Ron Paul: Greenspan is Responsible

On February 17, Ron Paul was interviewed by Dom Giordano on 1210 Big Talker Radio (Philadelphia).

In the interview, Ron Paul reveals the name of the person who is most responsible for the crisis, condemns the scaremongering tactics and planned takeover by Obama and his cronies, and reports on the shenanigans surrounding the passage of the stimulus bill.

Youtube Part 1 | Part 2

Station: 1210 AM The Big Talker
Host: Dom Giordano
Date: 2/17/2009


Dom Giordano: We’re happy to welcome back Representative Ron Paul, Congressman Ron Paul in the Big Talker 1210; Congressman welcome back.

Ron Paul: Thank you good to be with you.

Dom Giordano: Well Congressman, I had Bill Press on last night. Every prominent person I bring on, we’ve been asking them, coming off TIME magazine, who are the one, two or three people, because there are a lot of them I guess, that are responsible if you had to sort out responsibility for where we are now?

Ron Paul: Of course, sometimes I think immediately about the philosophy that does it rather than the individual.

Dom Giordano: Okay.

Ron Paul: But who were the individuals that did it? But philosophically it’s the economic system we have of interventionism and inflationism and the Federal Reserve. But I would put the person who’s had the biggest contribution to the bubble was Alan Greenspan.

Dom Giordano: Greenspan, yup, and for what reason? What did he do?

Ron Paul: Well because he was there so long, and every single time the market was saying things are getting out of kilter and out of whack and the market wanted to correct, he would inflate more and aggressively and not allow any correction to happen; so he kept the bubble going much longer. So his sophistication in preventing the recessions actually created the situation to be much worse than we’ve ever had before. So I think he’s on the top of the list.

After that I have to look to both the Congresses and the Executive Branch, and I would think the Republicans were every bit as responsible as the Democrats, because unfortunately during the last 8 years Bush didn’t veto one single spending bill. When you run up deficits you put more pressure on the Alan Greenspans to print the money, and that’s where the bubble comes around. So I don’t put more blame on Clinton than I do on Bush, and then if you look at all the Speakers of the House for the last 25, 30 years you have to blame them as well.

Dom Giordano: You’re rolling. I think we should make you the commissioner; I’m looking for a commissioner. You’d be the perfect guy because you go after all of them Dr. Paul.

Ron Paul: Yes, but what about the people? Maybe you could blame the people too they’re the ones who wanted freebies. They want the free welfare and corporate welfare.

Dom Giordano: The American consumer but our listeners have given it zero so far, but TIME magazine has the American consumer in fifth place. They haven’t blamed you; I don’t think you ever will be for this. Let me ask, in your view, how much of this was fuelled by the Housing Crisis and then how much by the separation between the bank and the bank investment type of thing? Those are the two principle causes a lot of people throw at.

Ron Paul: The separation has nothing to do with it. I mean, it seemed to have because there was so much inflation, but if you have sound money people can’t speculate and overextend themselves, so I don’t think that is it. Now the housing bubble, they say the housing bubble was the cause. That was one of the major symptoms; it was just one of the things that had been severely inflated. Actually our corrections finally got a foothold in the year 2000; that’s when NASDAQ collapsed, you know up to 5000 and that never recovered just because DOW went back up again and touched on new highs.

The real message came in the year 2000 and then, once again Greenspan comes in and he says, “Wow this is dangerous, I got to really print the money.” And so he goes full force and he says “Create one more bubble; the housing bubble,” and he was able to do that. The Housing bubble was just a symptom just like the NASDAQ was a symptom, but right now the big bubble is in the Treasury bills and that’s Bernanke’s bubble. People are still buying Treasury bills and parking their money and hesitant to spend it and invest it and do all those things that free markets are supposed to do, so we had a very bad time with Greenspan creating the bubble. But Bernanke is every bit as dangerous now because he’s on the verge of totally destroying the dollar.

Dom Giordano: When we got to the middle of September, Congressman Paul, did you think, even if it was the wrong corrective, did you think we were facing any kind of economic Armageddon? Was that overblown in your view, or do we have real fundamental problems because of all these things that were done that we were going toward a collapse?

Ron Paul: Well, I think it was very, very serious but I think they used it to overstate it to promote what they wanted, not to do the right thing. Now it was very serious, but if you had done the right thing you should have told the people “Look it’s tough. It’s just like if you spend too much you have to go back to work and pay off your debt, and we as a nation can do it. We’ve done it before. It will take up a year or so and there’s going to be some unemployment,” and reassure them that we can all get back on our feet. Cut the taxes, cut the spending, reduce regulations and it wouldn’t have been so bad. But they weren’t intending to do that they wanted to expand the government especially you know, with this new administration. I mean, has Obama come in and said “Oh you know, things are okay and tomorrow it’ll be alright.”? You know, he’s scaring the death out of everybody because he wants to take charge. He and his cronies want to take total control of everything, and even today the speech he gave I mean it just scares, it should scare everybody about how much the government’s taking over. I mean we are moving rapidly toward total nationalization.

Dom Giordano: Yeah I think that’s exactly right. Now before we go forward and take listeners inside the stimulus, you put up a video and I’d like you to tell them where people can find the video, where they can do an extended basis, lay out what it was like going through the stimulus.

Ron Paul: The one video that was watched a whole lot is up on the [also on Youtube; transcript here]

Dom Giordano:, okay.

Ron Paul: Right. It might not be right at the top of the page now you might have to go down a little but it can be found on

Dom Giordano: Now what was it like for you, you have to be crawling the walls given your position on a lot of these things, that you weren’t able to offer amendments? I guess there wasn’t much real debate as they surged toward… And was it true, this had to be voted on Friday because Speaker Pelosi was headed off to Italy?

Ron Paul: Well, that’s all we, you know, part of it, but they wanted it before we took that break, because we were not in session this week, so that was probably the biggest motivation. The fact that we had a break, people had these trips planned, so there’s probably been a lot of people making trips. I happened to be in my district here in Texas. But they needed to get it down into this momentum type of thing, and Obama going out there and parading around and bragging how much they’ve done in this short of period of time. And when I look at what they do, it just depresses me on what they’re doing here or there, they’re chanting and cheering on how wonderful, how much they’ve achieved in these short few weeks.

Dom Giordano: Doctor Paul, with your words now I’m following the poll in real time on my website. The American consumer has shot up now to be 7% of the problem and Bill Clinton has dropped 40%. You’re a magic maker here, you can run elections here in my show and Alan Greenspan now is at 13%. He was a…

Ron Paul: And they put Bernanke real close to him.

Dom Giordano: What do you see, what can you tell me because I had on the woman who at best in the popular media of exposed the notion, there were healthcare restrictions in here that could lead to some pretty serious stuff. What do you think is in there as far as the healthcare restrictions they’re going with through the government?

Ron Paul: What they’ve done is they’ve opened up a new database and the Federal Government will control it, and the way I understand it every transaction will have to be reported to the Federal Government. That means if I’m the physician and you’re the patient, anything we do or say or touch, there’s going to be a record of this to make sure that I gave you the right advice, and gave you the right medication, and didn’t overstep my bounds, didn’t use more expensive medicine than I have to. It is a huge bureaucracy. If anybody cares about the doctor-patient relationship, they should be very, very concerned because it’s been undermined for decades now. But what they’re doing now is really practically destroying it, totally and completely.

Dom Giordano: And I believe also in there we were told that there’s also this notion of forcing physicians like you to follow so-called best practices. In other words, you know, you don’t have this idea of what your doctor might use in his judgment. You’re going to have a computer model to contain cost. That’s also in there.

Ron Paul: Right. And you know, medicine has become very defensive. I’m not currently practicing but early in my career I didn’t worry about it, but later on everything that I did, especially since I was an O.B. it was, “Hmmm how is this going to be interpreted tomorrow? If something goes wrong, out of my control, out of everybody’s control, but if it goes wrong, how am I going to explain it to the attorneys?” So first you had the attorneys, now you’re going to have to explain it to the bureaucrats. Because if you don’t fulfil their protocol they’ll come in and suspend your license, they’ll put you on a blacklist and all kinds of things. So there’s going to be a lot of people who won’t want to practice under those conditions.

Dom Giordano: We’re talking with Doctor Ron Paul, Congressman Ron Paul. I watched some of your video presentation today and in there too you talk about the notion, and I kind of share this and fingered it. You run up the bill to over a trillion of what you’re going to put in, and then when somebody cuts out a hundred billion you go, “Wow we’ve cut out the pork.” I mean it’s the oldest game in the world.

Ron Paul: Yeah, and it’s sort of a psychological trick that they play. The other thing that bothers me a whole lot was you know, the effort I made to read the bill and find the bill and it wasn’t available the night before. It became available on a website after midnight, and of course nobody’s reading a thousand-page bill at midnight. There were essentially no hard copies until the next day, there were 5 total for the whole House. They were on the House floor and they were not bound, they still had scribbles on the side which were considered authentic, there was still some handwriting.

Dom Giordano: Ohh! And you’re voting on a…

Ron Paul: And we’re voting on it, but the other thing is that they went when I was checking with my staff, “Do you have it? Do you have it?” – “Oh no but we have 120 pages of it because so and so sent it to us here.” Some of the staff people who were their friends, they take care of their friends and they send copies of it out to the lobbyists. So the lobbyists through the banks or some other groups sent it to my staff and that’s how I got the information.

Dom Giordano: Wow.

Ron Paul: If that isn’t an insult, I don’t know what is.

Dom Giordano: I’m loving the handwriting on the side too, and this is what we’re voting 800 billion dollars on.

Ron Paul: Yes right, there you go.

Dom Giordano: Doctor Paul thanks for fighting the good fight on this one. Would you please give that website where people can go and see this video?

Ron Paul:

Dom Giordano: Thanks Doctor Ron Paul. Thank you for joining us tonight.


  • Pingback: rewfarasfvmsdr()

  • Pingback: rewfarasfvmsdr()

  • phil

    All economics are manipulated and that is nothing new.In mediaeval England the King did it. He saw a boom in glove making so then realized that the hat industry needed a boost.he was no doubt involved with rich people from that industry so he therefore made a law that required everone to wear a hat in public. Obvious response, the hat industry took of like a good un creating wealth and jobs. This was a clever idea for the times and showed that manipulation can be used to produce economic benefits.We need a modern version of this without treading on individual freedoms.Our challenge is to think outside the box with radical ideas that still preserve freedom.I’m sure it can be done as mankinds history is littered with ingenious solutions to any problem thrown at us.The common man’s challenge is to forgoe entrenched and unalterable beliefs (party politics and, dare I say it-religious dogma) and broaden the mind thus enabling the seemingly impossible possible. WE are such a brilliant invention (by god or whoever) that we squander this potential on riddiculous sqabbling over petty, moronic differences.
    Regards, Phil from the UK, a USA potential greatness supporter.

  • Ken Freeman

    Sean, take your meds.

    • Missy

      No one has mentioned yet that the Fed is run by Ben Bernanke now, not Alan Greenspan. And no one wants to listen to you argue. I am a MS Finance/MA Economics major and I never heard of the campaign to end the Fed, so when I saw a bumper sticker and Ron Paul’s name, I thought I would look into it. Now all I see is two people arguing and no enlightnment, and I already have plenty of cause to be critical of Ron Paul. By the way, neither of you have metioned your credentials or why anyone should care about your opinion. Quit taking over other people’s websites and let someone else have a chance to express an opinion. And BTW, what I have read here doesn’t further Ron Paul at all.

      • Nate

        What are you talking about with this: “Quit taking over other people’s websites and let someone else have a chance to express an opinion”. Is someone not allowing you to post? I doubt it. You are free to give your opinions. Have at it.

        The reason people are speaking mainly of Greenspan and not Bernanke is because the topic being discussed is “Greenspan is Responsible”.

        Also, you won’t find much sympathy for credentials here. Especially for economics. If a math major told me 4 + 4 = 127 I would have no trouble confidently dismissing his nonsense. There is no reason to accept the words of credentialed “experts” if their views don’t hold up to scruitny.

      • Replying to the Economic Genius

        You don’t have to be an economics major to have a good understanding of economics but you do have to spend time reading and listening to different viewpoints and economic theories to make your own judgments. Also their are plenty of economists that are for ending the fed and you haven’t heard about it because the Kaynesian viewpoint is so dominant in mainstream.

  • Sean
    • Sean

      this article was written in 1987, 8 years before the world trade organization was formed. 666

  • Ross

    Greenspan was considered to be the messiah for many years because he was the court jester who could juggle debt the longest.He made the bubble stupendous.Was he aware of his foibles? and if so, he is either a blundering fool or a traitor to his country.

    • Sean

      if alan greenspan was aware of what he was doing, he could be jailed for 30 years. If its such a big deal and this 80 year old man is so evil, than why doesn’t anyone do anything about it?

      • Matthew Osten

        Must be rough to now villify Mr. Greenspan, whom is one the biggest free-market supporters of our lifetime?

        Can’t we agree that, even if you give free markets a bunch of cheap cash, in a non-inflationary environment, that the private sector completely squirreled it away and didn’t allocate it all too efficiently? And this occurred across the freaking GLOBE? Not just the US… So how are you going to marshal support if you can’t even get one modicum of domestic support…

        Wait, with reference to easy money it’s not that simple is it? The same thing is happening and the opposite is occurring? Why is it the austrian supporters now villify what is a natural process, and is STILL processing?

        Wait we still have a central bank, so what is the difference, from an austrian point of view?

        • Nate

          What are you talking about? You need write more clearly. Also you need to get your definitions straight.

          “give…a bunch of cheap cash, in a non-inflationary environment” is a contradiction if you use the proper definition of inflation.

          • Matthew Osten

            Please help me understand the different respone in the 1% central bank rates between 5 years ago and now?

            Why was easy money the culprit, when it is now even more everpresent, though we are in a wicked deflationary enviornonment?

            If it is purely the interest rate that caused what could be considered as a simple portion of a business cycle, or as you may prefer, the popping of a bubble, and we have an even lower interest rate now, why isn’t the same occurring?

            Maybe the free markets were aided and abetted by the people, the government, and not subsidized simply by cheap money.

            Listen to Volckers last speech before Columbia, if you ever stray from the Nate/Sean playpen or the Schiff/Paul radio station.

        • Sean

          good question. this is why i’ve been trying to tell people.. The value of the dollar has lots of factors. It just doesn’t lose value when we print more money, it loses value when we create more money than the people demand. The value of all goods along with money work on a supply and demand basis. right now there are alot of unemployed workers so we demand more money making it deflate, or become more valuable.. The problem was subrime lending and the fluctuation of interest rates. Banks were loaning people money for mortgages who had bad credit scores and gave them more than they could afford with unfixed interest rates, so when people had to renegotiate their contracts, they couldn’t afford the new rates.. It doesn’t matter if interest rates are low now because banks wont subprime lend anymore. They will make sure that anyone purchasing unfixed mortgages can afford future interest obligations.

  • Nate

    Lots of people place the lion’s share of the blame on Greenspan and I’m inclined to agree. He drove interest rates to absurdly low levels, printed money (inflation), bailed out LTCM, blew up the NASDAQ bubble, and blew up the housing bubble. Peter Schiff always mentions Bernanke is competing with Greenspan for the title of “worst Fed Chairman of all time”. We’ll see how it plays out. He just might pull it off. Bernanke came aboard and kept interest rates way too low, kept the bubble going, drove interest rates even lower, financed bailout after bailout, and now is blowing up a new bubble. The US Treasury bubble. When that pops, it’s going to be really nasty.

  • phil

    Hi everone from the UK.Please let me join this thread with a general but important message.
    I’m just a small guy in a small town in a small country. I just want you to know that Mr Paul’s message is so important that he must be listened to worldwide.He is relatively unknown in the UK, certainly by the masses.He is obviously patriotic to the US and that is right and proper. However the message needs to be spread because in my mind he is a voice in the wilderness and the problem is GLOBAL.My country’s freedoms are being eroded day by day.We are in the same stupid cycle of printing money and our debt is going towards the one trillion pound mark.Don’t forget, our economy is much smaller than yours so 1 trillion is relatively almost the same as yours!We are historically and culturally linked to the US so right thinking people this side are inspired by Mr Paul’s integrity.He is one of those rare people that put’s the good of the common man before personal greed.The sad part is, we don’t seem to have a similar voice in the UK.If we do, they’re sidelined as cranks and prophets of doom and they don’t reach the mainstream media.I’m sorry to rant like this but I just want you to know that his message must and will be listened to worldwide.I just hope it won’t be too late.
    Regards to you all.

    • Nate

      Very cool to see someone from the UK posting on here. As you point out it’s a struggle between Liberty and Control. Keep fighting for liberty however you can.

      • Sean

        how are you fighting for liberty nate?

        • Nate

          Simply by spreading the ideas of civil and economic liberty through conversation. This is an intellectual revolution. Humans really only have two options when it comes to conflict. Conversation and violence. Best to stick with the former, no?

          • Sean

            i dunno, bob dylan used to sing to spread liberty.. it doesn’t just matter if you talk or fight, its who you talk to and how you convey your message. the LEAST you could do would be organizing city groups to spread the message of liberty to those who do not know about it. If you sit here and chat with people about liberty with people who do the same thing, the message is never going to get out and since this is supposed to be a grass root movement, you can blame people like yourself for not participating in spreading the word. THis is all on you and all of ron paul’s followers. If liberty doesn’t prevail, you can blame yourself for not making a difference instead of blaming other people for not making a difference.

          • Nate D

            Sean you assume so much, Nate never said how he was spreading the word. You assume that cause you stay here all day arguing stupid points. If anything he’s at least trying to tell you that you are wrong. It’s close minded people like yourself we can blame for the problem.

          • Sean

            lol.. okay, I’m more for liberty than you. Did you drive across the country to back up ron paul at the rally for the republic??? i bought ten copies of ron paul’s book and gave it to people this christmas.. You think im against you just because i’m trying to rationalize whats really going on. Your just some delinquent individual who wants to rebel.

          • Nate D

            What are you thoughts on Austrian Economics and the trillions of bailout money…? That’s what I thought, not to mention your support for the FED. Or have you changed your mind on that now…?

          • Sean

            nate d- i thought we all wanted a revolution. I guess you will always want things in your life but never have the courage to do anything about it. All you can do is bitch and complain.. You are the one with a closed mind. You listen to every word ron paul says without looking deeper into what he is talking about. Everything he says is so broad, thats the reason why you think in broad terms. Because you think what ron paul says, you don’t think for yourself. You don’t have anything intelligent to say other than mocking ron paul.. I’m a hard working person who has lots of friends who like to have fun. How am I problem? Because i read more than you and i’m trying to educate you. Why don’t you be a big boy and stop holding ron pauls hand and learn for yourself..

          • Sean

            What are your thoughts on American School of Economics? What do you know about capital movement in the 21st century economy?.. I never said i supported the fed. I said i excused their actions. I wish we could get rid of the fed, but its impossible because of our trade deficit. I wish you would stop having suck a closed mind and thick skull and listen to what i have to say.

          • Nate D

            yeah… once again you assume so much, and avoid my questions that you only have bad answers for. Hasn’t it occurred to you yet that you are wrong, and that’s why everyone debates you. It’s not cause you are smart, all I have to do is go through your posts and see how many countless time you contradict yourself. I feel the anger coming on… I LIKE IT!!

          • Sean

            Your avoiding my questions. ANswer my questions and i’ll give you so much credit, you have no idea. 1. Name on time i have contradicted myself. 2. What are your thoughts on American School of Economics? 3. What do you know about capital movement in the 21st century economy?..

          • Sean

            and yes i’ve seen that clip. My friend has the movie.. Its also in zeitgeist. I have 1 and 2… I saw it at the theater when it was on tour.

          • Sean

            Seriously, if your into conspiracies, you should be worried about the council on foreign relations and the bilderberg group.


          • Sean
          • Nate

            You corrupt the message because you don’t understand economic liberty. It’s worse than doing nothing at all.

            I’ll read the article but can’t at the moment. I’ll read it as objectively as possible.

            I’m afraid we are at an impasse (and always have been) mainly because you don’t understand cause and effect and operate with a misdefinition of inflation.

          • Sean

            noooooooo. i understand the older definition. for now on, i will use it like it was first intended. I’m trying to settle this little dispute with an agreement. I agree that we should have sound money. I’m for liberty! seriously… I just want you to understand what kind of hole we have dug ourselves. Its much deeper than the federal reserve. The federal reserve is trying to manage the mess we have created with open trade policies, and we both agree that central bank practices don’t work, so i’m trying to get to this point, that we should and have to bring down our trade deficit so we wont need anybody managing our money supply. We spend too much money overseas, and the free market can’t stabalize the money supply with such high deficits.

          • Nate D

            assume. assume. assume. You assume so much, that’s why you don’t get it. You have to go by the facts not the assumptions.

            Here are a few of you contradiction, distorted views, and the youtube post was a classic example of your “Check the facts”.

            Monetary policy isn’t a cause of trade deficits
            Our Forefathers were against free trade
            printing money didn’t cause the shortage of money
            Money is wealth

            Sorry I couldn’t find them all, but i’m sure there are a lot more.

            😀 have a lovely day!

          • Sean

            hahahahahah! do you know what a contradiction is?? your outright stupid. first of all..

            monetary policy does effect trade deficits, but it isn’t the cause of trade deficits. If interest rates are high, than the dollar is worth more and the trade deficits shrink to a certain degree… We were talking about cause of monetary policy.. i was saying that trade deficits were the reason we changed to a fiat currency. This is true…

            “The United States has posted a trade deficit since the late 1960s (and trade deficits in the late 1960s forced the US off the so-called gold standard in 1971), and it has been rapidly increasing since 1997”

            “our forefathers were against free trade”… This isn’t totally true because thomas jefferson was for free trade and we was one of our forefathers… I was refering to alexander hamilton who was george washingtons right hand man. I should of said “some of our forefathers were against free trade” if you wanna be a dumb ass about it.

            “printing money didn’t cause the shortage of money”.. i should have worded this differently so you would understand. “printing money didn’t cause the recession we are in today, or the demand for money.” Thats what a recession is if you didn’t know.

            “Money is wealth” – wealth means “abundunt supply”. dumbass. If someone has alot of money, or resources, they are considered wealthy.

          • Sean

            you didn’t answer one single question i asked. you didn’t show where i contradicted myself. You didn’t tell me what you thought about American School economics, and you didn’t tell me a damn thing about capital movement, so i’m assuming you don’t know a damn thing about any of it. What a smart guy

          • Nate D

            There’s your contradiction:
            Monetary policy isn’t a cause of trade deficits
            monetary policy does effect trade deficits
            ……………………………………. I’m not seeing how that’s not a contradiction.

            I’m not going to resort to name calling as that will only bring me down to your level.

          • Nate

            Well I’m happy we agree on sound money. And even happier to hear that you will use the proper definition of inflation. Once that sinks in, it’ll likely transform your entire economic thinking.

            We agree that we are in a giant hole. The disagreement is how we got here and how we get out. It’s policies of the Fed/gov that brought us to this sad state of affairs. It wasn’t the free market that created the debt and trade deficits. Indeed, it is essentially impossible for such debts and deficits to occur under a free market economy with sound money and banking practices.

            Also, if you (as I) believe central bank practices don’t work, how can you excuse their actions? I don’t much care if their intentions are noble. They’re making things worse.

          • Sean

            i’m sorry. you took that way out of context. I was trying to say that spending money on foreign goods causes the trade deficits and that is what causes monetary policy to change… which brings down the deficit… So it isn’t contradicting itself. Its both correct.

          • Sean

            we need the federal reserve to create money because we spend it over seas. They help create free trade. Thats why most republican’s wont turn against them.. They are supposed to be able to supply enough money to cover our trade deficits, but its really gotten out of hand with oil prices and our spending habbits. We have to stop our spending habbits so we wont have to create money for it. We need domestic production or high tarrifs to end this habbit of borrowing and consuming… Thats pretty clear..
            Inflation is alot more complicated you think. but i wont use that term anymore.

          • Sean

            ahhh. here we go. here is peter schiff.. he will explain exactly what i’m talking about.

          • Nate

            What!? Don’t even try to present Peter Schiff as representative of your distorted economic views. Peter Schiff lays the blame squarely at the feet of the Federal Reserve and the government. He carries on the Austrian tradition. Yes, he’ll point out the trade deficit is bankrupting the US. But his explanations for how it came to be and what to do about it are completely different from the ones you suggest. He does call for domestic production. But he is careful to point out it can’t happen through government direction and bailouts. And he would never call for high tariffs. He is a firm free market advocate. Only the market can properly and efficiently sort out who/what is productive and who/what is not. He consistently calls for gold as money. Why? He understands how sound money restrains government spending and prevents trade deficits. He knows the irresistible temptation fiat money is for government and how inflation redistributes wealth, serves as a smokescreen, destroys savings, etc. He always properly defines inflation and points out when people make the mistake of defining it as rising prices.

            “We have to stop our spending habbits so we wont have to create money for it.”

            No. This is backwards. We have to make our way back to sound money so we can’t spend beyond our means. If you give governments the ability to create money (through central banking and a fiat currency) they will inflate and run deficits. It’s too tempting to resist.

          • Sean

            i guess you didn’t listen to the video. He puts the blame on us. He said that we did this and the federal reserve allowed it to happen, so the federal reserve should have part to blame. He said we “dug” this hole ourself. The same thing i was saying… He said there was nothing to do other than reduce our spending habbits by going into a recession. so that quote stands correct.. I disagree, i think we could have raised tarrifs instead and cut taxes, but ALL republicans are anti-fair free trade and thats what got us into this spending mess in the first place. It was free trade that sent millions of our jobs overseas and racked up this trade deficit, took us off the gold standard, and causes buisness cycles because its hard to control capital flow.

          • Sean

            believing in free trade without central banks is an oxymoron, or contradiction. Who do you think controls the exchange rates.

          • Nate

            No. Listen to his “teacher” analogy. It goes something like this…”If a kindergarten teacher passes out pixie sticks and soda pop, then turns around and leaves the classroom, and when she comes back the kids have wrecked the place, who do you blame?” Answer: The teacher

            -The teacher is the Fed/gov

            -the kindergarteners are the banks/wall street/ and the ordinary person with access to cheap/free money that wouldn’t exist if we had sound money.

            -the wrecked classroom is the economy

            He also has a “prom chaperone spikes the punch bowl” analogy which illustrates the exact same thing.

          • Nate

            Exactly wrong about free trade and central banks. How the hell is trade supposed to be FREE when Central banks are CONTROLLING the exchange rates?

            All that needs to be done is to set a standard of weights and measurements. Just like the founders mandated in the constitution.

          • Sean

            There has been and would be more wars without exchange rates, or a way to accomindate trade.. And you your little ananalogy doesn’t consider the fact we are dependent on these things. We were dependent on oil before we even started importing it.. Are you trying to say that we should end the fed so we can stop buying oil overseas and let the economy and our country crash?

          • Nate

            First of all, it is not my “little analogy” it is Peter Schiff’s. All that post was meant to do was demonstrate that Shiff (as all Austrian economists do) identifies the Fed/gov as the main culprit for the business cycles because they manipulate and artificially lower the interest rate.

  • Sean

    why can’t ron paul find any co sponsers for his legislation so he can have a hearing for getting rid of the Fed. He needs support from colleagues to get this thing passed.

    • Matthew Stone

      Come on…

      If we now moved to a gold standard, china could take a portion of our reserves, fund a ton of cheap mining operations in South Africa, Indonesia, Russia (etc…), mine the crap out of their gold at a cheaper cost than the private market can compete with (as it would be a speculative attack), hoard gold, un-peg their currency, ship cheap gold in to people in the US to trade to banks, put dollars in a crate and burn them?


      Then banks are stuck with gold that is freaking impossible to transmit (which is totally rad in an increasing velocity society), dollars are disappearing rapidly because they are getting burned, and noone knows wtf is going on so panic deflation occurs, and noone wants to spend because they are afraid they will get gold back, anyone can lie because now there is noone to confirm or verify a bank’s gold reserves.


  • Sean

    Alan Greenspan was trying to fix the corporate credit crunch. That was his job, its what he does to get paid. He had no way to control subprime lending. It is the banks fault for allowing consumers to buy a house with unfixed mortgage rates without considering if they could afford to renegotiate their contracts in the future. Interest rates always fluctuate..
    THe real question that should be asked is why did you raise interest rates so high after so long? The answer is that he was trying to raise the value of the dollar because oil prices were skyrocketing and was deteriorating our trade deficit.

    • Sean

      There is a much larger bubble than the housing market. The housing market is a bubble inside a bubble. THe real bubble was created when we got rid of protectionism. Year after year our bubble grows larger as our trade deficit grows out of control. It is making our dollar weaker which is causing little bubbles to form inside of it..

      • Sean

        The larger bubble is what makes the smaller bubbles form. There was no federal reserve intervention to speak of before we got rid of protectionism for anti-fair free trade.

        • Nate

          Backwards again. The smaller bubbles cause the bigger bubbles to form.

          Also, the Fed has been interveening into the economy since it was created.

          • Sean

            Actually it is free trade that made us have to change to a fiat currency.. I don’t know why you are for high interest rates but against the fed at the same time. You are totally contradicting yourself. The lower the rates the more economic activity occurs, because it is cheaper to loan money. It was unlawful banking practices with subprime lending for unfixed mortgage rates that hurt so bad recently. Your blaming interest rates but you have no idea why he raised them… Bc our trade deficit effected the exchange rates and made our dollar weak. If he didn’t raise intererst rates, than the government would of had to borrow twice as much money to cover our expenses, and grew twice as large. Is that what you would of liked to happen?? Alan greenspan said he wouldn’t of done anything different because it would have been alot worse.. Your ignoring why we need fed intervention. We didn’t have high interest rates until we got rid of protectionism in the 70’s and had to start borrowing money over seas. That was when the federal reserve really started intervening, and that is what has been causing the problems…

          • Nate

            Incorrect. Since you don’t understand inflation nor prices (remember, interest rates are prices). It is understandable why your posts are so muddled and confused. I am against the Fed for many reasons not least of which is their ability to manipulate and set the interest rate (a form of price fixing). There is absolutely no contradiction when I state they should raise interest rates while also contending that the Fed should be abolished. Why? Because the free market would set the interest rate much higher. Yes i would want the fed gone but absent that sweet dream, they should at least respond to what the market is demanding. The market is trying to correct itself. It is saying “Save your money! Save it so we can have real capital formation and proper investment. The central banks’ easy money policies and the inherent bubbles that form from fractional reserve banking have caused a massive misallocation of capital! I (the market) am trying to make the necessary adjustments but the central banks won’t let me! Economies grow strong through production and a stable money supply!” The fed/gov is trying to bring about the exact opposite. They’re trying to get people to recklessly consume again with their essentially 0% interest rate policy.

            We don’t need more Fed intervention. We need that like a junkie needs more heroin.

          • Sean

            did you read this article. please print it out and read it. its not that long, you should be able to understand it. please read it.


        • Matthew Stone

          Or better yet, move to a gold standard and encourage china to buy south africa mine a crapload of gold and devalue us!!!

          I think y’all misunderestimate (a joke) sentiment relative to free market activity.

          Wow, really:

          “It is the banks fault for allowing consumers to buy a house with unfixed mortgage rates without considering if they could afford to renegotiate their contracts in the future.”

          FREE MARKETS in action! Im confused, rates are LOWER now than they were then, and the complete opposite is occurring.

          I say we now artificially raise rates, make money expensive, and drive down free market activity.

          • Nate

            A very confusing post. I would agree it would be better to raise interest rates. But drive down free market activity? The gov is doing a fine job of that right now.

          • Correcting the Confused

            You trying to say the free market has been able to fully operate??? The existence of artificially low interest rates which would not be set by the free market is an interference in the free market.