103 responses to “Unanimous GOP Support for Ron Paul’s Bill to Audit the Federal Reserve”

  1. how to lower blood pressure

    blood pressure being lower in young, pregnant women.

    Today many people take medications to lower or fix their blood
    pressure problems. The immune system is thrown off balance and runners are much more likely to suffer from upper
    respiratory infections.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. granite run

    Cool blog! Is your theme custom made or did you download it from somewhere?
    A design like yours with a few simple tweeks would really make my blog shine.
    Please let me know where you got your design. Thanks a lot

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. longshotlouie

    Krugman Gets His History Wrong, Again
    http://williamgreider.com/content/krugman-gets-his-history-wrong

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Matt

      So this article has no quarrel with Krugman on the mechanics of this failure (DEREGULATION and a return to FREE MARKETS) but instead says it started just two years earlier? I found this quote as agreed with by the author particularly poignant in bashing free-market activities:

      “Economist Albert Wojnilower warned at the time: “Freeing the thrift and mortgage markets from government subsidy and guarantee is like freeing the family pets by abandoning them in the jungle.”
      His sardonic prediction was swiftly realized.”

      Interesting link, Louie. I had no idea you were for subsidizing and guaranteeing the thrift and mortgage markets.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. longshotlouie

        What is patently obvious from your reply is that you did not understand what you read …. or it is an extremely poor attempt at deflection.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Sean

          Deregulation that led the path to financial crisis.

          “In 1999, the U.S. Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. This repeal has been criticized for reducing the separation between commercial banks (which traditionally had a conservative culture) and investment banks (which had a more risk-taking culture).[54][55]

          In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission relaxed the net capital rule, which enabled investment banks to substantially increase the level of debt they were taking on, fueling the growth in mortgage-backed securities supporting subprime mortgages. The SEC has conceded that self-regulation of investment banks contributed to the crisis.[56][57]

          Financial institutions in the shadow banking system are not subject to the same regulation as depository banks, allowing them to assume additional debt obligations relative to their financial cushion or capital base.[58] This was the case despite the Long-Term Capital Management debacle in 1998, where a highly-leveraged shadow institution failed with systemic implications.

          Regulators and accounting standard-setters allowed depository banks such as Citigroup to move significant amounts of assets and liabilities off-balance sheet into complex legal entities called structured investment vehicles, masking the weakness of the capital base of the firm or degree of leverage or risk taken. One news agency estimated that the top four U.S. banks will have to return between $500 billion and $1 trillion to their balance sheets during 2009.[59] This increased uncertainty during the crisis regarding the financial position of the major banks.[60] Off-balance sheet entities were also used by Enron as part of the scandal that brought down that company in 2001.[61]

          As early as 1997, FED Chairman Alan Greenspan had fought to keep the derivatives market unregulated. Under Republican leadership, the U.S. Congress allowed the self-regulation of the derivatives market when it passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Derivatives such as credit default swaps (CDS) can be used to hedge or speculate against particular credit risks. The volume of CDS outstanding increased 100-fold from 1998 to 2008, with estimates of the debt covered by CDS contracts, as of November 2008, ranging from US$33 to $47 trillion. Total over-the-counter (OTC) derivative notional value rose to $683 trillion by June 2008.[62] Warren Buffett famously referred to derivatives as “financial weapons of mass destruction” in early 2003.[63][64]”
          -wiki

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. longshotlouie

            Thank you for our daily ration of wiki.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Non-Federal Non-Reserve

            And a free market has a solution for those who can’t pay their debt. It’s called bankruptcy.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. longshotlouie

            Obey Submit Sleep

            Wiki Power
            Hail Obama

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Matt

          Louie, here is a pertinent quote and the blatant conclusion from the article you posted which intimates de-regulation (the “Costly Error” reference below) caused this, and suggests that reforms (i.e. government intervention) is needed.

          “Economist Albert Wojnilower warned at the time: “Freeing the thrift and mortgage markets from government subsidy and guarantee is like freeing the family pets by abandoning them in the jungle.”
          His sardonic prediction was swiftly realized.”

          “It helps explain why contemporary Democrats are so reluctant to enact more serious reforms, like capping interests or restoring the usury law. That would require them to clean up the mess they made 30 years ago and finally acknowledge their costly errors.”

          Glad I could assist you in actually understanding the article, you’ll find it useful one day once you read past the headline.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. longshotlouie

            The only things that was pertinent in my post were Greider’s facts, and Krugman’s rhetoric.

            Thanks for expending the effort.

            Obey Submit Sleep

            Wiki Power
            Hail Obama

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. longshotlouie

    Had a lunch date and missed all of this good stuff.

    At least the architects, Matt and Sean, are still busy building circles of straw.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Herewe Goagain

    Hyperinflation is Rare?
    http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/hyper.htm

    Not only is it not rare, the worst have happened in modern history.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Sean

      oh ya, the last time our country went through hyperinflation was a hundred and fifty years ago.. If you want to consider the civil war modern history…

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Herewe Goagain

        Then the U.S. is immune?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Sean

          The us has always had a moderate rate of spending.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Herewe Goagain

            So the U.S. is immune?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Sean

            No. that has nothing to do with anything i’m talking about. Any currency can experience hyperinflation under the correct circumstances.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. Herewe Goagain

            Thank you. One of the rare instances where you actually answered a question, directly ….. after two askings.

            So, you didn’t speak of hyper-inflation?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          4. Sean

            I said hyperinflation is rare, i never said that we were immune. I don’t understand why you asked the question. This is a stupid argument, i’m done.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          5. Herewe Goagain

            I ask the question to garner real response, as opposed to wiki-bytes.
            You implied that hyper-inflation was not a concern, yet when you read historical examples of hyper-inflation it appears that we are setting ourselves up for just that scenario.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Sean

    You people don’t know what you are talking about. Inflation is a tax on banks and deflation is a tax on investors. If you buy a 100,000 dollar house with a 30 year mortgage, by time that house is payed off it will be worth a whole lot more. The base value would end up 150,000+ dollars, but you only pay 100,000 base value.

    As far as savings go, if you are stupid and invest in stupid ways, than inflation will eat away your savings. But most investors put money into inflation protection accounts. Anyways, the interest you make off of any savings account usually exceeds a normal inflation rate.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Bottomline

      Only the stupid lost investment dollars?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Nate Y

      Tsk Tsk. There you go being disingenuous again. You said you’d start using the proper definition of inflation. If you operate with the defintion of inflation as “a general increase in prices” or “additional costs” while others (like the people here who are familiar with Austrian Economics) use inflation to mean “an increase in the supply of money/credit”, it not only distorts your economic thinking/reasoning but it virtually guarantees that there can be no hope of progress or understanding between you and the others who post here. Best to start using language accurately.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Sean

        Whatever, ron paul just used the word inflation in the same sense as I do. What do you know about economics? You think its better to have domestic taxes than taxes on foreign goods.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Sean

          Scientifically, Inflation (%P) is equal to the rate of money growth (%M), plus the change in velocity (%V), minus the rate of output growth (%Q).

          This chart proves that the money supply alone does not effect inflation.
          http://www.public.deloitte.com/Media/00Global/00UPL/MoneySupplyAndInflationGrowth_060606.gif

          tsk tsk

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Herewe Goagain

            Haven’t seen anyone argue that money supply ‘alone’ is an inflationary effect. Velocity may determine the magnitude of the inflation.
            Stop backtracking.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Sean

            This is something me and nate have gone back and forth about too many times. He does argue that the money supply determines its value. And yes, he just said..

            inflation to mean “an increase in the supply of money/credit”

            stop intervening, the government hates competition.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. Herewe Goagain

            Money supply is one of the determining factors.
            Running around in the same circle is not progress.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          4. Sean

            So what. Nate says that the expansion of money supply alone causes inflation.

            again, this is an ongoing argument that you have not been involved in, so you dont know what i am talking about. Stop running around in circles where you are clueless and not wanted.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          5. Herewe Goagain

            Jees, you hurt my feelings.

            lol

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          6. Nate Y

            Seriously dude, head over to LaRouche’s site. You’ll find plenty of like-minded individuals. I still don’t understand why you post here. It’s like choosing to make a certain bar you’re watering hole but everyone in it would rather you leave and never come back.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          7. BankstaRule

            Hey Nate
            Don’t chase off the entertainment

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          8. longshotlouie

            That’s who Sean reminded me of, Lyndon LaRouche.

            LMAO

            Is he still touting the so-called ‘American System’?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Nate Y

          So what if Ron Paul did? Everyone makes mistakes. It’s also very easy to make a casual slip up and use the word inflation to mean “a general rise in prices” when you’re always talking to people who consistently use it with that (wrong) meaning.

          Anyway, you provided a perfect example of how we have no hope of understanding each other unless you use the proper definition. You say “This chart proves that the money supply alone does not effect inflation.” Money supply does not affect inflation, it affects prices. An expansion of the money supply does not cause inflation. An expansion of the money supply IS inflation.

          Also, I’m for low taxes in general. In order to stay consistent, I must be against tariffs. Tariffs are taxes and hurt the people. Any tariff the government implements is ultimately borne by the consumers in this country. They enrich government and selected firms at the expense of everyone else. Read the chapter “Who’s Protected by Tariffs?” in Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. A country cannot grow wealthier by implementing restrictions to trade (tariffs).

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Sean

            Don’t speak out for ron paul like you knew what he intended to say.

            They changed the definition of inflation because they learned the actual science involved. Money supply alone does not devalue a currency therefor it cannot be used in that sense.

            Again, you would rather have domestic taxes than tariffs. I don’t care what Henry Hazlitt has to say. He is obviously mistaken behind David Ricardo’s principle of comparative advantage. And you have no clue what you are talking about. You are quoting other people with no intelligent information for yourself.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Herewe Goagain

            They changed the definition because it greased the skids for this scam.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. Sean

            Haha, ya riiight.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Ross Johnson

    Thus Michal,as you get much more money from compound interest than your initial investment,the reverse is true with the depreciation of your currency,you have to put in much more money than the inflation rate to achieve the result of 3.4% inflation.

    In other words,the banks are making a killing by creating 26% increased currency pa from nothing and charging people interest on their own productivity.Pretty good deal for the banks and a lot of poverty for ordinary folk.

    Fed on the Reserves of our humanity,
    They know no depths of depravity.
    End the Fed.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Michal

    Yes, inflation is exactly like an interest, e.g. if you have an inflation rate of 3.4% every year, the value over 96 years will be 25 times lower. That’s it, you’re mixing the so-called geometric average and the arithmetic average. However you can’t use arithmetic average in this case as it makes no sense, you do not add the percents, you have to multiply the rates.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Ross Johnson

    Since the inception of the Fed in 1913 the US currency has lost 96% of it’s value.Let’s do some basic arithmetic.To halve the value of your currency,you have to double the money supply above the population growth and real increases in productivity.To reduce the US $ to the purchasing power of 4 cents of 1913,you have to increase the money supply by 25 times or 2500%.Divide 2500% by 96 yrs and you get 26%.So the money supply has been increased by an average of 26% pa above pop increase/productivity.

    Who is adding all this money to the economy? Well, we as individuals cannot counterfeit it,the Unions cannot create through wage demands,Congress no longer has the power to issue currency;that’s right,the banks create all of the currency that devalues people’s labor.

    Now while the official inflation rates are only 3% pa,no one is considering the compounding effect of inflation like compounding interest.What the Fed should be publishing is the amount of money they are adding to the economy each yr.They are actually adding 26% of inflationary money to the economy every year via the fractional reserve banking system,which extropolates to a compound inflation figure of only 3%.

    The reality is there for all to see.They are screwing the American public big time,and Congress had better decide very soon upon which side their bread is buttered.

    I challenge anyone including,Sean to dispute this reality.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    1. Michal

      I am going to challenge your maths: you can’t calculate the annual inflation by dividing 2500 by 96. The actual equation is (annual_inflation)^96 = 25, e.g. annual_inflation = 25^(1/96) = ca 1.034, e.g. 3.4%.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Ross Johnson

        Michael I’ve already stated this.The actual inflation rate pa is according to you 3.4%,but to achieve this you have to increase the money supply by much more since inflation is like compounding interest,inflation built upon inflation.

        If the averge inflation rate was 3.4% over 96 yrs not compounding,3.4% X 96 = 326%,this means that the US $ would have only lost 3 times it’s value in 96 yrs ,thus be worth 30 cents in 1913 money.However since inflation is compounding like interest,we have the expodential loss of value,from 100% to 4% ,a factor of 25.Agreed? So you need to add 25 times the amount of money above GDP and pop growth to achieve this devaluation.

        Thus 25 times is 2500% or 2500 divided by 100 = 25.

        If your read carefully what I said,you would have realised that the actual money needed to create a compounding rate of inflation is actually much greater than 3.4% pa.It is 26% increase pa to achieve a compounding depreciating rate of your 3.4%.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Michal

          Yes, inflation is exactly like an interest, e.g. if you have an inflation rate of 3.4% every year, the value over 96 years will be 25 times lower. That’s it, you’re mixing the so-called geometric average and the arithmetic average. However you can’t use arithmetic average in this case as it makes no sense, you do not add the percents, you have to multiply the rates.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Ross Johnson

            Michal what you have written makes no cents or sense.You are trying to confuse the issue with gobbledegook.In statistics you either deal in averages or talk about the median or middle score.Of course you can add percentages since a % is a fraction or ratio that compares one thing to another.Try speaking in plain English.

            Don’t try to weasel your way out of this by confusing readers with spin.Show us some simple numbers and how you arrived there.A factor of 25 divided by 96 yrs gives 0.26 or 26/100 or 26%.Now start disproving this reality in simple terms.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Sean

            Inflation comes from the velocity of money, not the quantity.. Increasing the money supply can increase the velocity but overall the value of the dollar isn’t measured by how many dollars are out there.

            http://www.public.deloitte.com/Media/00Global/00UPL/MoneySupplyAndInflationGrowth_060606.gif

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. Sean

            as you can see, around 2003 there was an 11% increase of our money supply but we had less than 4% inflation. This is because we increased military spending which made up 60% of GDP.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          4. Bottomline

            Let us say that the money supply is increased by six fold. The velocity of money may then triple and let us say the quantity of production drops by 50 percent. This would lead to a ratio of price levels of 6(3)/(0.5)=36. An increase in the money supply by a factor of 36 might lead to an increase in the velocity of money by a factor 10 and let us again suppose the level of output falls by 50 percent. This would lead to an increase in the price level of 36(10)/(0.5)= 720. One can see that it would not take very long for the price levels to reach astronomical levels. There is an Americanism that expresses the effect quite well. In hyperinflation prices get hit by a triple whammy due to the increase in the money supply, the increase in the velocity of money and the decrease in production.
            http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/hyper.htm

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          5. Sean

            Hyperinflation is so rare because output increases when velocity increases. That is what inflation generally is. Inflation is the additional costs that go into output that raise the cost of goods..

            Germany experienced hyperinflation because the people saved for 10 years before they started spending. Production didn’t decrease, but it could not keep up with the velocity of money that spurred..

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          6. Herewe Goagain

            reverse bump

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          7. Herewe Goagain

            Herewe Goagain replies:
            July 17th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
            To who does the allocated money belong?

            Sean replies:
            July 17th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
            The federal reserve..

            How did the Fed acquire these assets?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          8. Michal

            Ross, stop insulting me, I’ve been pretty civil with you, simple numbers for people with simple maths skills follow:

            Example: It’s 1913, amount of money in the market is 100000$. There’s no growth and all the other conditions are ideal. Now, over the year, Fed prints 3400 dollars and pours it into the market, the amount in is now 103400$, e.g. the inflation rate is 3.4%. Next year, FED prints 103400*0.034=3515.6$, the amount of money in market is 103400+3515.6=106915.6$. Annual inflation is still 3.4% (though, of course, they had to print more money than previous year, the ANNUAL inflation is still the same). Now the value of the money, compared to 1913, is 106915.6/100000=1.069156 times lower. That’s 106.9516%. And you say the average inflation over these 2 years is then 106.9516/2 = ca 53% ?!! While we were calculating with 3.4%, so now I hope you see the flaw in your maths.


            Now I strongly support Ron Paul and it’s clear to me that FED should be wiped out. I just don’t want to use ridiculous arguments.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          9. Ross Johnson

            Michal an inflation rate of 3.4% will give a multiplier of 25 over 96 years.I don’t disagree with that.Just use the compound interest formula Total money = principal[1+R/100] to the power of n,being the number of yrs.So 1.034 multiplied by itself 96 times gives a a multiplier of 25 times the original amount of money.It has the effect of inflating already inflated money.

            We cannot look at individual yrs and say this is the average inflation rate.The enormous amount of inflated money after 96 yrs is 25 times the original amount.Try it on your calculator.In the initial yrs the multiplier is small,at 70 yrs it is 10 times at 96 it is 25 times.So towards the end,inflation really kicks in even at a low rate of 3.4%.Do this on your calculator.Put in 1.034 and press the X twice.A constant will appear,as you press the = sign you will see the expodentional growth of the multiplier.If you graph these results you will get hyperbole which shows the acceleration of this inflation.

            This is probabaly another reason why inflation really began in the 1970’s.They also went off the gold standard which didn’t help.

            I apologise if you were offended as you sounded like a Fed apparachick.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          10. Michal

            Well, now we’re both finally saying the same thing :) But “your” 26% is the fraction of the ORIGINAL amount of money in 1913 that has been poured in the economy every year over those 96 years (though correct would be 2400%/96yrs, as you need to subtract the original amount of money, before the FED interventions). But that’s not a number that reveals anything. The amount of money inserted by FED, every year, is 3.4% of the amount already present in the market.

            Before anyone starts pointing out at flaws in my assumptions (Sean) – I am still calculating under ideal conditions. I am perfectly aware that the total amount of money poured into market is… even higher.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          11. BanksandGeithners

            That’s why the dollar lost 95% of its value of course, and is now worth 4 cents!

            Thanks Sean, you’re doing more than you could ever imagine and the masses are waking up just by reading it. :)

            http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Herewe Goagain

          And the U.S. will raise it’s output with …?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Sean

            US production will raise it’s output when people start spending more instead of saving.. As long as there is not a dramatic increase in spending, than we will not see hyperinflation. All of this money created wont increase spending bc the money isn’t being allocated to consumers.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Herewe Goagain

            And the people will be motivated to spend more when ….?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. Herewe Goagain

            Damn those ignorant savers !!

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          4. Non-Federal Non-Reserve

            Um…saving is the only source of capital and production. Consumption always DESTROYS wealth.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          5. Sean

            If everybody saved, than how would an economy function.. Trade deficits destroys wealth. It sends money overseas. As long as we aren’t spending overseas than we are saving.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          6. Herewe Goagain

            To who does the allocated money belong?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          7. Sean

            The federal reserve..

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          8. Herewe Goagain

            “If everybody saved, than how would an economy function.. Trade deficits destroys wealth. It sends money overseas. As long as we aren’t spending overseas than we are saving.”

            Read your own thoughts again.
            So you are for saving or against?
            Would people save so much that they would not even buy necessities?

            If too much spending, borrowing, and inflating cause the problem, is more spending, borrowing, and inflating, the solution?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          9. Sean

            I’m for spending money on american goods. That is good for an economy. It lays the underground foundation to capitalism.

            What I said made total sense. How would a business survive if everyone saved money and didn’t buy their goods? A countries savings rate depends on how many goods are bought overseas. The more money spent overseas, the less money is available here.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. Non-Federal Non-Reserve

          You can only trade things you saved! That’s what makes it trade. You trade your savings for other people’s savings. And I’m talking about saving wealth (goods and services), as opposed to consuming wealth. Money is only a claim on wealth.

          “Trade deficits destroys wealth.”

          Really? So why do you buy Chinese goods and services if you are destroying wealth that way?

          “It sends money overseas.”

          Why stop there? Why not keep your money in your state?
          Why stop there? Why not keep your money in your town?
          Why stop there? Why not keep your money in your home? You’ll never run a “trade deficit” if you make everything by yourself.

          “As long as we aren’t spending overseas than we are saving.”

          How so? You can still consume everything you have. You can break all your windows and burn down your houses, and that’s not saving. That’s consumption.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Sean

            I don’t understand what you are trying to say.
            This will explain what i am talking about, 40 second video..

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-vMxKvYfVs

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Non-Federal Non-Reserve

            Of course a Keynesian pseudo-economist wouldn’t understand anything. If it were up to you, the government would be paying everybody to dig ditches and fill them back in to “create jobs” and “boost consumer spending”. Why don’t we just print more money and put it in people’s pockets to “boost spending”? Oh wait, that’s what the Non-Federal Non-Reserve is for.

            “How would a business survive if everyone saved money and didn’t buy their goods?”

            It wouldn’t. And that’s the whole point. Only businesses that produce things people want will survive. If they produce things people don’t want, they go out of business.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. Sean

            hahaha, are you really that stupid?

            Only businesses that produce necessities will survive when consumers save money. Just look at the car industry. Every car manufacturer is hurting because people dont NEED to buy a brand new car. They would rather save…

            The federal reserve isn’t printing money and putting it into consumers pockets. Did the federal reserve give you any money? I DON’T THINK SO. If it was up to me, I wouldn’t let you say such stupid things.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          4. longshotlouie

            “Only businesses that produce necessities will survive when consumers save money. Just look at the car industry. Every car manufacturer is hurting because people dont NEED to buy a brand new car. They would rather save…”
            ++++++
            As it should be

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          5. Sean

            So you don’t believe in capitalism?

            You think its okay for an entire industry to hurt and lose billions of dollars. Go fondle karl marx if you want to destroy capitalism.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          6. Non-Federal Non-Reserve

            “Only businesses that produce necessities will survive when consumers save money.”

            And that’s how it should be. A person will only buy something when they value it more than the money. If people aren’t buying from those businesses, it’s because people aren’t seeing enough value.

            “Every car manufacturer is hurting because people dont NEED to buy a brand new car.”

            And they deserve to shrink in size so that they are only big enough to make as many as people actually want. That frees up capital for other uses. If that means GM goes out of business, too bad for GM. Horse buggy makers went out of business to make room for GM, so GM can make room for someone else.

            “They would rather save…”

            People must be satisfied with what they have then.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          7. Herewe Goagain

            If the people don’t want what you sell, goodbye.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          8. Non-Federal Non-Reserve

            “So you don’t believe in capitalism?”

            “You think its okay for an entire industry to hurt and lose billions of dollars.”

            Why don’t you give me all your money then? You’d be causing me to lose money otherwise.

            What’s so special about those industries that they even deserve those billions? If they outlive their usefulness by no longer making things people want, then they no longer deserve their billions. That IS capitalism.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          9. Sean

            It’s the car industry, they didn’t outlive their usefulness. People still want cars but everyone stop spending money.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          10. Non-Federal Non-Reserve

            “It’s the car industry, they didn’t outlive their usefulness.”

            Really? So why is GM bankrupt? It wouldn’t be if it was making things people want.

            “People still want cars but everyone stop spending money.”

            Again, because they aren’t seeing enough value for their money.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          11. Sean

            No, people stopped spending money because unemployment went up. It just wasn’t GM that got hurt. ALL car manufacturers were hurt.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          12. Non-Federal Non-Reserve

            Oh…so why did unemployment go up? It’s because those workers were making things that NOBODY WANTS.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          13. Sean

            No, unemployment went up before car sales plummeted. The recession hit the year before.. This is a stupid argument that I don’t intend following up on. Good luck in life, you seem to need it.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          14. Herewe Goagain

            Full Circle

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          15. Non-Federal Non-Reserve

            “No, unemployment went up before car sales plummeted.”

            I’m not only talking about cars. Why did unemployment go up? Because some workers were making things that nobody wanted. You don’t make what someone wants, then you lose your job. Make something someone wants.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Matt

      How do you measure ‘value’? Do you measure it relative to your purchasing power in other countries? If so, then your statement is incorrect, the USD has NOT lost 96% of it’s exchange rate value relative to other countries.

      Here in the US, nearly everyone else invested in whatever vehicle that FAR OUTPERFORMED someone sitting in the corner of the living room bemoaning the dollars in your hand – while your $5 then is now worth an inflation-adjusted $0.20, my $5 invested in the S&P 500 (for ONE example) is now worth an inflation-adjusted $400 – or about TWO THOUSAND TIMES THE VALUE OF YOUR USD THAT YOUR GRANDPA BURIED IN THE YARD. I mean seriously, who is still holding USD from 1913? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

      Inflation isn’t the enemy, rigidity and lack of knowledge is.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Bottomline

        Who is investing that 1913 FRN?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Matt

          What moron held onto FRN’s for nearly 100 years at an interest-free rate?

          Even a savings account would have given you 4.6 times the inflation-adjusted purchase power of your interest-free FRN.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Herewe Goagain

            You used the burial of a dollar as an example.
            I simply flipped the example to investment.
            Point being that noone can go back and invest or bury 1913 dollars. History shows what happened, in the past, with a set of circumstances. Circumstances that no longer exist.

            p.s. Whose inflation figures are you using? If you say wiki or gov, it explains why you are trying to protect the status-quo.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Matt

          “Point being that noone can go back and invest or bury 1913 dollars.”

          Perfect and thank you! My point exactly.

          Why is this ‘4%’ number bandied about so much? I don’t know anyone that has something that the Federal Reserve just ‘inflated away’ – NOONE. Noone has 1913 dollars buried in their backyard, you are correct, by the same token I don’t know anyone that invested dollars in the DJIND (etc…) at that same time. Money gets reallocated, it doesn’t just sit there stagnant.

          As you say history has shown that inflation has not exceeeded MM rates for any appreciable amount of time. One would be a fool to not be able to find ANY investment vehicle from which they can save, and save profitably. There is no ‘punishing the savers’ going on. That is tantamount to the belief in compound interest and simply, blatantly, incorrect – unless you bury money in your back yard.

          Maybe if wages didn’t inflate, i’d be worried, but you never hear Ron Paul saying ‘WOE IS THE AVERAGE WORKER WHO BACK IN 1913 ONLY MADE FOUR PERCENT OF WHAT WORKERS TODAY MAKE’. Nah.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Herewe Goagain

            As you say …? Didn’t say that. Who wrote the history that you are referencing?

            So those of us that managed to beat inflation should simply be satisfied?
            Should those on fixed incomes be satisfied as well?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Matt

            It was more your reference to ‘history shows what happened’. Here is one example of how weak inflation is to various investment vehicles over time:

            http://www.andexcharts.com/u_wall.asp

            RE: Fixed Income: Anyone that doesn’t account for roughly 3% annual inflation (which has been around for nearly one hundred years) into their retirement plans is an idiot and nearly as moronic as the person that buried a can with five bucks in their backyard and dug it up 50 years later thinking the purchasing power of their five dollars was the EXACT SAME.

            Noone should be satisfied, that’s not a free market discipline, free markets allocate capital in a rational and efficient manner. Oh wait, free markets are accurate when anticipating capital return for everything except… Inflation? Really? That’s a silly thought.

            Skip to 3.4.2. The Incorrect and Controversial Aspects of the ABC
            http://economics.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    3. Rich

      have you ever been to the ZEITGEIST website. Maybe you should go and see what they have been saying for years.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Arif Khan

    STOP STOP

    Forget the messenger, his beliefs, his faults, and all his foibles, and pay attention to the Message.

    Ron and his beliefs are not the problem here, tho bloody FED is, I don’t care what Ron’s personal beliefs are, I will support him on this issue regardless.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. Need 19 Democrats to co-sponsor HR 1207 desperately! Please read and contact them. - SRT Forums - SRT4, SRT6, SRT8, SRT10 & Dodge Forum

    [...] [...]

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Every Single Republican Member Of Congress (All 178 Of Them) Has Now Co-Sponsored H.R. 1207: The Bill To Audit The Fed « The Tonka Report

    [...] Paul announced today: All 178 Republican members of the House have now signed on as cosponsors of [the] Federal [...]

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. John

    I heartily applaud this call for a Federal Reserve audit, but the Federal budget is a cause for much more alarm. The house is on fire, and all the Democrats can think to do is throw gas on the fire in the form of tax hikes, government health care, stimulus bills, etc. What buffoonery.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Thor Mikkelson

    The federal reserve is a corrupt, wreckless, self surving private entity that has more power than the president. The fed can destroy the economy, and print money on a whim. I hope God deals with the Federal Reserve, and the people who own it. The sooner the better.

    May God help you Ron Paul, and guide you to the truth.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Rich Obermayer

      Sir, As a lifelong Democrat, I can see why you feel this way. I however agree with Sen Paul. I also have some very good friend who works at the Fed in DC. Recently at a family function I was able to question him on some of the actions both the fed and the treasury have taken in past months. I am not saying I agree with all the things they have done but a was assured that what was done WAS in the best intrest of our country and although much of it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I now feel that people need to be held accountable and regulations need to be put in place to keep this from happeneing again. The problem is that the people in this country who are not sure how many houses they own, or where they, are not affected by what has happened in the past few months. They have enough to pay off peolple on both side of politics so their intrests will always looked after. Now more than ever this country needs a new political party. Of the People, by the people, and for the people. Its time for Dems and Republicans to stop fighting each other and focus on the real cause of our problems. GREED.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Thor Mikkelson

        Mr Rich Obermayer…

        So many words you just posted there. I honestly love reading posts such as yours, for they are very highly thought up, and packed full of high level NLP. Generally, although they may work on some of the people who visit this site, I am not one of them. Let me try to expose all of the holes in your post.

        Lifelong democrat? You seem to be implying that democrats are all good. Which is not true. Democrats are not all good, and they are not all evil. Therefore the only honest and good policy is to be independent, and support the good in both parties, and oppose the evil in all parties. By admitting to be a lifelong “democrat” you acknowledge that you will support democrats even if they are evil. I am independent, if you are good and honest, I will support you. if you are evil, i will attack you as i would a snake or scorpion.

        I very much like your usage of third party story. Extra points for making it unbelievable. ” While speaking to the state economist a while ago at the governors re-election party, he very much questioned the reliability of the media’s handling of this bailout. He refused to go on the record, as this is a very sensitive issue in his position, but he assured me, companies do not lose billions of dollars in only 90 days without prior warning.”

        I also very much like the implication that “more” regulations need to be in place, to hold people accountable. Existing regulations are not being used. The existing regulators have failed their jobs. First, the existing regulators who are corrupt must be removed. Then accountability may start to happen. Hold the regulators accountable and then you will see accountability. Every CEO whose company went bankrupt needs to be in prison.

        I am impressed how you so discreetly insert an attack on John McCain, I guess you wanted to imply that even if Obama is a horrible president, and a stooge of the banks, that obama is somehow better than someone who owns more than one house? I own two houses btw, I know where they are because real estate is more safe than buying stock from wamu, or citigroup.

        You claim to support a new party of the people, for the people? but then you want the democrats and republicans to stop fighting?

        The democratic party and republican party are entirely corrupt. Very much like in pro wrestling, their “fighting” is staged and carefully orchestrated. The media plays along for the ratings. You need only look behind the curtain to find the puppet master pulling the strings of both parties. Once you realize the fed and the owners of the fed are the ones pulling the strings then, the puppet show becomes entirely transparent.

        God bless Ron Paul, and I hope Ron Paul has some big scissors, because the strings of the fed are very long and numerous.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. Paul Rhondie

    Ron,

    You are a Christian wacko who believes that the earth was created 6,000 years ago by an angry white guy in pajamas. But you happen to be right on a few important issues, and this is one of them.

    Go go go!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Michal

      Check this:
      http://www.paulunteer.com/videos/answers-ron-paul-evolution-and-the-origin-of-life/

      I believe in evolution myself, though maybe not all evolution steps are uncovered and well understood, as an agnostic, I have little doubts about its validity. Ron Paul is Christian and all he said is that he isn’t entirely convinced (and to be honest, there’s nothing like an irrefutable proof that our life came to life through evolution), but most of all, he doesn’t care and doesn’t want to force any opinion on anyone.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. Sean

    “Nancy Pelosi is going to keep this from coming up in the House, I think, no matter how many cosponsors they get, just because I think she is cooperating with the Obama administration to keep the secrets that the Federal Reserve doesn’t want us to know about.” – Jim Demint WRITE TO NANCY PELOSI TO HAVE A VOTE COUNT!!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Rich Obermayer

      Sean, First of all I am a Democrat, Yet I agree with Ron Pauls Bill and believe we need to know the truth about what the fed has been doing. Yet claims you make about Pelosi trying to keep the from coming up in the house will not help get other Democrats as well as Independants on board. When pepole of different backgrounds come to agree on something like this, they need to work together. Try to focus on the idea you want to advance and not blame the people you feel are responsible. Remember, the people who control this country want us to disagree and fight. The only chance we have of taking back our country is working together.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Sean

        I was just quoting Senator Jim Demint who is also trying to audit the fed. I’ve written my congressman and senator to support this bill.. I don’t think I’m doing any harm by asking people to write nancy pelosi to have a vote count.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Rich Obermayer

          Sean, You are right to speak out and also right to tell your congressman. Jim Demint can speak for himself it is you opinions that matter. Yours mine and all the people who fell the way we do. Kepp spreading you words to all you know and I will do the same. If people fell strongly they will join our cause no matter who says to write to pelosi. Keep up the good work.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. VR

    Keep On Keepin’ On

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0