Ron Paul Reacts to Ben Bernanke as TIME Person of the Year

Show: Morning Joe
Channel: MSNBC
Date: 12/16/2009


Joe Scarborough: If I could pick someone to follow up Rick Stingle’s person of the year, Ben Bernanke, seriously, it would be our next guest. Introduce him.

Mika Brzezinsk: Republican representative from Texas and member of the Financial Services Committee, Congressman Paul joining us on the set of Morning Joe, nice to have you on sir.

Ron Paul: Thank you.

Joe Scarborough: You actually just wrote a book about the Fed. I mean, by God, tell us? Off camera you were telling me that you think that Ben Bernanke probably deserves to be person of the year because of the power he has.

Ron Paul: Yes, he’s the most powerful man in the world; I believe a case could be made for that. Because he controls the supply of money, which is the dollar, which is the reserve currency of the world. He can create a trillion dollars in secret without any monitoring of the Congress. So, there is no transparency. And I think he’s more powerful than the president.

Joe Scarborough: The president we are talking of here, again the president has all these checks and balances. Bernanke and every other Fed chief operate in secrecy. Like you said, he can create a trillion dollars out of thin air.

Ron Paul: Right. The big question is: has he used that power for good, or for evil? And, of course, my side of the argument is the system is evil, and the chairman, whether it’s Greenspan or Bernanke, they can do no good. They cause our troubles, they cause the inflation, they cause the bubbles. And, therefore, the bust, the correction, is always their fault. So the problems that we have and because this is such a worldwide phenomenon, you know, since 1971 everything has become worldwide and global economy. There is no backing of any currency. And yet our Federal Reserve controls the gold, so to speak, the paper gold. And therefore this whole mess that we’re in, which has a long way to go, has been caused by the Federal Reserve.

Pat Buchanan: Alright, that’s exactly what I was going to ask you. We just heard Rick Stingle say [Bernanke] saved us from a great depression.

Mika Brzezinsk: From the brink.

Pat Buchanan: He pumped 3 trillion dollars into the economy. Who was responsible, if you name one, two, three people or institutions, to take this country, the greatest country on earth, to the brink of a depression?

Ron Paul: Well, the Federal Reserve.

Joe Scarborough: How?

Ron Paul: By creating money out of thin air, causing interest rates to be low, causing the malinvestment and causing an artificial economic expansion that has to correct. Like if you build too many houses, eventually it crashes.

Joe Scarborough: Bernanke gave us the disease and cured it, both.

Ron Paul: Yeah, but there are other things that contributed to it; like Congress having laws that say you must make bad loans and give money to people who don’t qualify.

Joe Scarborough: I got to interrupt you, Pat. You read my book?

Pat Buchanan: Right.

Joe Scarborough: That quote by Ron Paul, and I remember the date: September 10th, 2003. And buy my book or just google “September 10th 2003, Ron Paul“. In September of 2003 you predicted in the banking committee exactly what was going to happen in 2008.

Mika Brzezinsk: Word for word.

Joe Scarborough: Word for word. And I read that and people always say, “Are you making that up?” You knew in 2003 what was going to happen.

Ron Paul: You’re better than I am, I can’t remember the dates. I knew that was the position I’ve taken for years and years. And, matter of fact, I was motivated to go into Congress and run for political office in the 1970s because I understood the principles of malinvestment. But I didn’t come up with these ideas. It’s the Austrian economists and the sound-money people that said this would happen; and they were correct. Matter of fact, when the Bretton Woods System collapsed in 1971, that was the confirmation that Austrian economists were on the right track.

Joe Scarborough: Buchanan, didn’t you want to […] some Austrian economist?

Pat Buchanan: I said something about dead Austrian economists during one of my […]. Murray Rothbard… They were gone.

Ron Paul: He was your friend.

Pat Buchanan: He was always my great friend, but we slam-shut the gold window in 1971. I was with Nixon in August. That’s what you’re talking about.

Ron Paul: That’s your fault.

Pat Buchanan: But look, what were you going to do? They had all that money abroad and if you ask me… the Brits wanted to come in and clean out Fort Knox. What would you have done?

Ron Paul: Well, you should have done a lot more a lot sooner. That is don’t print so much money.

Pat Buchanan: It was LBJ’s guns and butter. But what do you on that day? I mean, my friends tell me you should have let them clean it out. You can’t do that.

Ron Paul: No, I would say that was only half the thing. If you’re going to quit, what you have to quit is printing the money. So we quit handing out the gold, but then we said we’re just going to print money and there is no restraint. So what you ushered in was a system in 1971 which created this huge, huge bubble and that’s where the real problem was.

Mika Brzezinsk: But congressman, given the bubble and given restraint, where would you stand now on regulation? Would somebody like you say less regulation or off to the crisis? Or would you say actually we do need tight regulations?

Ron Paul: Well, I want more regulations of different things. I want more regulations on Treasury, on the Congress, and on the Fed. But I want to have less mischief by bureaucrats because they do a great deal of harm. We introduced a lot of regulations in the 1930s and it just prolonged the depression. When we had Enron fail we had Sarbanes Oxley. That did harm because our businesses left our country. I don’t like those kinds of regulations. But you have to enforce regulations like contracts and bankruptcies. We ignore that. We don’t follow the contract of money, so the government does everything opposite. They violate contracts and they don’t use bankruptcies. They bail out people. So yes, you want the market to regulate, you want to get rid of bad investments and people who are bankrupt.

Joe Scarborough: Ron, really quickly, we’re coming up on a hard break. But I’ve got to ask you about Afghanistan. Pat Bucanan, myself and other conservatives are very concerned about the so-called surge. We’re concerned we’re going to be in Afghanistan for another decade. What do you think?

Ron Paul: Well, we’ll be there for a decade or longer if the money holds out. But because we are doing exactly what Osama Bin Laden wanted us to do, that is get ourselves bogged down, spend a lot of money, and get people discouraged about being bogged down. At the same time have an incentive to build up the Al-Qaida. So we’re doing exactly the same.

Joe Scarborough: The thing is Al-Qaida is not even there.

Ron Paul: Yeah, but there are a lot of people who hate our guts and they do it because we bomb them, invade them and occupy them and steal their oil and all these things. So that’s going to continue.

Joe Scarborough: What would President Ron Paul do?

Ron Paul: The troops would have been home by now. I’d bring them home. You know the famous saying, “Declare victory and come home”. There is not much victory to declare. But just come home. I’d come home from Korea and Germany. Save the money. This country needs the money, we’re all broke. Quit printing the money; save the money.

Joe Scarborough: Alright. […]

  • Ken Putt

    There are very few good people left in government.There is no money,only debt.Every dollar you spend is more debt,we’ve been slaves since FDR.Our only solution is to stick tightly together and show the elite we won’t take it anymore.Madoff is nothing compared to the fraud of this banking system and your strawman name(all capitol letters)which is the only way they can do business with you.Take control now.

  • JayGBardo1


    This is bad word to some…it is bad when we think of it in terms of control: a government controlling our “carbon dioxide” output for example. A government attempting to control an economy when a fair market place would do better. (i.e. USSR vs America)

    But what about the Welfare of the Citzenry. When the goverment says, “Gee these people should have electricty from a dam in their area, that will support business and enterprise and improve the standard of living of the people, even it if kills a few fowl and fauna. Is that socialism? The government saw the wisdom of such an action and said “Hey, you creative people and engineers, build yourself a dam here and then use the electricity to helo build your local economy and industry; increase your productive labor with this new source of energy.”

    Is that evil social engineering…Or as the “laissez-faire” economists would say, “Wait for the people to determine the want a dam.” Would the people of Tennessee initated such a project (TVA) on their own or was it suggested by “somebody”…

    Usually, the creative idea does come from ONE person, or group, but was the goverment right to support the project….?

    Is that socialism at work..?

    Joseph Giallombardo

  • Ted O’Connor

    Don’t defend these bailouts. The cash for clunkers program cost taxpayers $23,000 for every $4,500. That $8,000 first time home buyer incentive? Runs the taxpayer $43,000 for every $8,000. Those 630,000 new jobs created? Cost taxpayers $1.2 million each. Waste. Unused Tarp funds should be used to pay down the debt, not wasted on job’s that cost 10-100 times more than they pay. BTW, A rumor was going around that the reason China bought our debt like it has it that they wanted all the cash for clunkers cars for scrap metal. A guy in NJ working at a scrap yard said copper was being seperated from the cars and thrown into box cars and when he asked where they were going he was told China. How long will they or other countries buy our debt? No one knows for sure, but when they stop things will get real ugly.
    Do you guys know that the banks have taken over the mortgage industry? They’ve gotten rid of brokers (competition) and for the most part appraisers. The appraisers that do work for the 4 too big to fail banks are paid around 1/3 what the usual fee was. Only the most inexperienced, cheapest and fastest appraisers are hired as the bottom line for these bank owned “appraisal management companies” is $. How did this happen? The AG of NY, Cuomo, blackmailed FAnnie and Freddie into adopting his “home valuation code of conduct”. The HVCC is a huge scam being run on the American public, and , it’s illegal. It did not go through the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) or the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as required of rules issued by administrative agencies of the federal government. And yet it’s allowed to dictate the public policy of 2 public trust giants – the GSE’s. 85% of all mortgage loans have to go through these bankster owned AMC’s. The consumer is being hurt and the economy is being put at risk by the banks greed again. Get rid of the Fed. They’re no more related to the Fedreal Government than Federal Express. The banks are dictating and employing illegal policies and as long as Bubble Ben and crew are in, they will push us off the cliff in the name of greed. Kind of like the snake and the rabbit story. Snake asks for a ride across a small stream from the rabbit. Rabbit agrees and then the snake bites the rabbit. The rabbit asks Why did you do that? Now we’ll both drown! The snake replies, I’m a snake – that’s what I do. Substitute bank for snake, people for rabbits and stream for cliff and you’ll get the 21st century version.

  • Johann Hollar

    Your are the man Ron Paul. Abolish the federal reserve.


  • JayGBardo1

    Gold Standard,

    If Ron Paul is changing his view on the gold standard (someone commented that he was), why brought about this change.

    Why did he think it was a good idea and what has cause this change of mind. Education…awareness…new information on the subject?

    Where did Ron Paul get this information…obviously he’s be getting some advice from someone, and it’s not from the Austrian Economists.

    I think I know, but it’s not necessary to say, other than it’s good that he “may” be changing his position.


    Joseph G.

    • Nate Y

      Well there’s still a spirited debate WITHIN the Austrian School as to what the best course of action is. I know back in the 80’s Ron Paul was quite adamant about a return to the gold standard and a 100% gold dollar. Much similar to the arguments put forth by Murray Rothbard (and others within the Austrian School). Perhaps he changed his mind because he feels we are now just too far down the road of debt and inflation. There’s just too many government interventions, and economic dislocations to make the same move back to gold that he advocated in the past. Time has a way of changing things. He still very much advocates a return to gold/silver. After all, that is what the Constitution states is the only legal tender. But he now seems to thing that THE WAY back to gold as money/a gold standard is through Choice in Money. Let the people determine what they want to use as money. Historically, gold/silver win out as the chosen monies for very good reasons. This idea of choice in money is aligned with F.A. Hayek (and other members of the Austrian School).

      • longshotlouie

        Nate pegged it. Start with choice. Gold and silver will win in the end. A straight up move to a true gold standard would be overly abrupt in our current situation.

      • JayGBardo1


        I have read about the Hayek book, the Road to Serfdom, if that is what you are talking about. Hayek was supported by John M. Keynes and Winston Churchill. The Austrian School of Economics was the British response through Mises and others against Otto Von Bismarck who had adopted the American principles of Economy of Abraham Lincoln. AusEco is the British answer to the American system of Economy. It was attempt to crush Bismarck and unfortunately, it did.

        Hayek in his last chapter said that there should be a world police force used to prevent Sovereign Nations from determining how people wish to use their money.

        A world policeforce? This is where you are being duped by thinking that “FREE-TRADE” is good economy. FREE_TRADE is ADAM SMITH…it is the laissez-faire notion that markets work all by themselves. They don’t. They do work on behalf of creative minds for good or evil.

        And the clearest example of the “deceptive” use of the world FREE in trading is to dupe Americans into thinking they are fighting for Liberty when all you are doing is playing right into the hands of the British Empire. Fair-Trade, Fair Markets would be the better term, but that not nearly effective for British control and suppression. Why do you think the British use the word FREE. It is a ploy.

        And there is no better example of the corruption that befalls nations to “FREE- (British Imperialism) TRADE than our current economic situation in nations of the world including America who has lost ALL of its industrial wealth because of the notions of FREE-TRADE. Now, the Collapse of their entire system is happening. And the attempts to save it with the FED printing Trillions of dollars chasing worthless financial derivatives is a desperate and to salvage the unsalvagable.

        You folks are looking for answers, I know. But Austrian Economics is NOT the American way. Bismarck followed Lincoln, not the Austrians. Lincoln’s legacy with the banking act of 1867 and the implementation of reconstruction efforts by Henry Carey (lincoln’s treasury secretary) provided a boon of expansion westward until McKinley was assassinated.

        You can hold on to your beliefs, but you are reading a very selective view of history and thinking it the truth. Austrian Economics reimergence was a Haapburg/Rothchild initiave to crush Bismarck. And advocating that for America is like allowing a Wolf (Britain) to guard the “chicken coop” (sovereign nations).

        Joseph Giallombardo

        • Nate Y

          Well it appears we are at an impasse. I wasn’t talking about the Road to Serfdom but I have read the book. I can remember nothing in it supporting a world police force…I’ll read the last chapter again.

          I very much doubt such a champion of liberty and of Choice in Money would advocate a “world police force used to prevent Sovereign Nations from determining how people wish to use their money”. It would be a blatant contradiction. But even if true, Hayek’s (supposed) unfortunate misstep wouldn’t negate the wisdom of the Austrian School.

          Also, Keynes was no fan of Hayek and Hayek was no fan of Keynes. They were intellectual rivals. Of course, Keynes’ ideology was and is intellectually (and morally) bankrupt. I wish Hayek wasn’t so modest. The power of his ideas weren’t enough to destroy the personality of Keynes.

          Hayek on Keynes as an economist:

          * “His ideas were rooted entirely in Marshallian economics, which was in fact the only economics he knew.” (Collected Works, Vol. 9. p. 241)
          * “[H]is aim was always to influence current policy, and economic theory was for him simply a tool for this purpose.” (Collected Works, Vol. 9. p. 248)
          * “Keynes was not a highly trained or a very sophisticated economic theorist.” (Collected Works, Vol. 9. p. 242)

          Hayek on the Keynesians:

          * “It was [Keynes’] revival of this underconsumptionist approach [long preached by cranks and radicals] which made his theories so attractive to the Left.” (Collected Works, Vol. 9. p. 249)
          * “some of the most orthodox disciples of Keynes appear consistently to have thrown overboard all the traditional theory of price determination and of distribution, all that used to be the backbone of economic theory, and in consequence, in my opinion, to have ceased to understand any economics.” (Collected Works, Vol. 9. p. 243)

          He was much too kind to Keynes.

          All of this nonsense you spout about the Austrian School reeks of a terrible conspiracy theory. Indeed, the Austrian School is rejected by the establishment and mainstream. They follow the exact opposite of Austrian Free-Market Economics. They are all followers of Keynesian economics.

          I know we don’t have free trade at the moment and have made it explicitly clear. I have no idea why you continue to bark up all the wrong trees.

        • Nate Y

          So I read the last chapter of The Road to Serfdom again. There is no mention of “a world police force used to prevent Sovereign Nations from determining how people wish to use their money”. He does speak of an international authority but to pervert his words into such an outrageous misrepresentation is downright shameful.

          “…a community of nations of free men must be our goal”

          -F.A. Hayek “The Prospects of International Order” last chapter of “The Road to Serfdom”

    • Corey

      Question: Why was or is Gold worth anything? Truth is, its not worth more than any other metal. Sure, it has its own applications, but what would you rather have, steel that you can build your home with, or gold that looks pretty? (I know gold is used in (some?) pc’s, and is a good conductor, but does that make it worth more than something you can build with? If so, how? There are plenty of good conductors other than Gold..

      Why have we not asked why Gold is worth more, or why it serves as a currency?

      Perhaps we should put down the political debate and opinions of this and that, and ask questions that are relevant in explaining how the system came to be.. How can you fix something if you don’t know how it was built? Its like working on a ufo, except the answers are in our history to find..

      The Elite want you to be overly involved in the meaningless details of This Politician says this and That Politician says that, when in fact its all a game, and they are on one team, and we are on the other. Dont believe me, than walk into the white house and demand to speak to them and see what happens, and then tell me whose team they are on and which team you belong to.

      The sad reality is we are their slaves, bc we choose to be. We choose to use their currency, and they choose how much we get. A currency that isnt worth anything until we determine the value for them. If all were to stop using money, how much would it be worth? As much as any other piece of paper with useless numbers and letters on it-not a damn thing.

      Realize our own stupidity in all of this, and then do something to change it. Or be a coward and a slave. Those are the options, no inbetweens..

      contact me @ [email protected] to discuss REAL solutions.

      • Nate Y

        It’s true that there’s nothing fundamentally special about gold/silver. But there’s nothing fundamentally special about anything. Check out The Origin of Money by Carl Menger and you will understand why gold/silver tend to win out as the monies of choice. If it was only the usefulness of the commodity that was important, we would be using air as money. Would you rather have “something pretty” or would you rather breathe?

        Money emerges naturally on the market. It emerges spontaneously out of barter.

        Here’s a couple articles summarizing the point…

      • Sean

        gold doesn’t corrode or oxidize.. neither does silver or platinum really. That’s why they are called precious metals.

        • Ted O’Connor

          In the depression prices fell 30-40% for everything. They haven’t done that and they won’t unless there’s a serious dip. The propping up of the banking system and prices overall devalues the dollar and gold is the standard that all monetary systems are based on. Did you know that the UN is issuing a gold coin with intent of it being an international currency? The dollar, unless it gets stronger, will not be the fiat of choice in the carry trade. It ain’t going to get stronger as long as Bubble Ben has his way. Granted, countries all around the world are printing money and America’s biggest export is inflation, but where does all this fiat find a balance? Without backing it’s a confidence game – as in scheme. GS and JPM are shorting precious metals, I’ve heard, at the urging of the Fed, to keep it in check. It’s all corrupt and all fiat currency around the world is being exposed as worthless paper with no monetary backing. Gold is the standard. Why? It doesn’t rust or erode – that’s about as stable as anything you’ll find in this world.

          • Sean

            You have to realize that for the most part, all money is earned. People aren’t just going to dispose of their dollars. They are going to be used until they completely lose their value.. All the trillions of dollars that will be payed back from debt will be paid back in dollars and will completely flood the world market. Either people can exchange dollars with one another or purchase goods from the united states. So basically, the dollar will continue to dominate any other currency unless it totally loses its purchasing power.

  • Jay Giallombardo

    By the way, we are on the Ron Paul site because he is in a position to abolish the FED which is what we want.

    But the question about “looking ahead” is the point I’ve been making. Some here think that there is only one choice, either the FED or “Laissez-Faire don’t interfere with Markets” of Austrian Economics.

    Austrian economics which Mr. Paul thinks is the answer…is not. It may be better than the FED, but it is not the solution when compared to of the Science of Economy.

    In this regard, a government can nurture “Scientific Discover” and think in terms of increasing the Productive Labor of a person. When doing this under the protection of a Sovereign Nation, real wealth can be created, protected and built to the point where we create more than we consume. Then the bounty can be shared (traded) with other nations with similar outlooks.

    FDRs “Reconstruction Corporation” was good for America, as was Lincoln’s vision, as was Kennedy who was a student of Economics, his “mission to the moon” being the best example of stimulating the creative mind for discovering scientific principles that provide for technological advancement.

    So, we hope Ron Paul can lead us forward, but we should also look carefully ahead as to the direction we choose, lest we fall back on the same misfortune that plagues us today: A FED the has unpacked the printing presses of Weimar Germany, 1923.

    Joseph Giallombardo

  • Lawrence Rice

    The abolition of the Federal Reserve would be the single-most crushing blow to Statism and its adherents that this country has seen in 130 years. I would even be willing to go so far as to say that no other issue should demand our attention like this one. Governments control of the money is the ONLY thing that enables them to do all the immoral, evil things that they do. Take it away and their ability to kill, steal and destroy is minimized.
    I never cease to be amazed by how few Americans really understand or care about this institution and what its role is in our society.
    Ron Paul is a giant among men for going against the status quo on this issue for as long as he has.
    Audit and abolish the Fed or continue to be enslaved!

    • Lawrence Rice

      Gee, I forgot about Bernanke’s “Person of the Year” status. I think pathetic and misguided sums it up for me. Who cares? It’s only Time magazine. Does ANYBODY take them serious anymore?

    • Jay Giallombardo

      Mr. Rice,

      Just to clarify, the FED is not a Government institution. The word “Federal” is confusing to some…because it implies that it is a US government institution. It is NOT!

      The FED is private Banking concern that is above the control of the US Federal Government…and THEREIN lies the problem.

      You are right to support Ron Paul, as I do, to abolish the FED; but, not all governments are immoral. There have been a few in American history that did well. Washington – JQ Adams…Lincoln-McKinley… FDR, and JFK, and Reagan, somewhat.

      The rest of our presidents been either stupid or corrupt.

      Joseph Giallombardo

      • Lawrence Rice

        While you are correct re: the Fed being a private institution, my point was that WITHOUT the collusion and cooperation of politicians, this institution would not have the devastating effects on government policies that it currently does. I apologize for any confusion this may have created and I should have phrased my point more accurately.
        I am unconvinced by your assertion that not all governments are immoral though: Since man runs them, they are immoral by definition; It’s just a question of varying degrees.
        Personally, I believe FDR and JFK’s policies rank pretty high on the immoral list and Reagan just a little lower. He was a brilliant rhetorician more than anything because his policies on many issues certainly don’t reflect the “freedom” mantra so many are fond of ascribing to him, even to this day.

        • Jay Giallombardo

          I appreciate your thoughtful response.

          Why is it that you have such a low opinion of FDR and JFK?
          They epitomize the concept of wealth as the product of labor.
          And their record and history validates that.

          Perhaps you could elaborate…? I’d be interested in your viewpoint.

          I believe government can play a principled role…you have to understand who the enemy is and where the corruption comes from and be ever vigilant. Since 1762 you need look no further than the British Empire for the all the world’s evil.

          The USA was formed as a bullwark against tyranny and oppression through economic control. If practiced as intended, like FDR, JFK, and a few others did, American Economics can beat the British oligarchy every time.

          Joseph Giallombardo

          • Lawrence Rice

            Re: My low opinion of FDR and JFK.
            Their ACTUAL POLICIES belie their RHETORIC.
            Rather than present an itemized list of my opinions and/or disagreements, I will refer the interested reader to access the Ludwig Von Mises Institutes archives, The Freeman’s archives, the Cato Institutes archives and perhaps Jim Powell’s book on FDR in particular for a more full-orbed perspective. The book itself has a bibliography for cross-referencing sources.

    • Jay Giallombardo

      Mr. Rice,

      One more word on FDR…if you read the history from Lincoln to the assassination of McKinley, and then the actions of the President’s that followed…you will see clearly that from Teddie Roosevelt through Hoover…we were under the direct corruption of the British Empire.

      After the defeat of the south in the Civil war (that was initiated by the British as a last ditch attempt to destroy the US), the British gave up direct overthrow of our country and went into subterfuge-mode to destroy America through war-monger and corruptions of economic principles.

      When Henry Carey continued with Lincoln’s plans for the Inter-continental Railroad, the British were soundly defeated because our Economy shifted from Maritime trade to intercontinental development which they could not undermine so readily undermine.
      Although they did so with the Robber-Barrons, JP Morgan and others (that’s another story). And they West remains relatively undeveloped until this day. Lincoln envision a US population of 500,000,000 by 1950 had the West been fully developed.

      The America system flourished in the latter part of the 19th century not only in America but in the world, Germany, Russia, China. The British were losing control most everywhere.

      They shot Garfield and McKinley. McKinley was a staunch “Lincoln” supporter and kept high tariffs on British goods. With these two great President’s out of the way, in came British stooge, Teddie Roosevelt, followed by a line of Presidents which included Woodrow Wilson, former KKK leader. British destroyed Germany in WWI getting France and Russia to ally against them.
      The devastated the Germany economy (Weimar 1923) and gave rise to Hitler.

      We got the FED. We got Income tax and under HOOVER we got the CRASH and the depression. Tent City in NY Central park was called “Hooverville”. From 1890 to 1929 it was the worst decline in American Sovereignty in our history.

      FDR came in and by 1944 and the Bretton – Woods conference had defeated the British Empire, once again. Compared to what went before FDR and his contribution to bringing the US back to the original principles of economy were astounding and remarkable.

      Why you would think him a immoral or a bad president is not borne out by the facts of his accomplishments. Not only did turn on the American economic engine to defeat Hitler Germany and Japan (who were created by the British Empire), he turned the swords back into plowshares and the American economic engine continued to roar until the assassination of JFK…

      It’s been a “dark age” ever since.

      Perhaps Ron Paul can lead us to some new light.

      Joseph Giallombardo

  • Jay Giallombardo

    I recently reviewed Mr. Larouche’s comments on a return to the gold-standard.

    He’s statement was [paraphrased]….”There should be no gold standard”. He did not elaborate, but went on to imply that is not the most important issue. We should not be distracted by it.

    What is more important is the 4-Power Alliance. It is the only way to break the Banking Cartel (British Empire) which is under threat NOW as it fails under its’ only massive weight of derivative debt.

    Dubai, Greece…soon others will follow. Bernanke can print as much money as he likes….it won’t help…The system is going down.

    But the 4-Powers of Russia, China, India, and America must establish the new economical model for the world which relies on the cooperation of sovereign nations under the AMERICA SYSTEM OF ECONOMY, a credit system, not a monetary one.

    If the 4 hold together, others will join, and the world can heal.

    Joseph Giallombardo

    • Nate Y

      One must admire LaRouche’s passion but the man is borderline insane. He’s much like Hamilton and FDR. They are corrupt with ambition and hubris. He honestly thinks that a cadre of bureaucrats can properly control everyone else on the planet. The main questions are do you want freedom or force? Do you think men and women are intelligent and responsible enough to establish their own relations and tend to their own affairs or do they need to be overseen, manipulated, and controlled by other (maybe more intelligent but just as fallible) men and women?

      • Jay Giallombardo


        How was FDR corrupt…?you are very confused on the issue of control…You are parroting what others have said. Do you understand what FDR did at the Bretton-Woods conference.

        Do realize the economic wealth brought to many nations that adopted the American system of economy from 1879-1895 or so.

        FDR said to Churchill, “Winston, when this war is through (WWII) there will be no more British empire…We will free all the colonies.” And, then Truman betrayed America and Bretton-Woods because he was puppet of the British Empire. That’s how he got elected. Truman, the Traitor. Read the history of what he did, and you will think differently of FDR.
        Eisenhower would not even speak to Truman when he took office in 1952. Truman was hated by those who knew what he did.

        The battle is not about government control…it is British Empire. Larouche is far from insane… you are reading the hype and the distortions.

        Read what he writes and you will think differently. Read the history. Larouche is pretty bright fellow, at 87. And China, Russia, Italy, India, and Brazil, and parts of Africa are listening.

        There is a real Science of Economy…and when practiced, it produces wealth and cultivates a high standard of living FOR ALL PEOPLES, under the structure of sovereign nations, not just the few.

        That is the American Principles of Economy and Freedom.

        Joseph Giallombardo

        • Nate Y

          We all parrot what others say or have said. I will again suggest you read “America’s Great Depression” by Murray Rothbard.

          Here’s a link to help you on your way…it has links to the PDF version of “America’s Great Depression”.


          FDR did the exact opposite of what he should have done. He ramped up government spending, he gave us the monster that was the Bretton Woods accord (which eventually collapsed as the Austrians predicted), he confiscated the people’s gold and then reset the price (which is no different from plain stealing), etc. He is not to be admired.

          I stand by my statement of LaRouche. I have read some of his papers and have listened to some of his speeches. I also had a not so pleasant discussion with a couple of his supporters outside of Whole Foods (Whole Foods’ founder/president is a big fan of Mises and Hayek btw). Actually, I’ll make a change to what I said. It’s the ideas he holds that are insane. They will not accomplish what they set out to accomplish.

          What person of good will doesn’t want a high standard of living for all peoples? But the best way to work toward such a happy outcome is through freedom.

          Also, you want to live “under the structure of sovereign nations” but at the same time you promote this idea of “the 4-Powers Alliance of Russia, China, India and the US.” Such an alliance would be a direct assult upon national sovereignty. You are contradicting yourself.

          • JayGBardo1


            Government spending on infrastruture is how this nation was built, bonds primarily. That’s how Eisenhower fostered the US Interstate Highway system (like a good general would do, building roads). FDR took people out of the bread lines and put people to work on in the CCC. The TVA brought electricity to Appalachia and host of other project included water reclamation. This jump-started the America economy that devasted by Hoover and past associates. Remember Roosevelt was not elected until 32. It was Hoover that screwed the economy with tight money policies.

            However, the point is that spending on productive labor has always been a good thing for an economy. Bailouts from Bush-Bernanke-Obama, chases worthless derivatives and adds no value to the economy, in just prolongs the collapse.

            As for notions of Bretton-Woods, that system stayed in place until 1971 after the assassignation of JFK and the disatrous actions of Nixon with his wage and price controls.

            Bretton-Woods was undermined from the start not by your prediction of collapse by Austria Economics, but simply because Harry S Truman betrayed the American people by letting the British back into their colonial ways in indo-china…and also letting the devalue their current by 30%, destroying their own British economy (for a while) in order to destablish Bretton-woods further.

            Kennedy as was rightly pointed out was about to abolish or curtail the FED…Kennedy was a “Hamiltonian”…like FDR…
            And of course he was killed. That’s how the british work to destroy nations and take-over the pieces that are left.

            Prince Phillip would happily reduce the population by 4 Billion people and return us to medieval times, with him as King, of course.

            Joseph Giallombardo

        • longshotlouie


          Do you honestly believe that Americans would sit on their hands when something needed to be built that would bring more prosperity. I’m confused by an adult that believes that government could do anything more efficiently than the market.

          Are pols keepers of the American brain trust?

          • Jay Giallombardo


            I think you misunderstood my point about building a dam.
            Of course private enterprise could take up the project. But you also have a government that can pave the way or BLOCK the enterprise with notions of “environmentalism” (which is a fraud, anti-science, anti-human.)

            But private enterprise is NOT going to the moon.. Why Not?
            Because they don’t see the profit…But why did Isabella finance Columbus. Its a similar analogy; she took a risk because of the potential of financial gain.

            A government can initiate a moon project and reap the benefits for the Nation in technological advancements that will necessarily come in order to solve the technical issues of getting there.

            It was estimated that for every penny spent on the JFK “moon mission”, America (and the world) reaped 15 times in economic benefit.

            Thus, there is a role for Government to play in nurturing science and research, even though there is no immediately apparent gain. Not fraudulent science, like global warming, but real scientific discovery and breath-through with correct methods (ala Kepler, Leibnitz, Gauss, Riemann, Einstein)

            I contend a FREE Market will not do this by itself: Only creative minds initiate the enterprise. The government role, as per the US constitution is to nurture and foster economy. The most important asset is the creative human mind that works to discover natural secrets which create technology that increases the productive labor of the human.

            So the question is what is the role of government? If you don’t have one, the vikings or the British, or somebody, will come ashore and loot your businesses.

            Joseph Giallombardo

          • Matt

            Yes, private industry does sit on its hands at times where there was something that could bring more prosperity. Three easy examples off the top of my head:

            Where was private industry when we were in a race with Germany to build a nuclear bomb?
            Where was private industry when the internet was ‘invented’?
            Where was private industry when we started utilizing satellites?

            I am confused by an adult that believes free markets always serve as the inception point for everything we use.

          • longshotlouie

            Your reply indicates that you are simply confused, as usual.
            Looking forward to your next display.

  • Jay Giallombardo

    I would like to add that I enjoy this site. It seems to be full of intelligent people and I like the fact that I have 5 minutes to edit my comments and correct all (most of) my spelling errors.

  • Jay Giallombardo

    There is a way to break the Rothchilds banking cartel.
    It is the 4-Powers Alliance of Russia, China, India and the US.

    3 of those countries are already developing trade treaties, using Chinese credit for mutual beneficial cooperation for infrastructure development.

    Russian President Medvedev met with leading Russian scientists who had led a battle against British climate change ideologue Sir David King in 2004, then science advisor to Tony Blair. The Russian scientists included Russian Academy of Sciences President Yuri Osipov and Academician Yuri Israel.

    In recent statements, Medvedev said Russia will change their economic approach away from a exporting nation, back to science and technology development and a revitalization of their infrastructure. China is using America debt (owed to them) as credit for Russian Siberian development which include MAG rail and eventually Bering Strait Tunnel to the Americas. China is building nuclear power plants at the rate of 1 a week.

    The stumbling block to the 4-Powers Alliance is Obama and the congress which are rudderless in this endeavor.

    McCain and other have introduced legislation to reinstate “glass-steagall” banking standard which would then eliminate the derivative debt and chart a new course.

    Ron Paul leading the attack on the FED may be the tidal wave that begins to sweep this corrupt system away.

    If we can get US into the 4-Power Alliance, it will break the Rothchilds and the British Empire. Obama will have to be impeached or not re-elected which for the moment looks likely, given the American people’s reaction with MASS STRIKE against ‘health care fraud” and the lack of job creation.

    There is hope.

    Joseph Giallombardo

  • ryan

    Who owns time magazine? Whoever he is you can bet Bernanke’s lining his pockets. What a surprise. Go study the old world. NOTHING HAS CHANGED EXCEPT ‘US’ SERFS believe we are free and that we have evolved. LOLOLOLOL. What a joke there’s more control now than ever

  • Jay Giallombardo

    Mr. Paul advocates a return to the Gold standard.

    The question is: Why is a Gold Standard unnecessary?

    The main reason is that the creative human mind is not limited by “money”…Real value is in human labor that is ever-increase in productivity. This is achieve through scientific breath-through which does not arise from a priori axioms, but is derived from what might be described as “discovering truths” outside the box.

    If you look only in the box, you will never find new truths about nature. The creative human, unlike animals, can look outside the box. This is along the scientific lines of thinking of Kepler, Leibnitz, Gauss, and Einstein.

    In short, the gold standard is an “inside the box” notion…i.e. there is ONLY so much money, and it has to be backed by gold.

    We know that isn’t true. A national government can create credit based on an asset or even a liability as Hamilton did in his Assumption of the States debt in the First National Bank of America.

    So, Mr. Paul, it appears that gold standard would curtail the excesses of the FED, out of control, printing money like it was 1923 in Weimar Germany. But, ultimately, you can do the same with a International Fixed rate of credit between nations. You don’t need a gold standard to control a FED. You control a FED by abolishing it, and then creating the international standards as was accomplished at Bretton-Woods in 1944.

    Joseph Giallombardo

    • Nate Y

      Ron Paul does not advocate a return to the gold standard as you describe. He suggests having the market (the people) freely determine what they want to use as money. His recent bill advocating Competition in Money can be seen on this site.

      You can read “Choice in Currency” by F.A. Hayek and other books for a more thorough argument in favor of freedom and choice in money matters.

      • Jay Giallombardo

        I heard Mr. Paul talk about “…we used to have a gold standard…” and that seem to imply that he was advocating that return. If that is not the case, then I stand corrected.

        Joseph Giallombardo

      • Matt

        You could also say “Ron Paul USED to advocate a return to the gold standard for about 40 years and just recently changed his mind and is espousing a more purposefully vague market-driven approach – for reasons he has not clarified.”

        This could also explain the confusion regarding ascertaining what Ron Paul believes in – he changed his mind.

        • Nate Y

          Beat that dead horse some more. So Ron Paul has allowed his mind to be changed as a result of changing circumstances. That is a good thing. Perhaps you can write to Ron Paul and ask him what caused his ideas to change. You will get no answers otherwise.

          • Matt

            Nate Y says: “You will get no answers otherwise.”

            Hey Nate, much like RP looks like you also like to change your ‘hard stance’ approach – and only four hours later!

            Thank you for your speculative answer above, good to see you thinking again.

            Nate Y says:
            December 17, 2009 at 10:36 pm

            “I know back in the 80’s Ron Paul was quite adamant about a return to the gold standard and a 100% gold dollar. … Perhaps he changed his mind because he feels we are now just too far down the road of debt and inflation.”

        • Nate Y

          Umm…what? You’re keeping true to form and making absolutely no sense again.

    • Big Joe

      “The Decline and Fall of the English System of Finance” – Thomas Paine 1793

      “But besides these things, there is something visibly farcical in the whole operation of loaning. It is scarcely more than four years ago that such a rot of bankruptcy spread itself over London, that the whole commercial fabric tottered; trade and credit were at a stand; and such was the state of things, that to prevent or suspend a general bankruptcy, the government lent the merchants six millions in government paper, and now the merchants lend the government twenty-two millions in their paper; and two parties, Boyd and Morgan, men but little known, contend who shall be the lenders.

      What a farce is this !

      It reduces the operation of loaning to accommodation paper, in which the competitors contend, not who shall lend, but who shall sign, because there is something to be got for signing.

      Every English stock-jobber and minister boasts of the credit of England. Its credit, say they, is greater than that of any country in Europe. There is a good reason for this: for there is not another country in Europe that could be made the dupe of such a delusion.

      The English funding system will remain a monument of wonder, not so much on account of the extent to which it has been carried, as of the folly of believing in it.

      Those who had formerly predicted that the funding system would break up when the debt should amount to one hundred or one hundred and fifty millions, erred only in not distinguishing between insolvency and actual bankruptcy: for the insolvency commenced as soon as the government became unable to pay the interest in cash, or to give cash for the bank notes in which the interest was paid, whether that inability was known or not, or whether it was suspected or not.

      Insolvency always takes place before bankruptcy: for bankruptcy is nothing more than the publication of that insolvency.

      In the affairs of an individual, it often happens that insolvency exists several years before bankruptcy, and that the insolvency is concealed and carried on till the individual is not able to pay one shilling in the pound.

      A government can ward off bankruptcy longer than an individual: but insolvency will inevitably produce bankruptcy, whether in an individual or in a government.

      If then the quantity of bank notes payable on demand, which the bank has issued, are greater than the bank can pay off, the bank is insolvent: and when that insolvency is declared, it is bankruptcy….”

      More Excerpts:

      “The tumults are great in all parts of England on account of the excessive price of corn and bread, which has risen since the harvest.

      I attribute it more to the abundant increase of paper, and the non-circulation of cash, than to any other cause.

      People in trade can push the paper off as fast as they receive it, as they did by continental money in America; but as farmers have not this opportunity they endeavor to secure themselves by going considerably in advance.”

      “The credit of Paper is suspicion asleep.

      When suspicion wakes the credit vanishes as the dream would.

      England has a large Navy, and the expense of it leads to her ruin.

      The English nation is tired of war, longs for peace, and calculates upon defeat as it would upon victory.”

      • Big Joe

        The U.S. Panic of 1792:

        Financial Crisis Management and the Lender of Last Resort


        During the US financial panic of 1792, Wall Street’s first crash, securities prices lost nearly a quarter of their value in two weeks. Nonetheless, the crisis, which came when the modern U.S. markets were less than two years old, is off the screens of most scholars, including even financial historians. In part that is because the crisis was managed incredibly well, mostly by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. Hence, there was almost no economic fallout for the US economy from the financial crisis. This makes the event worth studying. It is also worth studying because of the crisis management techniques Hamilton invented at the time, many of which later became theoretical and practical standards of central bank behavior in crises. Among other things, Hamilton invented and implemented “Bagehot’s rules” for central-bank crisis management nine decades before Walter Bagehot wrote about them in Lombard Street.


        The U.S. financial crisis of 1792, which can be regarded as Wall Street’s first crash, was a more important historical episode than one might gather from the inattention it has received from historians and economists. Although specialists in financial history have known of the 1792 panic for decades, at least since Davis (1917) explored it in some detail, it did not make a strong impression on others. The crisis did not make it into the long listing of major financial crises throughout the world dating back to Thirty Years War in an appendix to Kindleberger’s Manias, Panics and Crashes until its fourth edition in 2000, and even then it was not discussed at any point in the text. This essay attempts to rescue the 1792 panic from oblivion and to establish it as an important historical event. Cowen.pdf

  • Jay Giallombardo

    So…My statement to Mr. Paul would be:

    The FED should be abolished, but an implementation of Austrian Economics will not achieve what you want…You NEED strong leaders to buffer
    the attacks that will come from the banking cartel.

    Only a strong National government, and sovereign nation, along the lines of the US constitution and a NATIONAL banking system CONTROLLED, not by an international cartel (i.e. the FED) by the Nation itself for the “welfare of its citizens”…i.e the constitutional principles.

    That is the true and only American system of economics as proposed by Hamilton in his Federalist papers and treatise on Manufactures.

    I hope Mr. Paul will listen.

    Joseph Giallombardo

  • Jay Giallombardo

    This problem in this thinking of “FREE-Markets” plays into the hands of Rothchild banking Cartel. It is “Adam Smith” all over again.

    Only a strong National government can protect its industries from
    FREE-TRADING looters. A Tariff protects the National industry from seemingly cheap labor goods. If fact, they are not “cheap” at all. They become very “dear” in price, when you lose your national industry. That is the illusion of FREE-TRADER…they suck you in, and then take over.

    You don’t want “cheaper labor goods”…because it ultimately destroys your national economy…that is what has happened with Globalism today..

    • Nate Y

      The term “Free-Trading looters” is an oxymoron. Make your way to or if you wish to learn the proper arguments in favor of free trade and Austrian Economics. I think you’ll find that they share most of your concerns but the solutions put forth are actually workable in the long run. Freedom is the end of but also the means to a more equitable and prosperous world.

      • Jay Giallombardo


        FREE-TRADE is different than “Free-Markets”…
        FREE-TRADERS loot nation-states and keep them from economic development. An example is British colonialism.
        A strong National government is the only
        defense against the TRADERS that take and leave nothing in return.

        This is a semantic difference in terms…I used the terms with specific connotations. FREE-TRADE is a term “coined” by ADAM SMITH which is anything but FREE and nothing more than a justification of British Colonialism. More important is Smith’s early treatise on the Theory of Morality…which shows his true colors of British view of the “under-class”.

        The myth is: If Markets are left alone, everyone propers. The truth is the sovereign nations will fall under the boot of the Empire that controls the money if they do not act to manage their nation. If they are not crushed by an invading army, they are corrupted (like America is now) from within.

        Today we see China, India, Russia, Brazil, Sudan and others that are applying American Economic Principles using “credit” and trade treaties to plan for infrastructure development. Russia and China have a MAG Rail development plan for Sibera and Northern China. And Russia has recently stated its intention to build the Bering Strait Tunnel to Alaska. This is government supported enterprise that will prove a boon to both these economies over the next 50 years.

        The answer to FREE-TRADE is “Free-Markets” (in the spirit of competition, capitalist supply and demand) yet a sense of “Mind” that points to vision and uses credit with fixed international rates of exchange between strong nation-states to build toward the future. That is the answer to failed British global economy which is in shambles today.

        Joseph G.

  • Jay Giallombardo


    What is the virtue of Austrian Economics?
    Otto Bismarck in 1879 followed the American System of Credit
    and built Germany from City States into a Nation.

    Russia did the same?
    This was not a “free-market” system that accomplished this, it was the American System of credit in action.

    So, I ask: What is the virtue of Austrian Economics?

    Joseph Giallombardo

  • – What amazes me in all this, is that most people agree with the truth in the statement: “Money rules the world”. However, the same people still believe that the world is ruled by presidents and such.
    – And then, another thing that puzzles me is the statement: “Ben Bernanke is the most powerful man in the world because he controls the supply of money… and I think he is more powerful than the President.”
    – Ben Bernanke doesn’t control anything. He is nothing but a puppet doing what “The Rothschilds” are telling him to do, and that goes for the US puppet President as well.
    – Orwell’s world is virtually upon us… war is peace… and most people have become walking zombies.

    • Corey

      Brandulph: You could not have said it any better than this.

      War has become Peace, and most are walking zombies.


      What is the solution to all of this is the next question..

      Email me to discuss it if you like. [email protected]

  • Big Joe

    On Ben Bernanke

    History has a habit of repeating itself:

    “I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne ….

    1743: Mayer Amschel Bauer is born in Germany, the son of a gold smith and money lender.
    1760: He changes his last name to Rothschild.
    1773-1792: Rothschild sets up a central bank in the USA called the Bank of the United States with a 20 year charter, and had 5 sons: Amschel Mayer, Salomon Mayer, Nathan Mayer , Kalmann Mayer and Jaccob Mayer.
    1811: Congress votes against the Bank of the United States renewal. Nathan Mayer Rothschild stated,
    “Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war.”

    1812: Backed by Rothschild money, the British declare war on the United States.
    1815: Nathan Mayer Rothschild with advance knowledge of Napoleons defeat places strategic trades on the London Stock Exchange giving the Rothschild family an enormous profit and forces England to set up a new Bank of England, which he controlled.
    “I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.”- Nathan Mayer Rothschild
    1816: The British war against America ends and the charter for the Bank of the United States is renewed for another twenty years with the Rothschilds in Control of the American money supply again.
    1837: President Andrew Jackson succeeds in throwing the Rothschilds central bank out of America for the next 76 years. It would not be until 1913 that the Rothschilds would be able to set up their third central bank in America, the Federal Reserve.
    1849: Gutele Schnaper, Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s wife dies. Before her death she would state,
    “If my sons did not want wars, there would be none.”
    1862: By April $449,338,902 worth of President Lincoln’s debt free money had been printed and distributed. He went on to state,
    “We gave the people of this republic the greatest blessing they ever had, their own paper money to pay their own debts.” The Times of London publishes the following statement,
    “That government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”
    1865: In a statement to Congress, President Abraham Lincoln states,
    “I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me, and the financial institution in the rear. Of the two, the one in my rear is my greatest foe.” Later that year President Lincoln is assassinated.

    1881: President James A. Garfield states :
    “Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce…and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.” two weeks later he was assassinated.

    1963: On June 4th President John F. Kennedy signs Executive Order 11110 which returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Less than 6 months later on November 22nd, President Kennedy is assassinated.
    That very same day, Executive Order 11110 is rescinded by President Lyndon Johnson on the Air Force One flight from Dallas back to Washington.

    “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
    – Henry Ford

    “Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit,
    it matters not who makes the nations laws. Usury, once in control,
    will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency
    and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred
    responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and
    of democracy is idle and futile.”
    -William Lyon Mackenzie King

    • Ted O’Connor

      Rothschild, omg. That’s amazing. Thanks for posting that Big Joe. Let me add:

      “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

      Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage

    • Yes Big Joe, you are indeed pointing your finger at the real power. And, they are of course in absolute control of Europe as well… the whole fiat money system… which controls us all.
      In an earlier comment I also pointed at JFK and his “11110”, saying that Ron Paul indeed is a man of tremendous courage.However, the fact that he is still alive indicates to me that “The Rothschilds” see him as no danger to them.
      And it also seems quite clear that they are in the process of scrapping the USD… with the aid of their latest fiat currency creation, the Euro. This process will bring the whole world in chaos, which inevitably will allow them to initiate a new world war, which again will pave the ground for their final global takeover.

    • Jay Giallombardo

      This is history is good….the question remains…If the banking cartel can be overcome, what is to replace it.

      Ron Paul indicates “Austrian” Economics. But this is absolutely the opposite of what Lincoln did with the National Currency and opposite to his supporters, Garfield, and more importantly McKinley, was also assassinated.

      Austrian economics says, “Let the markets alone…and they will work as intended…i.e. ABSOLUTELY NO GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.

      But that is not what Lincoln said or did with National Banking Act of 1867 implementing Lincoln reconstruction plan, by Treas. Sec, Henry Carey.

      And this approach is not what Benjamin Franklin recommended with his treatise on a “National Currency”.

      There is place for Government involvement and it is at the level achieved by FDR, one of America’s Greatest presidents. FDR was effective because although he had the FED to deal with, FDR had “His man” in control of the FED.

      I believe Lyndon Larouche’s plan of the 4-Powers agreement between Russia, China, US, and India is the better solution..

      Yes, Abolish the FED, but Austrian economics is NOT the answer. Not a monetary system and certainly not a “laissez-faire FREE-Market” approach, but a currency controlle d by the National government, a credit system is the best, and frankly ONLY approach that will work.

      Joseph Giallombardo

      • Nate Y

        So you want to abolish the Fed and replace it with another system of control? I’ll pass. Freedom is always better than force.

        We have a credit (debt) based system right now. Such a system works well for the banks, the government, and the big businesses capable of influencing the government but it enriches those entities at the expense of the normal guy and gal on the street. If the people have the money power (as they would under sound money) it makes for a more fair and harmonious world.

        • Jay Giallombardo


          Because the Control of the FED is bad, you think that all control is bad, and that is the fallacy of your argument.

          The creative mind exhibits control over what is which is to accomplish. It is question of whether the control views the world as fixed, locked in stasis, and that there is only so much of “this or that”…

          Mankind changes natures and creates more where no existed.
          FDR exhibited control over the economy, in the right way in in 15 years America was the industrial might of the world once again from the brink of disaster.

          Was that improper control or well-exercised control?
          The FED is tantamount to Weimar Germany relying on Keynesian manipulation. We all agree that has produced massive debt and disaster to nations and economies.

          The culprits use “FREE-TRADE” because it manipulates the American adherence for liberty, “ie. FREEDOM”…but it is not free.

          Therefore, I like to use the term “Free-markets” free of monopolistic corruption…vs FREE-TRADE which is the British mindset of Imperialism.

          We want Free-Markets in AMERICA (between states and across state lines) and between countries with treaty agreements between nations with a Fixed international rate of exchange.

          This is what FDR put into place at Bretton-Woods and it is a kind Government “control” that I think you would welcome!

          Joseph Giallombardo

          • Nate Y

            I would not welcome any government control. And I hold FDR to be one of the worst Presidents in US history. His actions prolonged the correction that came to be known as the Great Depression. Check out “America’s Great Depression” by Murray Rothbard for a proper treatment of FDR.

            Again, I urge you to check out and I doubt anyone would be able to convince you of the virtue of Austrian economics through this message board. It’s just not the best way to obtain the information.

  • Mark

    The world has gone mad.. Ron Paul is the only sane one in the bunch. What has happend to us?

  • Patriot @ Arms

    Hmmm…Let us see,

    If I go to war with nearly 3 nations of which I aspire to be diplomatic with, I can win a Nobel Peace Prize.

    If my policies cause an economic crisis and then I do more of the same, I can become Time’s man of the year.

    I think I’ll start small. How about I go for the Time’s Nobel Charity Prize by robbing a homeless man’s change bin?

    By these standards, why is Madoff in jail?

  • Ted O’Connor

    This illusion they’re creating (Nobel Peace Prize, Afgan needs thousands of Americans troops for 100 rabble rousers, we must pay to keep the banks propped up, the housing market is being fully funded by the Government – read taxpayers, the banks caused the problem so they’re the ones to fix it, and on and on every bleeping day) is heaven to them and their cronys but hell to us common folk – and they absolutely refuse to see it or even listen to us. Greed is blinding isn’t it, or at least tunnel vision. Hahaha – tunnel visionaries lol. I love the overabundant gratitude the banksters are showing us for saving their arses and bailing them out. Gives me a nice warm “snuggie” feeling. (puke)