over ron paul and the fed's head.

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/09/oil_prices_and_.html

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • While what you said is true about the oil, we need to start somewhere and the Fed is a darn good place to start and one that America can use right now. Then we need to start drilling right here at home. We have more than enough oil right here in the USA to supply us for hundreds of years and our owne GOVERNMENT is stopping us. What's up with that. You and I both know the answer to that. Right!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Well what u said id true we need to get off this oil for good here. “Not drill baby drill”. We got the tech well hell other countries have more gas efficient autos then us. And we are looking at old way to live and people that don’t like us are looking at new ways. Yes oil is a big issue but we need to get with the program here. We have to get red of this old way of thinking and remember we have alterative to gas. The government can A- give tax break to people who upgrade their cars to these hybrids or fuel cell eng. We can even open up some of the old inventions tesla made to see what they can do for alterative ways to give us power. Hell we got cars who are 100% battery powered now.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. This is great, you are a true HERO who fights for the people, you have my 100% support on this. GO RON PAUL!!!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


2 × = sixteen

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>