End The Fed & Consider Outlawing Fractional Reserve Banking

Channel: CNBC
Show: Squawk Box
Date: 11/13/2009

Joe Kernen: But Chris Dodd has a bill taking aim at the Fed. The overhaul bill that he proposes would reduce the role of the Federal Reserve. However, Congressman Ron Paul has been on that crusade for some time now, calling for more transparency at the central bank. He joins us this morning.

Congressman, great to see you. Hello.

Ron Paul: Thank you, nice to be with you this morning.

Joe Kernen: Let me start with… you remember Treasury Secretary Geithner and what he wanted to do. He wanted to vastly embolden the Fed in a lot of these areas and give them more power. What was your initial reaction to what he wanted to do?

Ron Paul: Well, it was terrible because I start with the idea that regulations won’t solve our problems. In Washington the only choice is whose going to be the big regulator. So it’s not much of a choice for me. I certainly don’t want to give the Federal Reserve more power, so I don’t like it when Geithner says, “Give the Fed more power”. So I’d much rather have somebody else do it even though I think that’s not going to solve the problem.

Joe Kernen: Really? So the Dodd Bill sets up a lot more different regulators, although there might be a single on, you don’t like that one much more?

Ron Paul: Oh no. See, the problem is that we have a flawed system. We have artificially low interest rates, we have the lender of last resort, we have this horrendous moral hazard in our system. Instead of correcting the problems and changing policy, what we do is we say “We can tinker with the symptoms with regulations” and that even further interferes with the market forces. We need the market to work and we have not allowed the market to work for many, many decades. Interest rates are always artificial, “too big to fail” was always there. There was always the lender of last resort. As long as you have that, regulations will not solve the problem. Take, for instance, after ENRON went down we immediately passed Sarbanes-Oxley saying “we didn’t have enough regulations.” It had nothing to do with it. Where did some of the companies go then? There were too many regulations so they had to leave this country.

So I would say that we’ve embarked on the wrong course and whether you put the regulations in the Fed or outside the Fed, it’s not a whole lot different. But we certainly don’t want to give the Fed more power. It’s much easier for the Congress to assume the responsibility of oversight if it’s outside the Fed. For some reason up until recently the Fed was sacred. You weren’t even allowed to ask questions, let alone get the answers. And now, of course, the momentum is in the direction of “even the Fed ought to be transparent” and I think that, of course, is very important.

Joe Kernen: What’s your bill? You got how many co-sponsors and do you still like your bill, because I saw somewhere that you said it’s already been gutted?

Ron Paul: Well, the intention is that one time they said they would put it into Barney Frank’s bill. It never actually got in there. So the plan now is to get an audit put in to the bill. But it will be a pseudo-audit, it won’t amount to much. We have 309 co-sponsors and we have all the Republicans on the bill as well as about a 130 Democrats. So it’s very, very bipartisan. There has been a national poll – which I’m surprised that there even would be polling on this subject, I would never have dreamt about it a couple of years ago. But 75% American people say, “Yeah, we should know what’s going on with the Fed”. So that 75% of the electorate saying that we should do our job and look at the Fed is the reason why there is well over 2/3rds of members of Congress supporting this bill. This bill would pass tomorrow if we brought it up under suspension, but the powers to be, the Fed, is working frantically, they’re editorializing, they’ve hired a lobbyist. They do not want us to know what they’re doing and they use all kinds of frivolous arguments why the Congress is not allowed to know what they’re up to.

News Anchor: What makes you so confident, Congressman, that the GAO is competent enough to audit the Fed reliably? And what do you make of those who say that Congress already has the right to ask a lot of questions to the Fed; they do it every time the chairman comes to the Hill?

Ron Paul: But they’re not allowed to ask the right questions. You’re not allowed to ask what kind of arrangements they make with a foreign bank or foreign central banks or foreign governments or international financial organizations or the details of the discount window, which companies got their benefits. So no, we’re not really allowed to. Now, the GAO may be far from perfect, but they probably have one of the best reputations in Washington if you’re going to look into something. It’s been bipartisan and somebody asked me once, “Who’s going to regulate the regulator,” you know, who’s going to regulate and check out the GAO. I think that’s a decent question, but under the circumstances there is not much else that we can do. They are the ones that we should look to to looking into the Fed.

News Anchor: Congressman, you said we’re on the wrong course. I wonder if you can tell for us what you feel is the right course. I mean, you’ve written a book called “End the Fed”. So you want to end the Fed, but my guess is when you talk about the market working you also want to end deposit insurance. Is that part of the problem also?

Ron Paul: Oh, sure. I think deposit insurance… immediately people say “Oh, my accounts won’t be insured”. No, they will be insured by private companies and each and every individual bank would be monitored instead of having massive bank failures and financial crises and each and every individual bank…

News Anchor: Can I just ask you this: You’ve seen the pictures of the 1930s when we had runs on banks. Is that something that’s acceptable to you that people should be afraid they would lose money in the event of a bank failure?

Ron Paul: Well, if you had private insurance there wouldn’t be. But the bank runs is a consequences of Fed policy. You know, the Fed has been around since 1913 but their first crisis came from the inflation through World War I and we had the depression of 1920-1921 and it lasted about a year. But back then they didn’t believe that you should bail out everybody and pump more credit in. They allowed the liquidation of the malinvestment, they allowed the debt to be eliminated and then go back to market interest rates and go back to work again.

But today, ever since the depression, Hoover and Roosevelt set the standard along with Keynes. Keynes is really the individual we follow and it’s not a market phenomenon. We don’t have market interest rates. We have guarantees that people are going to make mistakes; we have guarantees that we’re going to have too many houses. But what do we do now? We had a program where both Congress and the Fed encouraged the housing industry. Finally the bubble burst, which so many of us predicted would happen. So what are we trying to do in Congress right now? We’re trying to stimulate housing and to keep prices up. What we need to do is let the prices of houses drop and we don’t want to stimulate anything, we want the prices to adjust, we want these houses that were overly priced to get low enough so poor people can buy houses once again. And now we come up with cash for clunkers and all this silly stuff here. We have no confidence whatsoever in the market economy.

News Anchor: And just one more thing which is that when you talk about the right course, if I am not mistaken, you want to go back to the gold standard? Is that the right way to run monetary policy, in your opinion?

Ron Paul: No, but I’d like to go forward to a commodity standard. There were a lot of always in the old gold standard because there was bimetallism and fixed price between gold and silver. It’s still on the books that gold and silver is legal tender and we ignore it. If you use gold and silver as legal tender today, you go to jail. There is nothing in the law that says a Federal Reserve note equals a dollar. We can’t even define a dollar. No, we should have a definition of a dollar. How can you have a measuring rod which you can’t define? It’s totally foolish.

I really like the idea of allowing the market to determine what backs the currency, make sure there are no-fraud laws, and really look into the matter whether or not we should have fractional reserve banking. Yes, you have the Fed creating money out of this air, but then this is magnified by fractional reserve banking which is really fraudulent. And all it does is build financial bubbles guaranteeing the business cycle and the collapses, and as long as you patch it together, the longer you do that, the bigger the bubble. And now we’re in the midst of a big correction.

News Anchor: So just to be clear, no fractional reserve banking means a dollar loaned out equals a dollar on reserve, right? Or a dollar of capital? Is that what you would do?

Ron Paul: Yeah, if you put a hundred dollars in the bank today, the bank immediately has $190. No, if you put a $100 in today you have to say it has to stay there for 3 months and then you can loan it out for 3 months. But you don’t expand the money supply. The money supply, the Fed creates a trillion and in a few months it’s nine trillion. And that’s where the distortions come from and of course, everybody loves it when it’s going up because the prices of houses are going up and everything’s happening that seems to please a lot until the correction comes. Politicians love it. You can fight wars that you don’t have to pay for, you can run the welfare state that you don’t have to pay for. So if you believe in limited government, you have to look at monetary policy and decide that you just can’t create money out of thin air. That is the culprit and you can’t solve the problem by regulations.

News Anchor: Speaking of policy, Congressman Watt has this amendment that would audit the 13-3 powers of the Fed, the special stuff that allowed them to do so much of what happened over the past year. You’re saying that does not go far enough. Is that right?

Ron Paul: Oh, no, that’s just… the Fed has already agreed to that. The Fed’s position is, “Yeah, we’ll let you look at that. We’re going to wind those programs down anyway”, but the big stuff that is done behind the scenes, the Fed is part of the Plunge Protection Team and they can create the credit and they can make all the deals overseas. And that’s what we need to look at. But I would agree with that bill, because it is more than we’re getting now. This is what got the attention of a lot of people when members of Congress started asking about 13-3 and these extensions of loans and who’s getting the money. That’s very, very important. But that’s still only minor compared to what I’m talking about.

News Anchor: Ron, you’re a doctor too, right?

Ron Paul: Yes, that is correct.

News Anchor: So you got comments on health care, I bet. And how about the dollar, we’re orchestrating a pretty nice decline there, too, aren’t we? That’s interesting. But we’re out of time. Are you ever in this area?

Ron Paul: On occasion, and the dollar is the big issue.

News Anchor: Well, get in here.

Ron Paul: I’d like to come in and talk to you.

News Anchor: Come in here for two hours. We’ll let you just go off.

Ron Paul: I don’t know if I can stand you guys for 2 hours.

News Anchor: You can do the talking. We’ll just let you loose and we’re going to advertise it before we do. Thank you, Congressman. We appreciate it.

Ron Paul: Alright, thank you.


  • Whoah this blog is magnificent i love studying your articles. Keep up the great paintings! You know, lots of persons are looking around for this info, you could aid them greatly.

  • chloroform

    The biggest question about Ron Paul at this point is simply this: How does he reconcile his positive notions of ‘property’ with his negative notions of ‘fractional banking’? Put more simply, how does he out of one side of his mouth, and as part of the government , tell bank stockholders and board members that they are and have been part of a fraudulent ponzi scheme and have obtained their money fraudulently while at the same time out of the other side of his mouth, say they should also have no regulations and that they are entitled to their property and the government should stay out of the whole affair?

    While some politicians know exactly what they are doing, I believe Ron Paul is sincere, yet simply DEEPLY CONFLICTED on this matter (schizoidally even). It shows in his mannerisms and people’s responses to them. I like his voice in debates as I think it brings valid things to the table that wouldn’t be heard otherwise, but this man is not fit for the presidency.

    Sorry R-tards. The point of any ‘straight talker’ should be able to give us the lowdown details on how everything IS messed up, but exactly how it CAN be fixed. I don’t see simply ending the Fed and fractional reserve system and replacing fiat money with a gold standard as having any effect at all. In fact, it could make things very much worse. Here is a better idea: Replace the Fed with a passive, yet strongly regulatory Federal Credit Union. That way they are not actively influencing the money supply as the fed does. Banks will naturally die off as their forms of credit would not be much good in a Fed CU. If we implemented a gold standard, it would be an utter disaster. The flexibility fiat money gives us would be lost while we slavishly adhered to it and watched everybody try to hoard gold (Guess where all the gold would end up? You got it, it would end up with those who could hold onto it the longest; IOW, not Joe the Plumber) Sorry gold squirrelers.

  • wrays42

    Friedman wrote a “Reform” bill suggestion before he died, but I don’t hear it mentioned now—-I think the most important reform was to take away from the fed the ability to print the currency and put it in the hands of the United States treasury. And then he had a formula for regulating the amount of currency that could be printed each year. included was the suggestion of taking new treasury notes and buying up the Federal Reserve notes similar to the Lincoln green-back maneuver during the Civil War. But because of the fact that it removes interest payments, it is dangerous. Ben Franklin says that the revolutionary war was fought over who had the right to print the money from the colonies it’s not a frivolous consideration.

  • sean

    That website nate only explains the need for money. That really doesn’t fit into what we are talking about now, or does in any way defend anything you have to say.

    What did the first people use as money??? Metal.. Why? Because metals were rare back then, but metals are way more rare today, and only the rich have them. That means the rich would have to create money, unless we use commodities as you suggest.

    1. We could have a barter system of commodities, but it leads to difficult trade and is the reason why money was created in the first place (according to that website you showed me)

    2. There are no valuable commodities at which you can store except precious metals for the quantity needed as a means of exchange for the size of our economy.

    3. The people would need the governments protection because it is private property.

    • sean

      Destruction of the dollar is theft. Do you not agree?

      • Nate Y

        Of course I agree. What’s your point?

        • sean

          If destruction of the dollar is theft, than the government would have to protect theft or inflation of private currencies. The only way to do this, is to set fixed weights and measures.

          • Nate Y

            And I’ve already pointed out your confusion regarding the phrase “set the standard of weights and measures”.

      • Nate Y

        So do you want gold as money with full reserve banking or do you want government paper and a national bank? You keep switching your position. An unfair tactic.

        • sean

          I have never said I was for a national bank. I said I am for state-chartered banks several times.. It can be paper as long as its fully backed with gold.

          • Nate Y

            Well i guess i was confused by this

            you said:

            “Thomas Jefferson was against Central Banks but for National Banks, it’s constitutional.”

            coupled with this…

            you said: “thomas jefferson was for state chartered banks, like me..”

            What’s the difference between Central banks and National banks btw?

            Moving on…

            If you want a 100% Full Reserve Gold standard. Then we pretty much have nothing to talk about. I’d be just fine with that. But I’d be interested to learn how you would propose we find our way to that happy condition. I’m also curious to learn why the mechanisms that would exist to prevent (or punish) your “print a trillion dollars” and “two banks” scenario under your 100% Full reserve gold standard. What are they? And why wouldn’t they exist under a market selected commodity standard (the position I have been advocating). I suspect it has something to do with how you view the banking system. I am a bit confused about your state chartered banks. Elaborate on this a bit if you would. Would the only banks be State chartered banks and their branches? Or would private banks be allowed to compete? And what’s to prevent the State banks from the abuses you’ve written about? I must say I am quite pleased with this transformation of yours. Now you’re against National/Central banks and for Full reserve banking coupled with a 100% gold standard. Perhaps you’re not a lost cause after all.

            Did you read Rothbard’s “What has the Government Done to Our Money/The Case for a 100% Gold Dollar”?



    • Nate Y

      Well then I guess government paper splashed with ink and backed by empty promises is the only thing we should use as money in this “modern economy”.

  • sean

    Show me Nate, show everyone on this website just one quote from any forefather advocating privately controlled currencies.

    You claim Thomas Jefferson is for private control over money supplies. Show me where Thomas Jefferson is for this..

    • sean

      “Certainly no nation ever before abandoned to the avarice and jugglings of private individuals to regulate according to their own interests, the quantum of circulating medium for the nation — to inflate, by deluges of paper, the nominal prices of property, and then to buy up that property at 1s. in the pound, having first withdrawn the floating medium which might endanger a competition in purchase. Yet this is what has been done, and will be done, UNLESS STAYED BY THE PROTECTING HAND OF THE LEGISLATURE. The evil has been produced by the error of their sanction of this ruinous machinery of banks; and justice, wisdom, duty, all require that they should interpose and arrest it before the schemes of plunder and spoilation desolate the country.” –Thomas Jefferson to William C. Rives, 1819. ME 15:232

      • sean

        Private currencies would work ONLY if the government made a law fixing the weights and measures. That I would agree with.. The government would have to protect our private property.

        • longshotlouie

          It would be preferable to know that a foot is always twelve inches.

          • Nate Y

            Wouldn’t it though?

          • sean

            Yes it would… I would prefer there to be a set standard of weights and measures for money. I would like to know that x amount of dollars will always be worth y amount of gold. What is stopping the “market” from changing x and y? I could own a hundred dollars being worth an oz of gold one day and then all of a sudden the market changes is to being worth 1/2 an oz of gold.

            I think you are arguing the opposite nate.

        • sean

          Plus, it’s not even the market which decides the value of the currency, it’s those who create the money who are in charge of its value. Whoever can create the money can just as easily destroy it.

          • Nate Y

            Now we’re back to your confusions about money. “Fix the standards of weights and measures” does not mean “x amount of dollars will always equal y amount of gold” as you wish. Your wish is impossible. Prices and exchange ratios are estabilshed by supply and demand. Let’s say the government fixes the ratio of gold and dollars. 1 dollar = 1 ounce of gold. This relationship cannot last. Why? If the supply of dollars increases relative to the supply of gold, then the price of gold in dollars must go up. 1 dollar would no longer equal 1 ounce of gold.

            To fix the standards of weights and measures as stated in the Constitution means 1 dollar = some specific weight of gold/silver. How would this principle apply in a free market?

            Let’s say you decide to enter the money producing market. You establish the Sean Mint. The units produced are called “Seans”. To fix a standard of weights and measures in this case would mean “1 Sean = some specific weight/measurement of some commodity/commodities”. What commodity/commodities? That’s for the market to decide.

          • sean

            hahaha this I know. The only way to increase the supply of dollars is to increase the supply of gold. This is what exactly what Ron Paul has said and has advocated in the past.

            The whole purpose of this is to minimize inflation.

            “A 100% reserve gold standard, or a full gold standard, exists when a monetary authority holds sufficient gold to convert all of the representative money it has issued into gold at the promised exchange rate. It is sometimes referred to as the Gold Specie Standard to more easily identify it from other forms of the gold standard that have existed at various times.”

          • Nate Y

            Oh so you advocate a 100% full reserve standard in gold?! Wow man that’s pretty radical.

          • sean

            That is not radical, its in the constitution and I quoted Ron Paul on that.. It would have the same effect as outlawing fractional reserve lending.

  • Nate Y


    Good to see you back. It’s been getting scary around these parts.

  • Joe Macchietto

    I just got off the phone with Congressman Mel Watts office. I questioned his receptionist why the Congressman was trying to undermine HR 1207 and she went on to tell me “…Congressman Watts wants the Fed to be like the Bank of England.” ACTUAL QUOTE. I guess the Congressman doesn’t like the powers afforded Congress by the Constitution. Unbelievable!

    • Lindsey

      Joe: Maybe Watts should move to England if he likes their policies so much!

  • Nate Y

    sean says:
    November 19, 2009 at 12:04 am


    “If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.” – Thomas Jefferson


    This is an oft cited quote among hard money advocates. Although I haven’t seen the phrase “private banks” in there…it’s usually just “banks”. It’s both sad and comical that you misunderstand it so completely that you’re attempting to use it as an argument against my hard money position. As much as I would like it believe it true that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote these words, the evidence for it is very much lacking.


    Anyway, if we had a free market in money, banks would not control the issuance of currency. No more than banks control the supply of wheat, sugar, silver, gold, ipods, laptops, golf clubs, etc. at present. Private firms/mints would provide the money/commodities to be used as money. Banks would not. With free market money, banks would perform the two legitimate functions of banking. They would store and lend money. The fraudulent practice of fractional reserve banking would be held in check by the threat of bankruptcy and eventually routed out as a result of actual bankruptcies. These bankruptcies would send a powerful signal to others. The signal is, “Don’t be a jackass and engage in fractional reserve banking…sure you could turn a fraudulent profit for a little while but you can very easily go bankrupt as a result”. The free market provides discipline. Unfortunately, the government undermines this discipline and perpetuates the fraudulent system with their legal tender laws, fiat paper money, guarantees, bail outs, and other interventions. I think it likely they mean well, but the result is a transfer of wealth and power from the simple men/women on the street to the government and banks/financial institutions.

    • sean


      “if we had a free market in money, banks would not control the issuance of currency… Private firms/mints would provide the money/commodities to be used as money.” – Nate

      Private firms like the federal reserve? That’s what it sounds like you are

      I don’t think you understand what the quote is about. COMICAL!

      • sean

        Why would you want any private institution to control the supply of money that you use. They can inflate that currency and devalue your holdings, which is robbery. That’s probably why it’s outlawed.. What if one day some private institution printed a trillion dollars and bought up all the troubled assets in the market?? Doesn’t that sound familiar to you? I guess you want this with no authority what so ever… Real smart. Who’s side are you on?

        Thomas Jefferson was against Central Banks but for National Banks, it’s constitutional. He was against private banks so he created the 2nd national bank. Learn your history goober. Central banks are private banks, what you want..

        • sean

          If you knew anything about our founding fathers, and the articles of confederation, money was supposed to be created by the states.(not the people) The constitution was changed to let the federal government control the money. I believe in state-chartered banks, which is what we had before the federal reserve, and what our founding fathers believed in.

          I don’t believe in any privately owned money creator, its counterfeiting. One day their money could be tied to a commodity, the next day not.

          • Nate Y

            You may have surpassed your current record for most errors, abuses, and misunderstandings per sentence with this post. I won’t touch your abuses of the founders, the Constitution, and the Articles of Confederation. We have already gone over that numerous times.

            I will focus on the novel aspect of your post. That is, the blurb about private money being counterfeit.

            If the privately supplied money is commodity/sound money, it can’t be counterfeit. At least, it can’t be counterfeited by the producer. Does Apple produce counterfeit ipods? Nope. Why would they? Sure they could cut corners and produce inferior ipods. Why not do this? Because their customers would leave them, their profits would go away, and they would go bankrupt. This free market discipline would exist in the market for money production. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the discipline was more severe in the market for money because of how important money is. So again, under a free market in money, consumers would have every reason to demand the soundest money and producers would have every reason to supply the soundest money.

          • Nate Y

            I believe you are looking for Mayer Rothschild’s quote.

            “Give me Control of a Nation’s Money and I care not who makes its Laws”

            But you fail to grasp that this is exactly what we have at present. The Central Banks of the world control the money supply. Central Banks are all creatures of government. Couple the fraudulent nature of fractional reserve banking with the power of government and you have ideal conditions for the concentration of power/wealth in the hands of the few.

            Even though I have pointed it out numerous times, you fail to realize that no private entity would enjoy the authority of government. No money would receive the advantage of legal tender laws. No money would exist by government fiat. The money would have to be a tangible good/basket of goods. Yes, the banks could create paper or electronic claims to money. But they would be did so imprudently (your “print a trillion dollars” scenario) they would quickly go bankrupt. It is the threat of bankruptcy which influences firms to pursue sound policies. If a bankk printed or created a bunch of claims for money they didn’t have, they wouldn’t be able to meet their contractual obligations and would suffer the consequences.

            It is only through some form of force (like government power) that the burden can be unloaded from the contract participants and onto the people in general.

          • sean

            I didn’t fail to realize anything.. How would a bank go bankrupt if they printed money? That would not happen, instead they would devalue their currency which would rob the people who own their money….

            Money is a form of private property, and it is supposed to be the governments responsibility to protect our private property.

          • Nate Y

            Again, in a free market in money, money would be a commodity/basket of commodities or something similar. It would be a tangible asset. As such, money could not be printed or electronically created into existence. Sure banks could print or digitally create CLAIMS to the money that they hold on deposit. But in doing this they would subject themselves to the threat of bankruptcy. If a bank creates more promises to pay (paper/digital claims) than money (the market selected commodity/commodities) on deposit, there will be a run on the bank in due time, the unsound policies of the bank will be exposed, and they will go bankrupt.

          • sean

            What is to stop them changing their commodities and the value of their money? There has to be a law for fixed weights and measures.

            If a bank can create their money, they don’t need to create promises to pay. They can just print the money… Whenever their is a run on the bank, it is not just the bank that suffers, it is also the people.

          • sean

            Under what you propose, I would open two banks and transfer wealth from one bank to the next. When there is a run on one bank, the other one will still survive, and only the people will lose.

            Trust me.. There is a lot of corruption that comes with the power to create money. There are always new loopholes that we are not aware of. Our forefathers were well aware of this.

          • Nate Y

            Am I not saying it plainly enough? Banks wouldn’t be able to create MONEY. The money is the commodity/commodities selected by the market. Let’s just say the market selects silver as money. Banks cannot create silver. They can only create CLAIMS on silver. IF they do this unwisely, they suject themselves to runs and bankruptcy.

            If you were to do your “two banks” scenario, you would still be guilty of theft and fraud and subject to the appropriate punishment.

            Also, I will just echo longshotlouie’s sentiments regarding weights and measures. It would be nice if 12 inches always equaled a foot.

          • sean

            haha the market creates money? I think you really haven’t thought this out. Who specifically would create the money? What would stop them from delinking their money from a commodity?

          • Nate Y

            Yep. The market would create money. That is how money originally came to exist. It does not exist because of government decree. Money did not come into being because of a bunch of busybodies produced a formula to make it so. Nope.

            Money emerges naturally on the market.


          • sean

            Someone has to create money. It just doesn’t come out of thin air.. Whoever creates this money can change its exchange rate or devalue the currency through inflation.. Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers believed the government should protect money because it is private property and it is the governments responsibility to protect private property.

            LOL!!! I am not doubting you that money was created naturally, whatever that means. I’m saying that we need protection against the manipulation of wealth and the robbery that is associated with it.

          • Nate Y

            Well i provided a link so you don’t have to ask “whatever that means”. Bob Murphy does a good job with his quick snap shot at the origin of money. It’s a short article. Give it a read.

            Yeah, the Founders (well most of them) sought to protect the people from the ravages and theft of unsound money and inflation. That’s why the gold/silver clause is present in the Constitution. I had no idea you want gold/silver to be the only form of legal tender. I think we’re too far gone down the road of government machinations and fiat money to turn right back to gold/silver as the only legal tender but to each his own.

          • sean

            Easily.. You can create a second currency like china has. Either that our allow states to create money backed by gold or silver. or.. you can have private mints with a fixed exchange rate.

            + you have to realize.. every form of money which could be created and used within the market, at this day in time, would have to be tied to the dollar in some way, or foreign countries who made the product wont except it.

        • Nate Y

          Thomas Jefferson was for National Banks? That is an outright lie. Here’s a sampling of Jefferson’s thoughts on a National Bank http://www.constitution.org/mon/tj-bank.htm

          He clearly was against a National Bank in principle and argued that such an institution is unconstitutional.

          Jefferson created the 2nd National Bank? This is another outright lie (or an honest mistake). Jefferson was President from 1801-1809 and The FIRST Bank of the United States (established by Hamilton’s influence over Washington) was still in operation during Jefferson’s time as President. The first bank’s charter didn’t expire until 1811 during Madison’s Presidency and wasn’t renewed. The SECOND Bank of the United States wasn’t chartered until 1816. That’s 7 years after the end of Jefferson’s presidency.

          Again, in a free market in money, the private institutions would produce sound money. That is, commodity/commodity backed money. If they did your “what if they print a trillion dollars” scenario, they would only succeed in bankrupting themselves. So they would have every reason not to do it.

          • sean

            Okay i was wrong.. James madison(author of the constitution) created the 2nd national bank and thomas jefferson was for state chartered banks, like me..

            The federal reserve printed a trillion dollars, so could any private bank.. During the free-baning era, the New York bank took the responsibilities of the central bank.. All you want to do is give counterfeiting authorities to private institutions. You have seriously flawed thinking. For some reason you think that private institutions with the power to create money would not abuse that power… How does that quote go? I care not who runs the country, as long as I control the supply of money.

      • Nate Y

        Perhaps it does sound like that to someone who has a misunderstanding of our current system. The Federal Reserve is not a private entity. Is is a creature of government. Come on now. You know this. You know it was created by Congress in 1913 with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. The government cannot create a private entity. Once again, you are being disingenuous.

        • sean

          They were created by the government, but they work privately.. You should know this. You should know that they haven’t even been audited..

  • Nate Y

    Who are the biggest buyers of Treasuries? Not the free market. That’s for sure. The biggest buyers at are foreign governments and large financial institutions/banks.

    The best argument I’ve seen put forth to explain the continued support of the treasury market by foreign governments is that foreign governments don’t want their currencies to appreciate against the dollar too quickly because of the negative (but short-term) economic consequences and the fact that many foreign governments hold large amounts of dollars/treasuries already. If they exited the Treasury market the dollar would quickly (and further) devalue. Some say “Well then what’s to worry about? They’ll keep buying to support their dollar reserves. Everyone wins.” but I think this is wrong from several angles. But I don’t feel like getting into it. Keep in mind, they’re not buying as much as they used to.

    Now what about the large financial institutions/banks? Why are they buying these Treasuries? This is the economic slight of hand that allows the Fed to monetize the debt while tricking the people into thinking otherwise. What happened this past year? The large financial institutions/banks get bailed out by the Fed. They gain at the expense of other firms and the people in general. They then turn around and buy Treasuries with their ill-gotten money. So instead of the Fed directly entering the Treasury market and monetizing the debt (which would likely cause a panic), they use the banking establishment as a smokescreen and intermediary.

    Nothing free market about it.

    • Matt

      “Not the free market. That’s for sure. The biggest buyers at are foreign governments and large financial institutions/banks.”

      Ummm, so when you say ‘Let The Free Market Determine What Commodities Will Back Currency’… Are you just going to exclude Financial Institutions and Banks from participating at all?!?!? Are banks and financial institutions really NOT a part of the ‘Free Market’? Are banks and large financial institutions (I assume you to mean hedge funds, etc…) not allowed to vote with their dollars? Are they not a part of the efficient markets?

      Better yet, when you talk about competing currencies in the free market, if “Large Financial Institutions And Banks” cannot compete with their currencies (as they are obviously not a part of the free market, per you) who can?

  • Nate Y

    sean says:
    November 17, 2009 at 8:00 pm

    “If you mass produce a commodity and use it as money, you can therefore mass produce the money that is tied to that commodity.”

    Yeah and if we have choice in money/currency, the producers of the money/currency have every reason not to inflate (mass produce) the money. That action would be held in check by the people who use the money. People would not keep using the inflated/mass produced money for long. They would switch to alternatives. Just like any other market, when the producers stop serving their customer’s demands or they produce inferior products, the people will abandon that producer and take their business elsewhere. In the case of free market money money, the people have every reason to demand the soundest money and the producers have every reason to supply the soundest money.

    “It seems like you think that money can hold value as long as it can be exchanged for some tangible item. But in reality, the money can only be as valuable as the commodity itself, and the commodity can lose value which would in return devalue the money.”

    If the money can be exchanged for a tangible item, it does hold value. But as you point out through your confusion, the money does not (nor would it) hold a constant value. Nothing in Economics is static. Everything is dynamic. Supply and demand are in a constant state of flux. As such, prices/values (even those of money) are forever fluctuating. This is not a problem. The idea behind sound money isn’t to eliminate price movements because the elimination of price movements is impossible. The goal of sound money is merely to minimize the movements. It does this quite well relative to government fiat paper money. Couple this virtue of sound money with a free and vibrant economy in general and you get gently falling prices. That is, the standard of living goes up for most everyone and the gap between the absurdly rich and the tragically poor narrows.

    “Commodity money therefore cannot be a hard currency.”


    “The reason why gold and silver have made out as sound money is because of the rarity and value of the metals.”

    Yeah. Which is one of the reasons why I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the free market would establish gold/silver as money or, at the very least, a component of what is to be chosen as money.

    • Matt

      So, do we know why Ron Paul abandoned his 40+ years of FERVENTLY championing the Gold standard in favor of ‘well, i dunno, whatever, lets just let the markets pick something’?

      I mean, he has REPEATEDLY said “The only moral, constitutional, and economically productive alternative is the 100% redeemable gold coin standard, which puts the citizen in control.”

      So, what changed his mind?

      • Nate Y

        Well that quote is still representative of Ron Paul’s thoughts as near as i can tell. Because according to the Constitution, only gold/silver are to be legal tender.

        But why ask impossible questions? How can anyone answer “So, what changed his mind?” with anything other than a wild guess? I just find this so strange. It’s not even like Ron Paul did a complete 180. He didn’t go from arguing for a gold standard to now promoting government fiat paper as money. Indeed, he could very well still believe that a 100% redeemable gold coin standard would be best. He could even believe that is what the market would produce as money.

        I don’t see why you continually criticize Ron Paul for having an open mind and allowing his ideas to be updated because of new circumstances, evidence, and arguments. This is a virtue, not a vice. It should be commended, not criticized.

        • Matt

          For someone that had DEVOUTLY endorsed the Gold Standard, and ONLY the Gold Standard for the past DECADES – I can’t believe you aren’t in the least interested as to why he would move away from that belief.

          And I do find it very interesting, as he has not only said ‘the Gold Standard is the best way’ he has been VERY adamant in saying ‘the Gold Standard is the ONLY way’. Gold and it’s thousand’s of year track record is put forth by him as to proof that it is the ONLY and BEST way to have sound money.

          EVERYTHING in his writings hinted at gold, not one deviation. Now it is ‘ahhhh well, you know, whatever the markets choose’.

          What would make someone change their mind about that? It’s like being a devout (religious comparison implied) Cowboys fan ever since the inception and then just saying ‘Actually, I like the Redskins now too’.

          You aren’t the least bit mystified?

          • Nate Y

            No. I am not that mystified. It could simply be that he felt a return to a gold standard was possible in the past but, due to the policies implemented and the circumstances that have developed over the past 38 years since Nixon completely closed the gold window, he has found his ideas have had to change. I don’t know if he could point to a singular event that changed his mind and unless I have a personal conversation with the man, I will never know. So while I don’t know what his exact reasoning is, I am not in the least bit mystified.

            There is still debate in the Austrian School as to what would be the best solution. I know Rothbard and Hazlitt were quite fond of some form of gold standard while Hayek and others favored the idea of a free market in money to find our way back to sanity (this latter suggestion seems to be more popular among the contemporary Austrian School). Ron Paul favoring a free market in money is not a dramatic change at all. I’m sure you’ve found your ideas shifting ever so slightly over the years.

            To keep with your flawed football team analogy, I would not be in the least bit surprised if a person who once upon a time only liked the Cowboys eventually came to (for very good reasons) also enjoy rooting for the Redskins. But Ron Paul didn’t switch teams or start rooting for two teams. Nope. He’s just suggesting we should find out who would win in a free market. We should have a fair game to find out who the best team is. Is it government fiat paper or free market commodity money? No team (money) receives an undue advantage (legal tender status) and let’s have at it.

          • John

            Everyone should not pay any attention to Matt since he is not familiar with the constitution and has a huge lack of understanding when it comes to economics and inflation. It wouldn’t surprise me if he was to support Palin (quite possibly the dumbest politician ever) or Barney Frank or Pelosi. He has no understanding of free markets or capitalism. He just a blind follower of current politicians who continue to steal his money.

          • sean


            “If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.” – Thomas Jefferson

          • sean

            This is what we are aiming for…

            “Hard currency or strong currency, in economics, refers to a globally traded currency that can serve as a reliable and stable store of value. Factors contributing to a currency’s hard status can include political stability, low inflation, consistent monetary and fiscal policies, backing by reserves of precious metals, and long-term stable or upward-trending valuation against other currencies on a trade-weighted basis.”

            Not “commodity money”

          • longshotlouie

            Mountains and molehills,
            you forgot to pay your brain tax.

          • longshotlouie

            Something else that the good doctor always says:
            ‘The market will ultimately choose gold

            I see Mattie is still scraping the barrel.

    • Matt

      “U.S. Congressman Ron Paul used to argue for the reinstatement of the gold standard.”

      Looks like Wikipedia picked up on it!


  • sean

    China’s hidden debt problem. Before our massive economic stimulus, China’s debt was almost as high as ours..


  • Matt

    Seriously? What an idiot.

    “News Anchor: if I am not mistaken, you want to go back to the gold standard? Is that the right way to run monetary policy, in your opinion?

    Ron Paul: No, but I’d like to go forward to a commodity standard.”

    Really Ron Paul?!?!?! Really?

    Ron Paul has also said “The dollar must once again be simply a name for a unit of weight of gold coin.”

    In fact, he wrote a WHOLE FREAKING PAPER on how we NEED to get back to the gold standard!!


    Whatever Ron Paul. I have ZERO confidence in your double talk. Nice to see that you have thoroughly abandoned your followers though – who are still adhering to your now-defunct ‘Gold Is King’ ideology.

    ‘Gold is the solution! Well, at least it was kind of at the time and isn’t really now, and since i never really had a clue in the first place i am not sure now but whatever it is let the markets FIGURE IT OUT!’


    • jones

      Why don’t you explain your view of how to regulate the economy and how to prevent the thiefs from walking away with a country’s assets and eventually the world’s?

      Because if you are one of those that believes in printing paper to your liking, and behind doors, with zero accountability to the public whose money is being ‘massaged’, then you can not be in charge of anything related to economy.

      The disscusion should and must be about that, if not gold, then what asset?

      go and think about it, then comment as an adult.

    • Nate Y

      Very cool to see Ron Paul properly say “commodity standard” instead of “gold standard”. The term “gold standard” carries way too much baggage and as he points out, the gold standard of the past was definitely better than our current fiat monetary system but it was still flawed. People (like Liesman) are all too eager to abuse history, theory, and language in order to argue in favor of government fiat paper.

      • Matt

        I would agree, now I would MOST certainly like to see how he proposes to determine which/what commodities he would select.

        As well, instead of simply abandoning the gold standard, as he fought SO HARD FOR, it would be nice for him to:

        *Most Important* Explain WHY he has abandoned the gold standard concept – this is especially important to me given the COMPLETELY irrefutable stance he had taken previously – ‘its the Gold Standard way or we are all going to hell’. If he was SO ABSOLUTELY certain it was the right thing to do, why will he not admit his ideas were outdated or no longer possible, as well as refreshing them with further support? Sorry, but the mechanics of a pure gold standard versus the mechanics of backing with a basket of commodities is pretty freaking different.

        And I don’t need this ‘the world isnt ready for the gold standard’ or ‘the banksters will never allow it to happen’ or some other crap that again, feels like high-horse demagoguery or waffling.

        Otherwise, it looks like Ron Paul is also doing some revisionist history of his own – without even admitting that his central tenant was terribly flawed at best, and wrong at worst.

        • Nate Y

          He wouldn’t do the selecting. The market would. That is, the people through their free exchanges will select the commodity (or commodities) to be used as money.

          • sean

            Make a list of the top 5 commodities that you think could be used as a means of exchange. What tangible items could we put away to back a currency? I know silver and gold would make fine candidates, but when you use the term “commodity,” it is very broad and doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. You can’t back up money with oil or wheat, but you can use precious metals.

            If you use any easily obtainable commodity to back up money, than the money becomes worthless. Because we can mass produce most commodities, we could in return mass produce the money that it is backed by. That defeats the whole purpose of limiting the supply.. You have to have a limited supply of commodity to limit the supply of money. It has to be rare…

          • Matt

            So it would be like a vote? But a vote with dollars to be invested in the commodities that it will be backing? How would that ever happen.

            Yeah, we all know how much ron paul supporters would trust the veracity and unbiased accuracy that a worldwide vote would have. Riiiight. ‘The big-money NWO types would NEVER be able to have any influence on something like that.’

            There are so many problems with that it stands to reason why Ron Paul never talks in specifics or reality and instead sticks to moral appeasement.

          • Matt

            And, if it isn’t gold, then what would even be possible? Ron Paul spent what, 40+ years championing the Gold Standard – specifically the Gold Standard nothing else – why would he change now? Something made him change his mind as to why Gold would NOT be a good basis. Or even something like ‘bimetallism’ – what ‘commodities’ is he talking about?

            Hogs? Lumber? Gas? Palladium?

            Something he obviously missed for the other 40+ years. I would find it fairly important to understand WHY, when for so many years he believed himself to be enlightened and specific.

            It almost sounds like acknowledgment that he has been feeding everyone his own personal pipe dream.

        • Nate Y

          Well you can’t expect me to argue an impossible position. No doubt some “anti-NWO” conspiracy theorists would cry manipulation if the market didn’t product exactly what they expected. But that’s hardly an argument against the idea that we should have a Choice in Currency if we are to have freedom and prosperity.

          You pretty much always employ this rhetorical trick. You take what some people who may support and idea may do and make a pathetic attempt to exploit it in order to argue against the idea itself.

          To Sean:
          I honestly have no idea what commoditiy/commodities the free market would select. It literally could be anything. Paper is a commodity. Maybe freedom would bring us government issued paper splashed with ink as the preferred money. Although I greatly doubt it. Of course, history and current events point us to greatly consider gold/silver as potential candidates. But there is really no merit in me attemptin to guess on this board. It will only serve as a distraction and take us off on a tangent. The sound money experiment, like all experiments concerning human action, must be run in real time. It’s not perfect but it’s the best we got.



          • sean

            Your missing the whole point..

            If you mass produce a commodity and use it as money, you can therefore mass produce the money that is tied to that commodity.

            It seems like you think that money can hold value as long as it can be exchanged for some tangible item. But in reality, the money can only be as valuable as the commodity itself, and the commodity can lose value which would in return devalue the money.

            Commodity money therefore cannot be a hard currency.

            The reason why gold and silver have made out as sound money is because of the rarity and value of the metals.

          • sean

            Commodity Money Inflation: Theory and Evidence from France in 1350-1436


    • Terbily

      Matt. When are you going to realise that counterfeiting of money by the Central Banks,steals wealth from the real producers in society? The bail outs have further inflated the derivative bubble at the expense of real productivity and jobs.A gold standard will stop the counterfeiters and reward people who produce.

      The next collapse is looming,and if chaos ensues,not even the elite profiteers will be safe.

      It is time for sound,logical leadership.The greedy,self indulgent fools have over played their hand. More of the same is not an option.

      • Matt

        Teribly, thanks for the nearly sympathetic demagoguery. When will you realize that just because you back something with gold (or a commodity or whatever) it will never satisfy your insatiable lust or incapability to understand how things change around you, as evidenced by the near-‘rapture’ic warning that “The next collapse is looming,and if chaos ensues,not even the elite profiteers will be safe.” Sorry, simply backing money with gold will not make you feel safe at night.

        Sometimes you have to see your own shortcomings before assuming them unto others:

        “The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms—he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization. He constantly lives at a turning point. Like religious millenialists he expresses the anxiety of those who are living through the last days and he is sometimes disposed to set a date for the apocalypse”


        • hoorraaa

          (THE COLD AIR STANDARD) Al Gore has opened his eyes to global warming, so the commodity most certainly is cold air

        • Terbily

          Matt: Your linguisitic overtures of attempted credulity assassination has no basis in fact.The reality is there for all to see.Ron Paul knows it,along with many other economic realists.They bailed out Wall Street and the big banks with tax payers money.

          The US Govt is currently in $13 trillion in debt.This will be 90 % of GDP.For every person in the US it will be a debt of $42,000.00 plus interest.America’s total debt is said to be $ 57 trillion or $187 million for every person.The USA is insolvent,it cannot produce enough value to service it’s debts.

          It has been raped and pillaged by both it’s Govts and the Global Banksters.That is the reality.

          • Matt

            “It has been raped and pillaged by both it’s Govts and the Global Banksters.That is the reality.”

            Interesting. So there really is no hope. Thank you for opening my eyes to this fact. We are all f*cked and there is no hope.

            So, do you have ANY idea why someone, lets picckkkkkk… Ummm Warren Buffett would, TWO DAYS AGO, say something about a recent purchase: “It was an opportunity to buy a business that’s going to be around for 100 or 200 years,”

            Is he really betting on your omnipotence to save us? I didn’t see him citing ‘well, i made this $44 BILLION dollar bet assuming Ron Paul can save us all, otherwise, this country is toast’?

            Why does the free market continue to buy treasuries at such a low yield?

            Oh yeah, that is right, EVERYONE else is wrong and you (and Ron Paul) have the monopoly on intelligence, insight, and economics – ‘Free Markets are always right, unless I say they are wrong’ and there is no other possibility for another viewpoint. Gotcha. Thank you for your time and wisdom!

            Keep on ‘taking your’ country back’!

  • Yolandish Amaz-O Straderfil De Squirl

    Ron Paul destroyed the periodic table, because he only recognizes the element of surprise.

    When Ron Paul was denied an Egg McMuffin at McDonald’s because it was 10:35, he roundhouse kicked the store so hard it became a Wendy’s.

    When Ron Paul falls in water, Ron Paul doesn’t get wet. Water gets Ron Paul.

    Ron Paul can divide by zero.

    • Matt

      Ron Paul may be able to do all that, but he sure as hell can’t predict the future to any economic certainty:

      Ron Paul – 1982, On Why We HAVE To Move To The Gold Standard IMMEDIATELY (Anyone remember this happening in the 1980’s or anytime after that? From what I remember, it was a period of relatively benign inflation rates… Ron Paul FAIL)
      “Should the Congress not adopt the reforms we advocate, we can
      expect our economic situation to deteriorate further. First, there will be a continuation of both price increases and high interest rates. Such prices and rates may fluctuate in a cyclical pattern, but they will not secularly decline. The prime rate has already reached 21.5 percent. Perhaps within a year it will move to 25 percent, fall back, and then surge ahead to 30 percent.”

      Hmmm, for someone that is so sure of themselves, sometimes things just don’t work out like they say…

      • Nate Y

        You keep harping on this speech from 1982. So what? We’re not here simply because of Ron Paul. It is not about the man. It is about the ideas he holds. Unless you thought Yolandish’s post was serious, you have absoluetly no reason to keep discussing Ron Paul the man. Do you have a problem with the ideas sound money and free markets etc.? If so, give us your reasons and we can have a proper discussion.

        • Matt

          “You keep harping on this speech from 1982. So what?”

          Not sure what speech you are referring to, Nate. I actually take a series of quotes from the various papers he was authoring, one of which was a ‘Minority Report of the US Gold Commission’, that were HIS predictions about the downfall of our economy.

          Point is, his IDEAS about where the economy were horribly, terribly, wrong.

          Now, he makes a very fundamental change to his central tenet that GOLD is the only way – and we are left to only speculate as to why?

          • Nate Y

            Again, it is not a “very fundamental change”. A very fundamental change would be if Ron Paul suddenly started arguing in favor of, deficits, debt, government fiat paper money, central banking, things like that. There has been and continues to be a spirited debate in the Austrian School as to what is the best solution. I don’t see why it is so unfathomable that Ron Paul’s mind could be changed ever so slightly over the course of 25 years.

            Is the US held in higher regard now than in the 80s? Nope. Have we increased our productive capacity since the 80s? Nope. Has the dollar remained stable or appreciated in value since the 80s? Nope.

            Why not apply your hyper critical mind to the words, ideas, and actions of the Government/Fed? There are many more and much greater errors to discover in that realm.

      • Blackie_Chan

        OMFG something in 1982 isn’t dead on in 2009, call the presses. Seriously, maybe we should watch 2012 and not care because Nostradamus predicted it would end before the next elections get someone new in office.

        Wow I have lost all faith in Ron Paul and hereby declare that Sarah Palin should run for president with Hilary Clinton as VP and Karl Rove as Secretary of State.

        • Matt

          Actually, Blackie, the point is that a prediction made in 1982 wasn’t even f*cking close in… 1983.

          By 1983 the prime rate was 11%.

          A year later, the economy had recovered and Ron Paul was still looking up in the sky and waiting for it to fall.

          • Blackie_Chan

            My point is that you are looking for the specific effects vs what is the point. RP has said for the last 3 years that Austrian Economists can’t set a date to when a crisis will hit. They can give the milestones that will happen and will give a time period that things will occur. I would call that conscious reflection of your point that it wasn’t dead on right at that point.

            The part you conveniently skim over is the overall ill effects that not having a gold standard is having on the economy. There are very classical reasons for using gold and silver for backing of legal tender, but it’s not waffling or double speak talking about a commodity based currency in a much more general term.

            If the commodity is a rare, scarce resource that is both durable and inelastic as well as considered a luxury good, then it qualifies. This is why oil would not make a good backing. Gold and silver have a benefit of being a proven standard throughout history. Something such as platinum which is rare as well or something tied to land mass could also qualify.

            Your statement that both RP is double speaking and his predictions are completely fictional do not hold water. You can nitpick about details or look at the bigger picture of the argument and see the overall accuracy to the bubble effect and ill effects on market drivers.

  • Dr. Paul! I am glad that You standing for what you believe in and standing up for the American People. & The Federal Reserves should become abolished! Although I respectfully don’t agree with you on everything! But the Federal Reserve is a mess.

  • The Venus Project is simply applying the scientific method to social reform, given the current abilities, technologies, and resources. This would only be possible with abolishing the monetary system and total resource analysis. It accepts nothing less than total reconstruction of society, for survival of the planet. The concept of a resource based economy, rather than monetary system, is briefly discussed in Jacque Fresco’s essay at the Venus Project’s website. All it takes is mentioning and getting the idea out, the more people discuss it, they can’t stop talking about it. I hope you accept the invitation to talk about “whatever” when you do the show again. You are an inspiration to many and deeply respected as a brother of Lambda Chi Alpha. Thank you kindly for your time.

    Adam J. Bevan ΛΧΑ ΣΓ 441

  • nick

    I would like nothing better than to see Ron Paul take the floor and talk about the dollar and health care for two hours. That would be fantastic.

  • Thomas Jefferson

    Upon hearing your honorable and long-suffering Congressman Dr. Paul’s words, should the American people through their corrupt representatives, if they can any longer be called representatives, take up honorable and long-suffering Congressman Dr. Paul’s cause and do as he as advised, as verily we INSTRUCTED YOU IN ARTICLE I, SECTION 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR YOU WHICH WE WROTE…I shall at that time…stop rolling over in my current location.

    I wish you all a bloodless revolution against your oppressive government but, could hardly begrudge a bloody one should it come to that. No American Patriot would possibly disagree that indeed your government has become destructive to the ends of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    With great optimism and for the liberty of all my fellows,
    Thomas J

    Whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.
    – Declaration of Independence

    All experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
    – Declaration of Independence