75 responses to “Ron Paul: The SEC is a Total Failure and Part of the Problem”

  1. Argurorse

    viagra samples free contain only analogs of sildenafil.[34][35][36] Peddlers of such fake herbals typically respond by viagra pfizer you have sudden vision loss. viagra brand for sale edema associated with altitude sickness such as that suffered by mountain climbers.[7][8] While this viagra results Viagra has changed the lives for millions of men all over the world. Many people who hadn’t erections for a buying viagra without prescription,does generic viagra work,online pharmacy viagra,viagra pills uk

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  2. Bill

    Libertarian say: “It boils down to personal responsibility.”Well hell if it all boils down to personal responsibility, maybe Ron Paul should just get out of Congress (since it’s all about personal responsibility), put on his Ronulan priestly attire and just wander the countryside preaching personal responsibility.

    »crosslinked«

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

    1. fred the protectionist

      You know this makes no sense out of context.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Eric

    Libertarian say: “It boils down to personal responsibility.”Well hell if it all boils down to personal responsibility, maybe Ron Paul should just get out of Congress (since it’s all about personal responsibility), put on his Ronulan priestly attire and just wander the countryside preaching personal responsibility.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  4. Christopher

    I don’t have to take this abuse from a neeeee-gro.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  5. Alan

    how is it being debased?1 oz of gold = 1 oz of gold. 1 oz of gold = 2 oz of coin if i debase it. does it make me richer? nominally yes. in reality. no (except for the value of the base metal possibly).There is no doubt the US $ has been debased (mere fact there is no backing other than the word of the US government already tells you there is no ‘base’ to begin with). What you are trying to argue is that the purchasing power of the US$, against a trade weighted basket of currencies is stable.That is a different discussion.Why a different discussion? because it brings other factors into account viz. trade imbalances, trade deficits, monetary and fiscal policies etc.And FWIW, HELOC and home mortgage ATMs WERE created by the Fed, through a thing called fractional reserve banking. If the Fed required banks to put 50% of their deposit base at the Fed, the banks would not have been able to leverage up as fast. It is only 10% now. $100 deposit turns into $1000. At 50% $100 deposit only turns into $200, 80% less leverage.http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  6. RegulationIsPureIdiocy

    Given what we have already seen and observed with our own two eyes; it seems to me doing the same thing we have always done is the definition of insanity.

    Adding on more regulation is pure nonsense because it barely provides for a temporary band-aid; and what the people firmly demand is a COMPLETE labotomy!!!!

    This is exactly like taking a crap in the bathroom, and wiping your but with the toilet paper until you have none left. Afterward; you are using your towel and hands instead of throwing everything out & buying a new roll. It’s the DEFINITION of being stupid.

    Indeed, as the constant news reports demonstrate, Sarbanes Oxley failed a long time ago and we failed to simply uphold the law on the biggest criminals in the US: The bankers and their politician partners!
    http://hallingblog.com/2010/01/04/sarbanes-oxley-obstructing-innovation/

    These people get into BUSINESS together freddy, they don’t just one day rise up and decide to become a ruthless mafia. They pay each other off through god da** kickbacks of a “I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine” mentality until there is so much corruption in our kitchen soup of a system it just isn’t even believable anymore.

    Goldman Sachs literally glides across the ice skating rink, not worrying about anything at all like a giggly schoolgirl; while the SEC who supposedly enforces the law just twiddles their thumbs!
    http://worldreports.org

    No, if one thing can be gleamed from this it’s that Regulation doesn’t work. It has NEVER truly worked – and when we have a TRUE free market in the banking industry; everyone who decides they don’t want a dishonest bank can go choose a local bank or other financial institution to take care of their money- period.

    And just like the days gone by, if they want a shady bank they can choose that to since there are people who are greatly excited about such things. But the WHOLE problem is that Banks have been federalized, everything has gotten so large there is no possibility of any free market; most banks are LARGER than all the houses someone buys put together…they are MASSIVE. And in the process the GOVERNMENT has gotten far too massive; thanks to these exact predatory banks!

    Therefore the only way to reform this government is rip up these banks & enforce trustee fraud laws before dumping them all into the free market. Once in the free market, if anyone DOESN’T wish to deal with them they can go elsewhere. Others can stay and pay the price of admission they do. That’s the definition, only the STRONG survive in a true market. Banks can sink or swim, without sucking off the Government’s teat.

    If only we had done that before Sarbanes Oxley ever came about. It did only a bit of good; then one day Goldman Sachs grew to be larger than nearly the entire government; and we got to see how useless it was.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

    1. Forest

      “Once in the free market, if anyone DOESN’T wish to deal with them they can go elsewhere.”

      Great, so your little unicorn, who knows intimately about how to see through accounting fraud, whispers in your little ear that you should withdraw your money and move it to a ‘sound bank’? Then you just ride this unicorn down with your friends, get your money and move to the next bank?

      Wrong.

      You won’t know what the hell happened, because you don’t know crap about accounting or even if you did, how to discern fraudulent accounting, until the scheme blows up, then you are stuck waiting in line with a thousand other suckers while figuring out how the hell you are going to live after losing your savings. Or maybe you give up on that bank, because the line is already too long, and you move to the next bank – and your friends do too so you are stuck in the same line.

      Did you not see the lines of people waiting outside Northern Rock? Hm, you didn’t mention that. What about the virtual run that occurred on Washington Mutual? You didn’t mention that either?

      Is this your idea of how free markets and your omnipotent unicorn discern accounting fraud IN THE REAL WORLD:

      http://www.hardtimesgazette.com/images/2-bank-run2.jpg

      Lets take another example, how about Enron… So Enron was cooking their books for YEARS in the most EGREGIOUS way and what was the free market doing? Rewarding them with high share prices and lucrative bonuses. Were Texas anti-trust laws trying to figure out how to prosecute Enron in a proactive fashion? No. Was the free market deciding in an orderly fashion that the company was cooking the books? No. Was Enron selected as a company of the year by many financial magazines while it was committing fraud? Yes.

      Sorry, everyone was had – even your little free-market unicorn. As announced EPS came down and executives started retiring abruptly, there began to be whispers and then there was a whistleblower, then the stock imploded.

      So in your example, the free markets only punished those who were stupid and idiotic enough to stay in the company, right?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11

      1. Forest Gump Lives Up To His Name

        “Lets take another example, how about Enron…So Enron was cooking their books for YEARS in the most EGREGIOUS way and what was the free market doing? Rewarding them.”

        Forest Gump, you really live up to the name apparently because everyone disagrees with you and they agree with the original poster.

        Who would have thought that there could be people this dense and sinister nowadays?

        “Lets take another example, how about Enron”

        Well, Forest; it seems everyone was actually physically referring to Enron in the first post or else they wouldn’t be agreeing with each other to begin with. Enron is the example of a runaway monopoly and has absolutely nothing to do with free market; that’s right – Nada, Zip and ZILCH.

        In Enron; society got the opposite of “Free Market”. The very failed system of these banks. Enron was not only attacked by consumers, it was attacked heavily by millions of high profile cases & residents who lost their most VITAL resource – Electricity to power their homes.

        Apparently people were largely fed up with Enron and leaving it in droves and if we actually had a free market, Enron would have gone down fast.

        Instead, since the people have the OPPOSITE of a free market; Enron was allowed to hold a monopoly over electricity and POWER companies so that they would be nearly the only provider who could provide a “Mandatory” commodity- Energy and Heat.

        Without Energy and Heat, people would of course freeze to death and since “Enron” buried the competition by making themselves nearly the only available provider for electricity– with the help of the same banks you applaud; that all proved to be a fruitless waste of time.

        That wasn’t free market because if it was, there would have been two hundred twenty different “Enron” services offering electricity and power. Enron would have been gone before anyone even knew it was there. As it stood there was not, and as the monopoly took root, CAPITALISM destroyed the lives of millions of people without any issue.

        So thanks for proving your total ignorance not to mention uniform naivete on the subject; you are the sole reason these banks get away with it Freddy.

        They have absolutely no clue what a free market is nor a right to judge it obviously, just like “Forest Gump” right here.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

        1. Forest

          “Enron was allowed to hold a monopoly over electricity” and “Enron is the example of a runaway monopoly and has absolutely nothing to do with free market”

          What? I can’t confirm that you are a mental midget, but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. It was DEREGULATION that caused Enron. The INTRODUCTION OF A FREE MARKET caused Enron AND OTHER ELECTRICITY MARKETERS AND GENERATORS. You ever heard of Dynegy? Calpine? PG&E? You think it was JUST ENRON? Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

          Lets look at some quotes from 2000/2001, bear in mind deregulation started in 1996:

          “ENRON AND OTHER ELECTRICITY MARKETERS AND GENERATORS are being investigated by the state attorney general and sued by consumers amid accusations of profiteering and market manipulation. ”Every trading company in the country has been feasting on California, and Enron is the shrewdest of them all. They are like sharks in a feeding frenzy,’”

          Where were TEXAS ANTI-TRUST LAWS WHILE ALL OF THIS WAS GOING ON?

          Furthermore, why don’t you actually read about it, you’ll find your little free market deregulation unicorn sh*tting all over MILLIONS of people:

          “For now, though, California’s crisis has abruptly slammed the brakes on efforts to deregulate U.S. retail electricity sales, which are under way in nearly 25 other states. Moreover, that mess may prove to be the death knell for industry hopes that retail deregulation would spread far beyond the 20% of U.S. businesses and homeowners who now can name their own electricity supplier. ”Deregulation has lost a lot of momentum,” says Kemm C. Farney, vice-president for electric power at consulting firm WEFA Inc. ”It’s hard to argue that this has resulted in lower bills.” ”

          WOW. Deregulation of a necessary commodity, along with the participation of multiple companies that screwed over millions under the noses of state anti-trust laws while making billions?

          I know it is hard to believe but why don’t you read about it – the rhetoric Enron used sounds suspiciously like Ronbots:

          “He clearly thinks Californians should be thanking Enron, not castigating it, for its role in trying to push open the state’s power markets. ”We’re on the side of angels,” he says. ”We’re taking on the entrenched monopolies. In every business we’ve been in, we’re the good guys.””

          “Enron executives paint this as nothing less than a holy war on inefficiency. When the power giants are busted up, scrappy Enron believes it can thrive by delivering just the products and services particular customers want most.”

          Sounds great doesn’t it? What did it result in? FAILURE. FAILURE rooted in deregulation, failure in Texas, and FAILURE IN FREE MARKETS.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9

        2. Forest

          The Ronbot lie:
          “In Enron; society got the opposite of “Free Market”.”

          Reality:
          ”Every trading company in the country has been feasting on California, and Enron is the shrewdest of them all. They are like sharks in a feeding frenzy,’”

          The Ronbot lie:
          “Enron was allowed to hold a monopoly over electricity and POWER companies”

          Reality:
          “ENRON AND OTHER ELECTRICITY MARKETERS AND GENERATORS are being investigated by the state attorney general and sued by consumers amid accusations of profiteering and market manipulation.”

          Your simplistic rhetoric makes this too easy. Thank you, come again.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5

        3. Fred the Protectionist

          Libertarian say: “Enron was allowed to hold a monopoly over electricity and POWER companies so that…”

          pssst buddy, by nature power companies are monopolies. Are you anarchists suggesting the streets get torn up for power lines for every power company?

          How about water companies, yes, lets tear up the streets again for every competing water company.

          Wait a minute, streets are government monopolies, let’s just get rid of streets, problem solved.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4

    2. Fred the Protectionist

      How does one bitch about the banking industry, then swear to do nothing about it cause it’s “regulation”? If you’re not going to do anything about it, stop bitching.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10

      1. Citizen

        Fred the P.

        Cut the two line rants!
        Come on… dazzle us with your brilliance.
        Contribute or LEAVE

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

        1. Fred the Protectionist

          Once you cut out the political cliches and mantras, there ain’t much left to say. You know. I figured y’all’d appreciate my brevity.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

    3. Bottomline

      More regulation of these failed banks will result in more bail outs of our hard earned money, and we only get a crumb back from these thugs in the banking industry. Freddy and Forest want to continue bailing out failed banks with no strings attached.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

      1. Fred the Protectionist

        And you take the side of the corrupt Kleptocrats.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

        1. Bottomline

          No it’s the other way around! You want to take the sides of the Kleptocrats and the big banks

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

    4. Fred the Protectionist

      Libertarian say: “This is exactly like taking a crap in the bathroom, and wiping your but with the toilet paper until you have none left. Afterward; you are using your towel and hands instead of throwing everything out & buying a new roll.”

      How descriptive. So how did it smell? look? feel?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

      1. Bottomline

        Man Fred your theories smell really bad! Everytime you blog on here. That’s not good for you.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

        1. fred the protectionist

          I don’t have to take this abuse from a neeeee-gro.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  7. bob

    The truth is that what led to the financial collapse took some 30 years to create. It was the cumulative effects of encouraging less and less financial regulation along with the FED’s control of interest rates that led to the situation we are in. The solution is complicated but the bottom line is that there needs to be a checks and balance system in place because letting the market go hog-wold is exactly how we got into the mess we find ourselves in. In some ways I am totally for government regulation of some form.

    But you want to know what the long-term solution is to America’s financial dilemma? get back to becoming a nation that actually produces and sells things versus a nation that makes money from selling houses and debt back and forth until the bottom feeding bagholders are left holding the bag.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

    1. Citizen

      bob,

      Dr Paul is saying we need to start “regulating” the FED! That’s where the root problem is.

      We already have laws against fraud, but the SEC isn’t competent enough to do the job!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

      1. Forest

        “Dr Paul is saying we need to start “regulating” the FED! That’s where the root problem is.”

        Right. Because Fraud never occurred before the advent of a central bank.

        Keep living in your dream while funding his dream, Ronbot.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8

        1. Libertarian777

          “Right. Because Fraud never occurred before the advent of a central bank”

          you missed out a couple words there.

          “Right. Because Fraud ON THIS SCALE never occurred before the advent of the central bank”

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

      2. Fred the Protectionist

        Libertarian say: “Dr Paul is saying we need to start “regulating” the FED! ”

        nooo, Lunatic Paul is saying we need to get rid of the FED.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6

    2. fred the protectionist

      Again there the Libertarianos go again, complaining about bubbles and low interest rate of the FED.

      Why do you complain about “low interest rates”, when your solution would be “no (zero) interest rates”?

      The interest rate the FED sets would be zero if you got rid of the FED.

      You know what? Ronulans/Libertarians are nutty.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Forest

    “Yet all the fraud of Enron was taken care of by anti-fraud laws in Texas. They all went to jail, it didn’t last nearly this long, and here we defend on the SEC.”

    It is estimated that Enron was using SPV’s since 1997 and had HUNDREDS of SPV’s by 2001.

    If someone uses the time lag of application of Texas’ anti-fraud regulation (which completely failed as well) relative to the Goldman Sachs episode, the SEC acted in a positively rapid fashion.

    Why not focus on how Enron morphed into a ‘Goldman Sachs’ right under the nose of Free Markets and the nose of those same Anti-Fraud laws in Texas? Years before finally inflicting an exponential amount of damage (relative to the SEC suit) to Enron customers, workers, and shareholders?

    “He transformed Enron from a company that delivered B.T.U.’s to one that dealt in contracts; as Business Week put it, the company became ”more akin to Goldman Sachs than to Consolidated Edison.””

    Why not, instead, say this was another situation where a deregulated market, as taken advantage of by Free Markets, enabled companies to fleece the other participants.

    ” True believers insist that the power crisis of 2000-2001, which transferred tens of billions of dollars from taxpayers to electricity-generating companies — and quite a bit to Enron too — was not a verdict on deregulation, that it was all the fault of meddling politicians who didn’t let the market work. But this claim isn’t particularly convincing, mainly because it isn’t true. The real lesson of the California catastrophe was that the concerns that led to regulation in the first place — monopoly power and the threat of market manipulation — are still real issues today.

    State and local governments, alerted by what happened in California, will henceforth be a lot more wary about deregulation. There’s even a movement to reregulate electricity markets. And that means fewer opportunities for Enron, whose stock price depends on the expectation that it will keep finding new Californias to conquer. ”

    I lived in California at that time, Free Markets abused millions upon millions of clients. And they never paid – except for a mea culpa. Thanks Texas Anti-Fraud laws for YEARS after it all went down – and not while it could have helped.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9

    1. Citizen

      Fred,
      Where do you get the idea that we have a “Free Market” ?
      Nothing could be farther from the truth!

      More regulations are not the answer given where the problems originate. Goldman-Sachs became the conduit of government sponsored unsecured sub-prime mortgages packaged by Freddie and Fannie; the real Criminal Enterprises. Why isn’t Barney Frank being charged with criminal misconduct?

      The SEC and the Obama Administration are demanding that the Fox get tough on the chicken thefts. While the Fox is picking his teeth with fresh chicken bones.

      Fred, “Government is the Problem” Ronald Reagan

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4

      1. Forest

        It is Forest, not Fred. Thanks for the attention to detail, however.

        So you say Fannie and Freddie caused the whole Countries’ ills via subprime loans? Well then ‘Citizen’, why did Commercial Real Estate (WHICH IS NOT guaranteed by FNM/FRE) also experience the EXACT SAME BUBBLE? Oh that’s right, the Fed. Well then if it was the Fed, why did housing bubbles also occur ACROSS THE WORLD in coutries with FAR TIGHTER MONETARY POLICY than the United states?

        While noone disputes government policy played a part, to push all the blame on Freddie/Fannie/GS is dangerously ignorant and I would say actually an embarrassing statement on your part.

        Why not even give some credit to Free Market’s innocent contribution to inefficiency and failure? Are you so willfully ignorant? Investor speculation, predatory lending, misaligned compensation schemes, contagious optimism/jealousy, lax free-market ratings agencies, and unbridled optimism didn’t play a part at all, really? What a simple world you live in.

        “Where do you get the idea that we have a “Free Market” ?”

        Focus on my example, Power was DEREGULATED which led to a MONOPOLY which lead to MANIPULATION. So, are you saying that you want a completely, unhindered, unicorn-like Free Market that can just graze peacefully and work it’s magic for all of mankind?

        Why then, in the absence of anti-trust regulation for example, is the natural evolution of Free Markets monopoly and market abuse?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8

        1. CC Writer

          Fred seems to be following you around, so it’s easy to get you two confused.
          Real easy.

          -

          -

          -lol

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

          1. Fred the Protectionist

            No offense, there’s hardly anyone here commenting. Statistically speaking, it’s easy to reply to the same guy over and over again.

            I think I just went over your head.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

          2. Jake

            Then you must be standing on yours.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      2. Fred the Protectionist

        Libertarian say: “Where do you get the idea that we have a “Free Market” ?”

        A Libertarian idea of a free market is the top 1% owning 99% of everything, including governments, while the bottom 99% slaves in the fields.

        Libertarian say: “Ronald Reagan”

        Reagan was the original neocon. Deficit spending, open-borders, free-trade.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9

    2. TR Rides Again

      Indeed, Forest, indeed! Very well articulated. It is lunacy to decry a lack of law enforcement and conclude the laws that weren’t being enforced were the problem. Laissez faire capitalism naturally devolves into a coercive and cartel/monopoly-based system precisely because there are no checks on abuses of power.

      We saw under the aegis of supply-side economics – twice – that removing regulatory safeguards and exposing massive sectors of the public to the resulting risk is a great way for very greedy, amoral people to make gobs of money, and the rest of the world to suffer. We need to begin framing this ideology as the Lord of the Flies, social Darwinist claptrap it is. Personally I wouldn’t equate “freedom” with having to build my own roads or hire my own “regulators.” I realize that’s part of the rugged Western frontier mythos, but as a proud native of the American West I will say: It’s 2012, and it’s called the Old West for a reason.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Dale B. Halling

    Mr. Paul is right. We keep adding layers of regulation and yet every econometric study shows they are ineffective. However, they are expensive and hurt innovation. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity – which is fits the tax, spend, and regulate crowd.

    Sarbox has failed to achieve any of its goals and is killing US innovation (see http://hallingblog.com/2010/01/04/sarbanes-oxley-obstructing-innovation/). In 1996 the US had 60% of the worldwide IPOs in 2005 we had only 20%. Unfortunately, SOX is just one of several laws since 2000 we have passed that are killing innovation in the US. The incredible innovation of the 90s was based on technology start-up companies built on intellectual capital, financial capital, and human capital. All three of the pillars have been under attack since 2000. Our patent laws have been weakened reducing the value of intellectual capital. Sarbanes Oxley has made it impossible to go public reducing financial capital for start-ups and the FASB rules on stock options have made it harder to attract human capital to start-ups. The Decline and Fall of the American Entrepreneur: How Little Known Laws and Regulations are Killing Innovation http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-American-Entrepreneur-Regulations/dp/1439261369/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262124667&sr=8-1, explains these problems in more detail.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3

    1. Forest

      “We keep adding layers of regulation and yet every econometric study shows they are ineffective.”

      Wow Dale, that’s a pretty FALSE statement. Are you saying things like contract law, monopolies, child labor, and making fraudulent statements just hinder your unicorn-like ‘Free Markets’? Geesh.

      Did you know when ANTI-TRUST REGULATIONS broke up Standard Oil, the company was worth MORE after the breakup than before?

      What about things like Child Labor laws, OSHA, Glass-Steagall, investor regulation acts, etc…

      Noone is saying the government is always perfect, but a blanket statement such as ” every econometric study shows regulations are ineffective” is patently and wholly ignorant and false.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8

      1. Fred the Protectionist

        Libertarians are really neo-Confederate Anarchists.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8

        1. CC Writer

          You always say the funniest shiite

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

          1. Fred the Protectionist

            Then stop defending the CSA.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

        2. TR Rides Again

          Neo-Cons and neo-Cons, dumb and dumber, the latter serving as the vaunted “useful idiots” for the former.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. jim

    Freddy, what he is saying is we don’t need specific bodies to regulate the banking industry. Any such organization is totally reactionary, dealing with problems in unsastifactory terms after they happen. Ron Paul advocates just using the criminal law code. Just use antifraud laws. They have real teeth (though seldom used on the rich) and would act as a real deterant. Get your facts straight. You make it sound like he doesn’t believe in punishment. That’s not true. He would just rather use the law than an useless regualtory body.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4

    1. Forest

      Jim says:

      “Just use antifraud laws. They have real teeth”

      OK, so your omnipotent anti-fraud laws are proactive? Where were your precious antifraud laws 3-4 years ago when fraud was occurring? Where are they now? Right, your anti-fraud laws are still looking for their dentures.

      If you depend on anti-fraud laws, how would you define ‘anti-fraud’ if the state of Texas HADN’T SPECIFIED what is and is not required to be within the disclosure portion of Credit Default Swap sales literature? What if Texas anti-fraud law had never even put in a law requiring Golden Company (for example) to even file and retail Sales Literature or corporate communications on file for 7 years after presentation?

      Riiiight. Golden Company could just go in say ‘Well, you never said we had to save a copy so darn we kind of lost it but we totally wish we had one but anyway we are pretty sure we did disclose everything! And, well, you never specified what an institutional investor was and they are very well educated, and the people that filled out the applications and bought the homes are legit – so well you never said that was fraud, its all part of contract law! Great doing business with you Texas – SUCK IT!’

      Keep living in the 1850′s, the rest of the world isn’t.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5

      1. jim

        Fred, how are you today? I’m going to list a couple of problems here just with the world today in general. First, when people take one side of an issue of course that means they leave themselves open to disagreement. What that doesn’t not imply that they believe everything on their side works 100%. I never implied that there wasn’t problems enforcing antifraud laws. They have been around for awhile. Why haven’t they been enforced??? Does one suspect while living in a corptarist country that the goverment is going to enforce its laws with the same people they’re in bed with… of course not. That doesn’t mean believing in the use of antitrust laws makes me an idiot.

        Am I to infer because you believe in more regulation that you believe everything done by Sabrne-oxley has been to the the benefit of america. Well I don’t.

        You make definitions for the people you are arguing against which is at the best disingenious, and the worst outright lying. Since I don’t know which you did, I won’t call you a liar. You cannot not define your opposition though. Yes, I am a libertarian. You said that I must therefore believe that 99% of the freemarket should be owned by 1% of the population. That of course is not what I believe. You must have meant if everyone followed the philosophy of libertaranism this would be the result. Please learn the difference between correlations and cause and effect.

        And of course I don’t believe that would be the end result. I believe libertaranism if followed to it’s fullest extent would make us all equal under the law. I think what would be imposed upon us would be very limited by the goverment, because the goverments power would be curtailed by a simple document such as the constitution. If goverment has much less power, and is much smaller it would become alot more transparent. This transparency would allow the people to call it more quickly and ,more importantly, more often. You are free to disagree with this. I’m a libertarian, I allow for this. This is a succinct if over-simplified view of my beliefs. I did this so you can easily argue against my reasoning. I am not ashamhed of what I believe in. I would ask you to do the same with your believe in regulation, but up to you.

        Understand this though. It truly doesn’t matter which side of this argument you come down on though in one respect. Neither of us will see the changes we want unless the majority of the population is pulled out of it’s lethargy. It is the moral character of the people at large that must be addressed to get real change. And I’m sorry to say this Fred truly… but you are going to be one of the last people in this world to bring change if you continue you in your ways. Loud, obnoxious know-at-alls, convert no one to there thinking especially when the people you’re yelling at are consciousness, intelligent people. Most people on this site are. You sound immature and brattish

        I would like to leave you a quote and wish you well on your journey. You sound like someone who is either currently at university, or recently finished. Which means you have a long journey left andd hope you find peace on the way. Locke, Hume, Socrates, these guys all have their place in making the world a better place but I prefer utmost to follow men who make such statements as this.

        “The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the services of others.” Mahatma Ghandi.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

        1. fred the protectionist

          “Fred, how are you today?”

          ..and that’s pretty much all I read.

          Rule #1: Keep it brief.

          In order to enforce Rule #1 you cut out the political cliches and mantras, the stuff we’ve all heard a bajillion times.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    2. Fred the Protectionist

      Libertarian say: “Ron Paul advocates just using the criminal law code. Just use antifraud laws. ”

      No he doesn’t. Libertarians and Neocons only represent the interests of the rich whether legitimate or criminal.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8

    3. CC Writer

      Is every Forest post followed by a Fred post?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      1. Fred the Protectionist
  11. PL

    Mr. Paul,

    It’s not that the SEC “is a total failure.” Quite the opposite. The fact that we are conditioned to even use this type of language when referencing this malign entity proves its profound success. The SEC has never had any intention of sincerely regulating our stock market system in our favor. Saying that the SEC has totally failed to regulate the FED is like saying that the mafia totally failed to regulate our labor unions.

    Another magnificent deception right up there with the SEC purportedly regulating our stock market system is “the Federal Reserve was founded to regulate inflation…”

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

  12. alec

    What’s the point of having a government if it’s just another wing of big business?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

  13. Fred the Protectionist

    Ron Paul say: “You know, if we had free market banking, people were honest, not committing fraud…”

    Geez Libertarians are so naive. It is fraud and dishonesty which led to all this regulation.

    Let’s pretend we return to the good old days where there was no regulation in the banking industry. Lets turn back the clock to the middle ages where banking was not regulated, and fraud and dishonesty was the rule and not the exception. Less people would put money into banks cause they didn’t trust them; the invisible hand moves away. Hey, less usury, i’m all for it. Can we burn them at the stake too? Hey let’s bring the death penalty for those who defraud of over 1 million dollars, yeah let’s burn them…..

    The invisible hand says you are either going to have regulation+large banking industry or no regulation+no banking industry. You chose:

    A) Large banking industry with regulation.

    B) Puny banking industry with no regulation.

    Make your choice, it’s one or the other.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 15

    1. EndtheFed

      Fred said:
      “The invisible hand says you are either going to have regulation+large banking industry or no regulation+no banking industry.”

      If banking was a free, competitive industry and people were worried about fraud, then the banks with the best reputations would be the most successful. That’s how the invisible hand works.

      Why is it that you trust the government to control the value of money but you don’t trust them to detect and punish fraud?

      If they are too untrustworthy to detect and punish fraud, the last thing you should do is give them complete control over monetary policy.

      Report this comment

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2

      1. Forest

        “If banking was a free, competitive industry and people were worried about fraud,”

        So your toothless anti-fraud laws WHICH WE HAVE NOW are working how? If you remove regulation and remove all government activity, people are going to be afraid of fraud WHY?

        Why, if you remove laws, are people going to fear them more? You don’t think it would then give private industry an EASIER TIME TO GET AROUND THEM?

        Don’t forget, one of the major components of the last housing bubble was repealing the Glass-Steagall act.

        Noone is saying to stifle innovation, but it has never been proven that Free Markets will ALWAYS regulate themselves in the most efficient manner.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7

      2. Fred the Protectionist

        Libertarian say: “If banking was a free, competitive industry and people were worried about fraud, then the banks with the best reputations would be the most successful. ”

        Wrong. When the banking industry was totally unregulated like in the middle ages, barely anyone put anything in banks. People were regularly defrauded by the money changers, and government (gold-silver) currencies.

        Regulation creates trust in the banking industry. No regulation = No banking industry. Make your choice.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

        1. Libertarian777

          sorry I’m lost here

          so in the middle ages, banks and the king watering down the currency by debasing the amount of gold/silver in the coinage was bad and was fraud committed upon the populace, then why when the Federal Reserve prints money now (and thus debases the currency) you don’t apply the same standard in your arguments ?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

          1. Fred the Protectionist

            Of course you’re lost. While some Christians think the Earth is only 6,000 years old, all Libertarians think the Earth is 30 years old.

            The middle ages Europe is a good example of what an unregulated banking industry is like. Either the government devalued their coin (gold coin too, yes they devalued gold coin by putting lead in it or cutting the edges off, or sanding em down), or the money changers defrauded their customers. So since there was no trust, barely anyone but the truly desperate put their money into banks, or even trusted the government; they bartered mostly.

            You have to make a choice:

            A) A big banking industry + regulation.

            B) Puny banking industry + anarchy.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

          2. Forest

            “then why when the Federal Reserve prints money now (and thus debases the currency) ”

            Prove it. Tell me how, in the past couple of years, the currency has been debased? I’ll give you one better, how about I say over the past 35 years:

            “Measured against a basket of currencies from the Group of 10 nations proportioned by how they trade against each other, the greenback is up about 3 percent since 1975, according to Bloomberg Correlation-Weighted Currency Indexes.”

            http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aVbhDaStbA1Q&pos=2

            So, again, how is it being debased?

            The Federal Reserve is barely printing enough money to cover the contraction in credit caused by free markets. Remember those millions of printing presses in people’s pockets (credit cards) that WERE USING MONEY NOT CREATED BY THE FED? How about those HELOC loans taken out in 2007 (when interest rates were at a multi-year high)?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

          3. Libertarian777

            how is it being debased?

            1 oz of gold = 1 oz of gold. 1 oz of gold = 2 oz of coin if i debase it. does it make me richer? nominally yes. in reality. no (except for the value of the base metal possibly).

            There is no doubt the US $ has been debased (mere fact there is no backing other than the word of the US government already tells you there is no ‘base’ to begin with). What you are trying to argue is that the purchasing power of the US$, against a trade weighted basket of currencies is stable.

            That is a different discussion.

            Why a different discussion? because it brings other factors into account viz. trade imbalances, trade deficits, monetary and fiscal policies etc.

            And FWIW, HELOC and home mortgage ATMs WERE created by the Fed, through a thing called fractional reserve banking. If the Fed required banks to put 50% of their deposit base at the Fed, the banks would not have been able to leverage up as fast. It is only 10% now. $100 deposit turns into $1000. At 50% $100 deposit only turns into $200, 80% less leverage.

            http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

          4. Forest

            “And FWIW, HELOC and home mortgage ATMs WERE created by the Fed, through a thing called fractional reserve banking.”

            Really? The Fed created Fractional Reserve Banking? WOW! I had no idea! Fractional Reserve Banking didn’t exist before the Fed! Wrong. The Fed did NOT ‘create’ Fractional Reserve Banking. Man you Ronbots really strive to attribute everything to the Fed don’t you?

            “What you are trying to argue is that the purchasing power of the US$, against a trade weighted basket of currencies is stable.”

            So you just ignore purchasing power when talking about ‘debasement’? You sure like to pick and choose your definitions, don’t you? So you are saying that, when offered a quote that states ‘the dollar is as valuable now as it was 35 years ago’ or “To quote Mark Twain, the reports of the dollar’s demise have been greatly exaggerated,” it must just blow your mind. I mean you’ve been indoctrinated that ‘the dollar has lost 96% of its value BLAH BLAH BLAH’.

            Keep on keeping on with your simpleton ‘the fed is evil and the dollar is dead’ cries. Hey, maybe you and Ron can go riot in the streets like it’s the 1980′s! I mean, the dollar, and this country was pronounced dead then, too. Maybe you will realize you were totally wrong one day… Unlikely you would ever admit it, but hey, rational people can hopt.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

          5. Libertarian777

            for 1 i’m not focusing on the purchasing power discussion because, as economists say, ‘cetris paribus’, i’m trying to hone in on ONE aspect (currency debasement). Speaking about purchasing power parity against a trade weighted basket of currencies introduces other complexities of trade deficits, population growth, tax rates, etc.

            The discussion of purchasing power of your US $ would entail us comparing the relative nominal increase in salaries / income vs the nominal increase in living costs (i.e. is wage inflation > or < price inflation). That argument differs from the 'debasement' argument, which is saying, effectively, that there is no instrinsic value to a specific US$. And if there is, please explain that to me, since it is only backed by the 'full faith and credit' of the US government effectively, it is in effect saying the greenback is an option on the future taxes of the American taxpayer.

            Secondly I did not say the Federal Reserve CREATED fractional reserve banking, I said the Fed created the HELOC and home mortgage ATMs THROUGH fractional reserve banking.

            Lastly I don't try and attribute EVERYTHING to the Federal Reserve, I attribute a large percentage of the social problems at LARGE government (I'm not saying NO government, i'm saying LARGE government). It boils down to personal responsibility. Do you believe in taking care of yourself or do you expect the government to take care of you?

            It amazes me that your and Fred the P.'s attacks are always personal, name calling attacks. If there are logic or factual errors in my arguments, call it out and back it up, and we can debate it. Why do you always feel so threatened by free thinkers that you have to resort to name calling? Are you still in grade school?

            Calling me a 'Ronbot', a 'NeoCon' etc. is immature. And calling out logic or factual errors is not the same as saying "you're wrong, that's wrong", state WHY its wrong. You could use Paul Krugman's articles in your defence of the Federal Reserve if you so chose, instead of calling me a Ronbot.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

          6. fred the protectionist

            Libertarian say: “It boils down to personal responsibility.”

            Well hell if it all boils down to personal responsibility, maybe Ron Paul should just get out of Congress (since it’s all about personal responsibility), put on his Ronulan priestly attire and just wander the countryside preaching personal responsibility.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    2. Citizen

      Dear Fred the P.,

      This is a two edged sword, YOU demand MORE REGULATION (Protection) against Criminal Enterprises, yet you can’t see the real Criminals here!

      Congress + Federal Reserve + Freddie + Fannie are the REAL CRIMINALS
      -NO Oversight, NO Audits, NO Accountability, NO Investigations!

      -The following CRIMINALS should be Serving Time along with Skilling and Madof
      -Franklin Raines, $100m golden parachute after driving Freddie Mac Gov. enterprise into the ground
      -Barney Frank Congressman 4th Dist MA, his boyfriend ran Fannie Mae, signed off and continues to promote sub-primes loans, NO job require.
      -Christopher Dodd, Senator of Connecticut., sweetheart deals on 2 personal mortgages. Not to mention the questionable political donations!
      -Tim Gietner, Sec of the Treasury, still hasn’t paid his back taxes
      -Charlie Ragal, Congressman, New York City, writes the tax code for You Fred and US, but doesn’t follow it, still hasn’t paid taxes on his Jamaican luxury condo rental income.

      More Regulations?
      How about enforcing the Existing Laws FIRST!!!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

      1. Fred the Protectionist

        Libertarian say: “Congress + Federal Reserve + Freddie + Fannie are the REAL CRIMINALS”

        Watch out, the big bad government and their black helicopters.

        Libertarian say: “Barney Frank, Dodd, Gietner, Ragal”

        You know they wouldn’t be in power if you open-border/free-trade neocon/Libertarians hadn’t pushed tens of millions of voters into the Democratic Party.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

      2. CC Writer

        Did they change the meaning of Neo-Con? ….. or libertarian?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        1. Fred the Protectionist

          Neo-Con simply means New Conservative.

          Libertarians are definitely NEW: atheism + pro-drug + +homosexual special rights + open-borders + free-trade + Anarchy + pacifism or defeatism is NEW. The Libertarian ideology never existed in America before the 1970′s.

          Libertarians insist on being called Conservative, therefore you are New Conservatives, neocons.

          I also disagree with Pat Buchanan’s use of the word neocon. I dunno, maybe I’m just taking things too literally.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

          1. Jake

            Actually the opposite is true. You are taking things too figuratively.
            Do you really expect us to accept that the belief in maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state just popped up 30some years ago? Was it not more like 800 years ago, and was rejuvenated about two and a half centuries ago?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          2. fred the protectionist

            Wrong, Libertarians ARE NOT Conservative. They are the anti-thesis of conservatism.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  14. Ryan

    Amazing.
    After dropping the ball on the Bernie Madoff scandal, given years of advanced notice and doing nothing with the information they had, it’s crazy to give them even more authority now.
    True criminals running the show right now.

    Well, Ron will fix it up after he wins in 2012. Looking forward to it.

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1

    1. Citizen

      Ryan,
      Especially after the SEC received numerous anonymous tip offs to investigate some simple GAAP reports that were clearly fraudulent. The SEC is just another example of total Government incompetence.

      But its not about improving the system, its about Nationalizing the Market.

      Obama said he doesn’t want to own your business,
      he just want to control it!

      Good Point!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      1. Ryan

        Thanks.
        Indeed, incompetence is the norm in almost any government run operation, especially as it relates to business.
        In fact, I think it’s more than just incompetence, it’s all part of their Corporatist plan — It’s truly criminal! — as you said yourself, they want to control your business. Almost certainly they will control it like “The Black Hand” of the Mafia, “Make them an offer they can’t refuse.”.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      2. Libertarian777

        the government believes in privatised profits and socialised losses.

        don’t let the ‘profit’ that they’ve made on TARP fool you, we’re still over $90 billion in the hole for it, yet they only look at one side of the ledger and claim the government had made money on the Citibank investment (what about the AIG, GM, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac losses?).

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

        1. Ryan

          “the government believes in privatised profits and socialised losses.”

          Very true! … But only when it comes to Big Business!
          The small businesses are left to file for bankruptcy. You need to be a member of the ‘good’ ole boys club to qualify for that taxpayer bailout. They have the attitude, “too big to fail”. I think big business is to big to exist, if when it goes bankrupt it imperils the whole economy. To me there is no such thing as too big to fail. And if it is so big that the economy is in jeopardy if the company goes bankrupt, then that company must be a monopoly in desperate need of diversification. They’ve conglomerated and unionized us to death. Diversification and fair paying free markets is the answer.
          They never seem to address the root cause of the problem, always looking for a quick fix band aid for an amputated limb.
          Now it is up to us voters to amputae them from power so we can get back on track to prosperity.
          Here’s hoping for a clean sweep in the next few elections of all the bafoons running this cluster f***.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

          1. Libertarian777

            the best thing now is that “GM is repaying the $8billion loan the US and Canadian Government gave them”.

            Umm.. what about the $40 billion equity stake that got wiped out? $48 billion invested… $8billion returned… feels like a $40billion loss to me.

            But congress is going to claim that ‘our’ (taxpayers) loan to GM was ‘fully repaid’!

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

          2. Ryan

            Precisely!
            One good thing though…
            Thank goodness Ron Paul will be there to make sure the public knows the truth hidden behind their lies. :)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    2. Forest

      “After dropping the ball on the Bernie Madoff scandal, given years of advanced notice and doing nothing with the information they had,”

      So, where were Ron Pauls favored Texas anti-trust laws during this whole time? How come they didn’t catch Madoff years ago? How come those anti-trust laws NEVER caught Madoff?

      Are you really saying that if the one agency that did catch him… never existed then would have been caught… earlier? No wonder people think Ron Paul is kooky – it’s because he MAKES NO SENSE.

      Do you just complain or do you ever have a solution other than ‘well! if… you know… ANTI-TRUST! errrrr…. uhhhhh AUDIT THE FED! and ummmm REGULATIONS ARE BAD!’

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3