Ron Paul: Don’t allow the Fed to destroy our money!

A Spooked Economy in October

by Ron Paul

Last week we received worse than expected unemployment numbers, challenging recent claims that the recession has come and gone. Also, as the economy continues to suffer the after effects of the Federal Reserve-created bubbles of the last decade, there is renewed interest in gold. Fears that the Federal Reserve will pump even more money into the system had caused the price of gold to reach new highs. Also contributing to enthusiasm for gold is continued instability in the banking industry, symbolized this week by fraud allegations that have caused many banks to halt foreclosure proceedings, thus further destabilizing the housing market. Yes, October has a reputation for being a scary month economically and this month is shaping up to be frightening, as well.

The Fed has been wreaking havoc and devaluing our monetary unit steadily since 1913, and greatly accelerating it since the collapse of the Bretton Woods agreement in the 1970s. This severing of the dollar’s last tenuous link with gold allowed the Fed to create as much new money as it pleased, and it has taken full advantage of this opportunity.

In 1971, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was $1.29 trillion. Today it is $14.6 trillion, nominally. But adjusted for all the inflating the Fed has been doing, it is only $2.73 trillion, which constitutes only a 1% real increase per year! So with all this extra money going around, we may appear nominally wealthier, but the reality is, we have barely moved at all. This is unfortunate especially for the prudent, conscientious savers, whose nest eggs are constantly being devalued. Unless of course, they have saved in something out of the Fed’s reach, like gold. While the economy has basically been in a holding pattern against the leeching of wealth by the Fed for 39 years, gold has seen an inflation adjusted increase in value of over 5% per year, if measured in 1971 dollars. This is due to the Fed’s ability to make dollars plentiful. And yet, this is the only tactic the Fed can come up with to rescue an economy already devastated by “quantitative easing”, as they call it.

The turmoil in the housing market demonstrates how disastrous it is to flood the economy with fiat money. Latest events with foreclosures are good examples of mistakes made in the market, in this case, by the banks, in the rush to soak up manipulated currency. This is why the truly free market depends on sound, honest money, free from false signals of artificially low interest rates.

The government finds ways to spend money even faster than the Fed can create it, bringing our national debt well past the point of the taxpayers ever being able to pay it off. Other nations who, in the past, have eagerly bought up any amount of debt we produced are now starting to resist. We are reaching a crucial point at which the dollar will no longer function, and in the absence of a functioning dollar, restoring sound money will be the only alternative.

The truly scary notion is that those in power might allow our system to collapse so chaotically to the detriment of so many people rather than simply obey the Constitution.

  • marsellus wallace

    A weak dollar is great for bringing jobs back home. a weak dollar means the US can compete in producing exports, increasing employment on true capital. However, our great leaders will waste this opportunity to try and create growth in problematic areas, such as non-interest banking, instead of coming up with a real solution to the US debt bubble. National banks/world banks are terrible and should never have become legal.(Jackson made this point extremely clear)

    Public works projects need to be funded by money printed out of thin air, weakening the dollar so manufacturers can grow.
    (if inflation does not occur jobs were created, albeit for a short time; if inflation does occur, more jobs are created)

    bailouts and stimulus packages do nothing and are a symptom of nationalized banks. QE2? gimme a break.

    quentin tarantino for president!

    • quentin tarantino

      gold standard would be ideal, but to drop our currency suddenly is too much for the market to handle. maybe a graduated standard that standardizes 5-10% per year.


      • *

        “drop” as in weaken, not switch to Deft’s plan of action.

  • Deft

    I’m all for the gold standard. This is just a logistics question.

    If we had a gold coin standard, wouldn’t even a very tiny gold coin still contain a tremendous amount of purchasing power? How would you make small purchases?

    • herp derp

      what are you smoking? every dollar would be backed by its value in gold in the treasury. We had this system until witch docter reagan changed it in the 70s. please stop watching television. You should probably learn what conservative used to mean and what it means today. America’s great jacksonian democracy and today’s puppet show.

      • k2000k

        The gold standard ended in 1933 under FDR, what existed after the War was the Bretton Woods Agreement, which had gold at a fixed price of $35 an ounce. Nixon, not Reagan, ended that agreement in 1971. Reagan wouldn’t be president for almost ten years.

  • economist

    Dear Senator. I support yours ideas and proposals. But how would the transition of Paper-Money to the Gold?

  • Dfens

    So when Ron Paul says, “don’t let the Fed destroy our money.” Who is he speaking for? Clearly it’s not the poor ex-factory worker who used to be a middle class American, but now is worried that he and his wife and kids will find themselves out living on the street. No, he’s speaking for the rich and for nations like Communist Red China who have trillions of US dollars stockpiled in their accounts that they’ve “earned” by stealing away our industrial might. Yeah, it would be terrible for them if the dollar were to loose value on the international money market. It would be terrible for them, but might get our poor, out-of-work factory guy his job back. Once again, Ron Paul is the mouth piece of Communist Red China against the interests of the average American. Vote for Ron Paul, if you’re out of work and want to stay that way!

    • k2000k

      Do you not understand that it is the very system that the FED has been propagating along with our Federal government that is causing us to borrow money from the Chinese? There is no way that a depreciated dollar will ever help us get jobs back, it simply doesn’t work that way. The US will still be more expensive than countries like the Philipines, Vietnam, or Angola. We saw how currerncy manipulation failed to keep Japan inc chugging along, and we are beginning to see how it is failing the Chinese, or have you not heard about the massive real estate bubble that exists in China? The Chinese keep producing buildings, infrastructure, and a whole mess of things that they cannot actually use in the near future but it still counts as GDP growth. At some point it will have to stop and the Chinese are going to be in a world of hurt. Just like our own problem of massive borrowing and spending for programs we cannot afford. However, unlike Japan, and very possibly China, we actually have the ability to head this off and escape the worst of what could happen to us. It just requires a return to fiscally conservative government and sound fiscal policies.

      • Dfens

        Irresponsible trade policies like Ron Paul is advocating are causing us to borrow money from his communist buddies in China, not the Fed. The Fed is not manipulating our currency value against their currency. China is the country keeping the value of their currency artificially low against our currency. Ron Paul is doing everything he can to help that to continue.

        • It’s Econ 101!

          “irresponsible trade policies” as opposed to what, protectionism?

          People who advocate for protectionism don’t understand competition’s role in capitalism.

          It’s quite simple. Each party involved in any voluntary trade BENEFITS. If they didn’t benefit, they wouldn’t make the exchange. As Jim Rogers says, if I can buy 4 pencils from China for the same price as 1 pencil costs me in America, then i just saved 75% off the price of my pencil. THAT means that i now have more money to spend on other things.

          If America produces pencils with 4 times the expenses, then America shouldn’t produce pencils. They should buy pencils from China and use the extra 75% that they saved to invest in something that they have a comparative advantage in producing.

          It’s econ 101. Look up absolute advantage and comparative advantage PLEASE.

        • Dfens

          If you work for the pencil company and can buy one for 1/3rd as much, then you have the rest of your severance pay to spend like there’s no tomorrow. I guess that’s Economics 201 instead of economics for the simple minded Ron Paul worshiper.

    • Scapegoating

      “by stealing away our industrial might”

      Nobody is stealing away our industrial might. We lose jobs to them because they have a comparative advantage in producing certain things. When your trading partner has a comparative advantage in producing something, you shouldn’t produce it!

      We are losing jobs because we are trying to protect jobs in industries that we do not have comparative advantage in. If we focused on produing the things we have comparative advantage in, then we wouldn’t need to worry about losing those jobs because we always have a willing buyer who has to pay more to produce them on their own.

      By blaming all of our job problems on the chinese you are ignoring the real problem and scapegoating an entire population. Think about what you are saying.

  • Sloganizing the issues — Purported solution on the cheap for the sheep.
    Good for you, you memorized that senseless crap

    Mr. Paul is wrong on every count when it comes to (monetary) solution.

    Effectively, what Mr. Paul want is to remove the embossed letters which now say “Federal Reserve Bank,” and replace them with “Ron Paul’s ‘COMPETING’ Bank(s)” — a principle which he refuses to debate, further define, or justify. Of course, any ostensible “competition” would ostensibly, on the contrary, drive interest rates down. But Mr. Paul tells us that we wouldn’t have borrowed ourselves into this debt mess if higher rates of interest had discouraged excessive/reckless borrowing.

    Mr. Paul has never done the math: he tells you that all of you are going to benefit somehow therefore — oh and we so willingly believe this preposterous notion, don’t we? — he tells us we will benefit paying perhaps 17% interest on our homes than 5%. Sounds really like a good idea, doesn’t it? Especially since the rate of interest is the rate of multiplication of artificial indebtedness — higher rates of which instead necessitate greater rates of borrowing to maintain a vital circulation.

    Unfortunately, most people who exalt Austrian “economics” hardly know the first thing about it. They reject math — most of which is little more than counting — as if you could understand otherwise; and they could have possibly determined solution otherwise. In no legitimate discipline or walk of life does such reckless abandonment of principle hold.

    But Mr. Hayek, God of the Austrians tells us why they advocate interest and the current banking model — which are our very problem. See Hayek’s article at Mises org: “A Free Market Monetary System,” I think it’s called. Anyway, he thus justifies interest, that it makes banking “an extremely profitable business.”

    That’s right. There IS no justification, just an outright confession of the motive.

    • Brian Handey

      Name one business that doesn’t seek a profit. Consumers are the ultimate decider in what that profit margin is, as competition keeps profits fair. And yes, banking is a business. What did you think it was, a non-profit organization? When you deposit your money with a bank, you’re allowing it to be loaned out to a third party, so they may take out a car loan, a mortgage, or a cash-advance. Cash is the product, and you must “pay” for the product. The compensation for lending your money out is the interest paid on the principle. I bet you don’t complain when you receive interest on your deposit.

      That’s some simple math for you.

      Besides, while you’re so busy ripping on Austrian economics, why don’t you explain to all of us why Keynsian economics is the better choice? Keep in mind that a government can’t control the economy without controlling the people. It also does nothing as well or economically as the private sector. The government also has nothing, so how does it get money? It either has to take it from the people or print it, both of which are destructive and bad for the average American. Take GM, for example. They were bailed out. Where did the government get this money? It took it from a productive sector and channeled into this unproductive company called GM, a company that lost its market share because of the poor products and marketing strategies it employed over the years. That’s Keynesian. Now please explain how that was good for the economy?

      • We do not promote Keynesian economy.

        I prefer to NOT receive interest on my money. It´s just part fo the scam.

        Before making assumptions first study MPE as i did with AE your so called free market idea´s.

        You have to do beter than that

      • David

        This is what Jack is proposing Brian, the original American currency and economy, and the one that actually worked, and did not involve banks. If money is to facilitate trade business and production then the money cannot be a business in and of itself. Making money with money is simply theft and fraud as no tangible contribution is made in exchange for payment and all such profit must come at the expense of useful trade, its a simple thing and Jack is bang on about that too, things simply can’t work if this is tolerated. Franklin had this figured out before the revolution, unfortunately Hamilton sold out the revolution to the Rothschild family and the Bank of England and we haven’t gotten it right since. We need to get it right again if were going to survive.


        During a visit to Britain in 1763, The Bank of England asked Benjamin Franklin how he would account for the newfound prosperity in the colonies. Franklin replied.

        “That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called ‘Colonial Script’. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers…In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one.”

        In response, the Bank of England influenced the British Parliament to put a stop to this activity. Under the Currency Act of 1764, King George III decreed that the Colonists cease printing their own money. The colonial script in circulation was to be exchanged at a two-to-one ratio with notes drawn from the Bank of England. This caused widespread unemployment and economic depression in the colonies.

        “In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed.” (Benjamin Franklin)

  • Congressman Paul,

    Money is a concept, and is not anything actually tangible. Things “used as money” can be gold or printed paper and they represent the concept of money which is debt. Money is debt. Wealth is actually tangible goods and services. When people confuse wealth with money that is where the problems occur and the wrong solutions designed.

    Gold and printed paper, corn, or sea shells, can be things “used as” money (with the “used as” dropped for simplicity) are only circulating as IOUs if they are “used as” money – called currency. Fiat money is simply the increasing of the number of IOUs in circulation by decree. From this we seek clearly that fiat money is not an evil (since it is a tool to add or even remove grease to move the economy when there is no grease or an over abundance of grease to begin with), but inflation is the evil. Holding a monetary policy where inflation is the norm, is wrong. Yet holding to a monetary policy (of no fiat money) where deflation and inflation can run rampant and not controlled except by market forces in a global economy, is just as evil as the inflationary policies it intends to replace. Only a monetary policy that aims to create tools to end inflation and deflation and maintain the value of currency within a stable index, so that a dollar today is worth a dollar tomorrow and a hundred years from now, is the only true solution. Holding to a non-fiat monetary system would actually choke a growing economy. Yet also not allowing for gold and silver to circulate as competing currencies in a free market, hides any problems with a fiat-only monetary system and causes the mess we are in.

    Yet in addition to monetary policy changes, we also need to make them work hand in hand with fiscal policy changes.

    The best solution to our current economic fiscal problem created by bad fiscal policy is two fold:

    1. eliminate the evil of compound interest on secured loans in favor a simple interest monetization fee, and require that the principal of any such loan be paid first prior to paying the monetization fee (and make this change effective immediately and retroactive on all currently existing qualifying loans)

    2. eliminate the income tax (which currently is a regressive increase to the cost of goods and services by as much as 30%) in favor of only a flat 14% sales and use tax on everything EXCEPT on things deemed necessary for life: groceries, rents or leases of real estate, insurance, and medical items and services.

    Doing these two things will allow homeowners who have paid 17 years on their home on a standard 30yr mortgage, to find their mortgage paid (the details of this are simple but detailed and are explained on the site below), immediately increasing discretionary spending, and would transform banks into service institutions (pay for 1.5 houses to own a house), and not fleecing institutions (paying for 2.5 houses to own a house). These changes would also exempt the poor from paying most of the taxes since their income usually goes mainly to the basic necessities of life such as rents, groceries, medical services, and insurance. Also the true cost of government would be reflected in the sales and use tax, with no regression hidden.

    Concerning monetary policy reforms, the solution is to replace the Fed and its tools with a entirely different and more fine-tuned system of monetary policy under the control of Congress, that would eliminate the man-developed flawed monetary policy of constant inflation (which is nothing more than another tax on the people) and instead have as its primary goal the elimination of inflation and deflation almost entirely through the use of its tools, with the only goal of retaining the value of the dollar at a constant value over time so that $1000 is still worth $1000 a hundred years from now (not counting interest).

    These three reforms alone would double the standard of living within a single generation, and eliminate immediately a small chunk of the national debt (about $2 trillion at this time being a simple accounting ledger fix that would cancel itself out). I encourage anyone interested to look at the very simple but transformative legislative proposal here, and I encourage you Congress Paul to submit it to committee for a vote:

    National Economic Stablization and Recovery Act

    Please read the articles about money if you want to understand more about how our monetary system works from a systems philosophy perspective. Once you do, you will begin to see exactly what is wrong with it, and what is wrong with also completely removing a competing fiat currency. Once anyone understands truly what money is, they will begin to see the faults in our current monetary and fiscal policies. We currently are on an unsustainable path to prosperity, and headed for an unthinkable sinking of our economy… and to think that it’s all a man-made fiasco. We designed ourselves into this mess, we can design ourselves out of it. Check out the site (and please don’t confuse it with a hoax that uses the same acronym).


    after you watch this series of video shorts, made for dummies like me, you will know what we have to do, and ASAP. and for those that come by here to try and disparage Dr. Ron Paul, you might as well take these in too.

    the videos explain in simplest form what the eye and pyramid on our debt-based currency means. and if you don’t know what debt-based, bond economy is, you will after watching these shorts.

    • Turbo,

      After you have seen those video´s i really do not understand why you support RP with his competing banks and currencies. He is just offering more of the same.

      Is it just because there is no better alternative?? Better government comes though educated people. Solution can only be complete solution, there is no half solution. It is our responsibility to understand and choose real solution.

      Because those banks (also the RP competing banks) work with interest both outcomes will be terminal for us.

      Your goal seems to be to try and take away the top of the pyramid (the fed), and leave the remainder of the pyramid intact. Will that destroy the pyramid?? NO
      Mathematically Perfected Economy (our mandate) will take away the complete pyramid from top to base and leave them with nothing.



      (see also my reply earlier)

  • Chris

    When did the trolls show up (Jack et al.)?

    And, more importantly, can their agenda be any more transparent? Probably paid spammers, in fact.

    Go away spammers and trolls and spew your nonsense somewhere else!

    • That’s why you shouldn’t have had your plastic surgeon stick one of your balls on the end of your nose. Now, when you pick your nose, you might get a hard on — all by yourself — while your conjuring up yet another blasphemous retort that you understand the first thing about monetary theory — the whole body of which, evidently, fits very far up your ass, by your one testicle, hanging off the end of your nose.

      Like I said… this why Ron Paul HAS supporters. If these people had sex operations, they wouldn’t even notice.

      • Brian Handey

        Typical liberal – resorts to name calling. Pretty soon Jack will be calling everyone racists because they don’t agree with him. And we don’t understand monetary policy? You, Jack, can’t even understand the simple concept of interest. There’s another person who doesn’t believe in interest, either. Osama bin Laden. But it’s cool to beat your wife, in his eyes…just don’t charge her interest if she takes out a car loan.

        “It’s not that are liberal friends are ignorant. It’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” – Ronald Reagan.

        • Only a fool makes up his mind before he understands the issue.

        • Brian Handey

          That is why you are a fool, Jack.

      • jim

        It’s hard to take anyone serious whos is a rude, pompous jerk. Have you heard of the philosophical saying, “Like is known by like.” Well if the virtue of your arguments equals the virtue of your manners we can hazard a guess how much your arguments are worth.

      • jim

        Jack, it’s hard to give any rude, pompous jerk credence. Have you ever heard of the philosophical saying “Like is know by Like.”? If the virtue of your arguments is equal to the virtue of your manners we can all hazard a guess to how credible your arguments are.

  • – oprah probably knows what ron’s newletters said, so i doubt it

    look at this 1988 video of ron paul talking about the economy: v=Gh5oKTY9PoY

  • I hope you folks do bother to read the law. At least read the U.S. Constitution before you embrace any of the nonsense spouted by Mr. Ron Paul.

    A. Congress has no power to “create money”. If the Constitution delegated said power, why would Congress need the power to borrow that which it could create? (See: Art 1, Sec. 8; Sec. 10, U.S. Constitution)
    B. The Federal Reserve Corporation does not “create money”. It extends credit, at usury, with repayment specified in dollars (gold coin) – which have not circulated since 1933. (See: Coinage Act of 1873)
    C. Since 1933, the U.S. government has been bankrupt, having repudiated their obligations defined in Title 12 USC Sec. 411.
    D. Only through the “voluntary” contributions of millions of enumerated Americans (via FICA), does the worthless “dollar bill” have legal tender standing. As you should know, only obligated parties cannot refuse tender of their own notes, in discharge of debt.
    E. The public debt, soon to exceed 14 trillions, is a legal obligation to pay the creditor over 700 billion ounces of gold, stamped into coin. Since the world wide supply (est. 2009) is only 5.3 billion ounces, one must wonder how that debt can ever be repaid.
    F. Pursuant to the 14th amendment, clause 4, the validity of the public debt cannot be questioned – – – even when it is evidently impossible to repay.

    Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but it sure is useful to keep the sheeple milling about, while they are sheared over and over.

    • Brian Handey

      Borrowing money is the act of creating debt, and how do you pay debt? Most people pay it with dollars or something else of value, like gold, labor, or some other form of collateral. Unless they’re like you and pay it by getting on their knees while trying to twist words and regulations so they can sound “brainy.” You must be a lawyer. Only a lawyer would make a jackass argument like you have. The Constitution is easy to understand if you read it and stop citing regulations that people like you have created to restrict it (and our freedoms). Monetary policy is even easier to understand. Here you go, let me break it down for you – you don’t spend what you don’t have. You can’t create money that hasn’t been earned with labor, because you create more money without creating something else in return. Wow, that was difficult to understand. When you’d like to come to big boy class and speak like an adult instead admiring your own nonsense, then come back to this site and say something meaningful. Otherwise, you can have fun being sheered like a sheep under the guise of social justice.

      • Jet Graphics

        Calling the law an ass is a popular insult.
        Refusing to comprehend the law, and how a dollar is defined is inexcusable.
        See: Coinage Act of 1792, if you wish to know what a unit dollar is.
        A dollar bill is not a dollar. Since 1933, no dollars have circulated.

        Do not believe me. Ask your nearest sitting court judge to rule that a dollar bill is a dollar. I did – he demurred. (Fancy way of saying that he refused)
        Why would he do that, you may ask. Dollar bills are worthless, repudiated debt instruments that do not alienate title. They are the reason the U.S. has been under a perpetual “temporary” State of Emergency since 1933. They are not, were not, nor will they ever be dollars.

        The Constitution is not a source of “our freedoms”. It is a compact, but the private people are not party to it. It’s not “yours” unless you swore an oath to it.

        “But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on
        the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a
        compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they
        may complain….”
        – – -Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia

        Private people are not “People of the United States”, who ordained the new contract, known as the Constitution for the United States of America. Not all Americans could vote, thus not ratify the compact. (Go read the first two articles of Confederation, 1777, if you want to know the difference between the “United States” and the “United States of America”.)

        What this boils down to – we have been lied to, from cradle to grave, by the world’s greatest propaganda ministry.

        Do not believe me – go read the law for yourself. It’s available at any county courthouse law library. And don’t forget to wear kneepads. For at some point you will fall to your knees, weep uncontrollably, and shake your fist at the heavens, crying “How did we lose our birthright?”

        But if you refuse to read the law for yourself, you’re no better than the Congress that enacts legislation it has not read.

      • Brian, do you really understand the constitution because from what i can read in your posts you clearly don´t.

        Go back and try to find the words; (private) banks, loans against interest, competing banks, competing currencies, and such…i can´t find them.

        You clearly don´t stand for solution Big Boy!

        Join, or Die…

        • Brian Handey

          Banks are meant to be a private enterprise. Not to be bailed out by a Federally created central bank. So yes, I do understand the constitution. The constitution advocates free enterprise and protects the liberty and endeavors of each and every one of us. People like you, Jack, are the problem in this country. You don’t understand what you are talking about. Do you read at all? Seriously, do you? I’m wondering, because you have no concept about monetary policy, what money is, how banking is supposed to work, the purpose of interest, loans and what they represent, or what sound economic policy would look like. You need to put your ego aside, stop spending your time trying to be smart, go out, read, and become smart.

          P.S. – do you notice how I’m getting more thumbs up compared to the sea of thumbs down related to your comments, you know, when you and David aren’t patting each other on the back? That’s the best part. You’re upset at banks, and you’re right, the system is broke. But you’re not looking at the fundamental reason why the banking system is broken and you don’t understand what its true function and intent is. You’re governed more by your feelings than by reason.

    • Daniel

      yes, you are right ! Brian Handey a non-sense comment about the constitution from Jet Graghics . Will not even comment by your true name , maybe not even a (citizen of the u.s. or u.s. citizen) if the constitution is just a (compact) !!! ?? it protects the citizen both privitely and individually and as a nation equily. (art. 1 sec. 8 of the 1st. ammendent bill of rights) states, “congress and only congress shall, have the right to, coin and create the value of the dollar thereof; ” so dont be misleaded by complexities its simple , a law that is , and congress is responsible . but since december 22nd ,1913 when most of congressmen were on vacation a bill , known as the federal reserve act , unpublicly brought foward to the congress and minnoridly pasted, with out the senates, due process to approve it. So, ignorance of the law is no excuse! yes, go ron paul !

    • k2000k

      “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures”

      Found that in Article I Section -powers reserved to congress 8 of the constitution. So I am very confused when you claim that congress does not posses the power to create money. Unless you mean fiat money that is not tied to any sort of money that can be ‘coined’, such as gold.

  • Reply from an Ex Ron Paul follower after learning about Mathematically Perfected Economy via Youtube:


    Haha, I’m so glad Ron Paul didn’t get into office now… I was so naive!!

  • The US government and the Fed are the cause of the business cycle, the cause of coercively misallocating resources through government spending and the cause of onerous regulations that provide negative incentives for hiring workers.

    • Follow Mr. Paul, and you find that because he offers and has no fully accountable understanding of these matters, he in fact then advocates higher rates of interest, which can only multiply indebtedness all the faster. This brief section of my YouTube video demonstrates my model, in fact proving even faster inevitable failure predicated by the higher interest rates (and/or diminished borrowing) of Mr. Paul and his “Austrian economists”:

      What does Mr. Paul then precipitate by his simplistic proposition of “ending the fed”? Is it a solution; or are we to remain subject to the very process which not only makes the central banking systems of the world unjust, but also terminal? Are we to solve the fatal consequences of banking as we should know it? Or are we to suffer those causes still? And worse, are we to suffer escalation of this cause, under the higher interest rates advocated by Mr. Paul and his pseudo science, “Austrian economics” — a pretended discipline without a single formal proof or theorem?

      The most preposterous thing here then is that we might follow Mr. Paul, as he calls the kettle black, in fact advocating even more soot — and even meeting presentation of this fact with no more than evasion. Where is his prevailing argument? Where even is his proof we actually suffer circulatory inflation? If we do suffer this as he says, where too is the phenomenal price inflation we would already have suffered if circulatory inflation itself caused price inflation?

      But let’s just take the most casual look at “Austrian economics” — which contrary to its title, can instead only multiply redundant costliness into failure.
      Why do the Austrians advocate higher interest without even indulging in the math which would be indispensable to proving we benefit from some ostensibly legitimate rate of interest, imposed ostensibly because the only legitimate process is to borrow our own promissory notes into circulation from “banks”?

      Well, the Austrian “economist’s” God, Hayek tells us:
      “I am more convinced than ever that if we ever again are going to have a decent money, it will not come from government: it will be issued by private enterprise, because providing the public with good money which it can trust and use can not only be an extremely profitable business; it imposes on the issuer a discipline to which the government has never been and cannot be subject. It is a business which competing enterprise can maintain only if it gives the public as good a money as anybody else.”

      In other words, Mr. Paul’s “competing banks” are merely a continuation in the same fatal processes, to our purported benefit under even higher costs and rates of escalation of artificial indebtedness, by Mr. Paul’s higher rates of interest.

      Source: Mises, “A Free-Market Monetary System,” by Friedrich A. Hayek

      I hope you will have time then to give these matters your careful consideration; and that this will help you see your way to solution.

      for more info google/youtube: Mike Montagne or Mathematically Perfected Economy

      • GB

        Jack – Ron Paul doesn’t advocate necessarily higher rates of interest, only market rates. I think you’ve made up your mind, and trying to cherry pick Paul, Hayek and Mises’ sayings to fit your framework

        Austrian econonics doesn’t need a theorem, when it has history (Germany, early 20th century) and common sense supporting it.

        When one starts using insults like saying “Austrian’s ‘econonmist’s’ god”, it shows weakness in one’s argument.

        • Since when would “common sense” fail to fit a proven theorem?

          Double talk? That’s why you don´t understand anything, much less proof something. You don´t understand what words to use YOURSELF to say what you mean.

          This is why Ron Paul *has* supporters — because an idiot can only be supported by even lower-order idiots.

        • GB

          Whatever, Jack.

        • Brian Handey

          Theorem: an idea, belief, method, or statement generally accepted as true or worthwhile without proof.

          There is no such thing as a proven theorem. As soon as it is proved, it becomes a law.

          So yeah, whatever, Jack.

        • Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn´t deserve to be.

      • Brian Handey

        Higher interest rates don’t encouage more indebtedness. They discourage excess borrowing when the pool of savings to lend out is shallow. So high interest rates are a relflection of real savings. It’s simple supply and demand. So when interest rates rise, remember, they actually discourage indebtedness. Why? Because they discourage over-borrowing at a time when there isn’t enough to lend.

        • Sure, we all save a whole hell of a lot on our foreclosures when they raise the interest. How do you borrow less to maintain a vital circulation at higher interest rates? Why have they been obligated to lower the interest rates interest rates as much as they have? Because higher rates would bankrupt us immediately.

          All you have to do (unless your IQ is under 35) is… go thru the steps of borrowing the money back into circulation first at one interest rate… and then at a much higher rate. Evidently elementary arithmetic is difficult for you to visualize…

        • Brian Handey

          When they raise interest rates, they don’t raise them on existing mortgages. They raise them on borrowing new money. So those foreclosures are no one’s fault but the people who bit off more than they could chew. Therefore, they are penalized accordingly. It’s pretty simple – don’t pay your mortgage, then you get foreclosed on. So higher interest rates only affects today’s borrowing. The rates are adjusted according to how the market is responding to current economic conditions – supply and demand. The only mortgages whose interest rates ever change are APRs. And again, no one forced those people to take out an APR. If you have an APR and you can’t sell your house or refinance and your rate goes up, then that’s your fault. Don’t penalize society for the your failure to plan. And you can’t borrow money back into circulation. That’s what creates excessive debt and leads to inflation. Too much debt that is leveraged against too small a pool of real savings and leads to bad debt, which eventually needs to be liquated one way or another, no matter how long the government tries to keep it afloat through artificial manipulation of interest rates or money creation. I think what your problem is, is that you have no idea about any of these concepts. It has nothing to do with arithmetic. It’s simple economics. You can’t borrow your way to prosperity. Sure, if I borrow a million dollars then I look rich…until the bills come due. How does borrowing anything make a person more prosperous? And how does a rise in interest rates lead to foreclosure? Answer that one with your IQ of 35. You can’t, because there is no answer. Raising interest rates discourages future borrowing. It has no effect on a 30-year FIXED mortgage. That’s simple english…FIXED. The rate is FIXED when you lock it in. Lock the word fixed up in the Webster, then maybe you’ll understand. Which is good…people need to quit borrowing more than they can afford.

          You might as well not respond. You’re losing your credibility…or what credibility, if any, you have left.

        • Your light years behind. Your goal is to try and take away the top of the pyramid (the fed), and leave the remainder of the pyramid intact. Will that destroy the pyramid?? NO

          Mathematically Perfected Economy (our mandate) will take away the whole pyramid from top to base.

          The interest on OUR Medium of Exchange being issued (at whatever rate higher then 0) is the whole damn problem. No point (and less time) to debate the current interest (strategy) cycle which is the sole problem of our pretended economy and we need to get rid of.

          So if it is in your sincere interest to offer solution why is it then that you are not offering any? Even worse, you are just offering more of the same to keep the current terminal system running.

          Because any purported economy subject to interest will terminate itself under insoluble debt. As interest multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation, ever more of every existing dollar is dedicated to servicing multiplying debt, and ever less of every existing dollar can be dedicated to sustaining the commerce which is obligated to service the multiplying debt. Everything around you can be understood from the obvious consequences.

          There is only one viable solution:

          As this is the very set of principles — and the only set of principles which ensure the immutable value of money across its lifespan — a perpetual 1:1:1 relationship between remaining value, remaining *obligation*, and currency in circulation —.

          Just do the math. Think outside the box you were conditioned in. It will be an eye opener.


    • Sammy, you clearly do not understand the real issues. So please stop sloganizing the issues with purported solution on the cheap for the sheep.

  • 9claudius

    Will Oprah ever have Ron Paul as a guest or help liberate the American people by doing a show on the illegal Federal Reserve ?

  • Great discussions going on right now!

    Because most debates seem to come down to one an one important question only; What is Money, What should Money be?

    Please find below our explanation/definition of what money should be.


    Most people can’t give you a good definition of money — a definition which holds; and a definition which serves them.

    Yet if we ask the questions which develop a fully accountable answer, we readily arrive at a fact that the only definition of money which can inflict no offense whatever, is a currency which comprises immutable tokens of value.

    In fact likewise, most people do intuit that money IS a relatively immutable token of value — not understanding how the exceptions are engendered, or how the exceptions offend them. In other words, they recognize that immutability is a vital object; they likewise recognize that immutability of a promissory note is even vital to its facts of contractual obligation; but they do not recognize that one and one only monetary prescription makes good on this indispensable object of immutable tokenization of value.

    Both to tokenize value and to immutably tokenize value nonetheless are only TO REPRESENT not only however many different products, but necessarily, to likewise represent the volumes of such products, or we fail to keep the ostensible 1:1 relationship between circulatory volume and remaining value of all products, which is necessary to immutable value.

    The only way to immutably tokenize value therefore is if the units of value of the circulation are immutably linked to the remaining value of ALL represented property (not just to one or several of MANY products); and thus likewise, the remaining volume of units of circulation must at all times equal the volume of remaining value of the ALL the products which the circulation is intended to represent, or we fail to keep these principles. In fact then, the only way to maintain these equal volumes is to pay the value of the represented property out of circulation as the value of the property is perceived to be consumed, or to depreciate. The only way you can do this of course, is if we pay monetary obligations comprised only of principal, at the rate of depreciation or consumption of all represented properties.

    Volume of circulation must likewise equal remaining volume of all represented property. Franklin observed in his “Modest Inquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency,” that the colonists prospered substantially more when they supplemented their circulation of precious metal with paper currency (certain implementations of which were debatably subject to interest). He postulated that some prospective extent of such supplementation might be excessive; and that it might have negative consequences. But nonetheless he noted (evidently then because they never reached such a limit) that the additional circulation of paper currency sustained substantially greater prosperity.


    They must therefore have suffered previously from an effectively deflated circulation. But simple questions thus resolve Franklin’s curiosity:

    If the circulation is to represent (tokenize) value, then if the circulation were ever to exceed the volume of the remaining value of all property, then someone would have received circulation for nothing. Such an excessive, “inflated” circulation however would be impossible, if in fact all promissory notes (of principal only) are legitimately collateralized.

    Likewise however, if the effective volume of circulation is ever less than the volume of represented property, then it is impossible to trade all property all at once; and someone will not have received and persisted in just reward for their production.

    So, an “effective,” just circulation must at all times equal the remaining value of ALL production (“products”).

    A further malady exists in the present disposition of currencies subject to interest. That is, ever more of a circulation is perpetually dedicated to sustaining ever greater sums of artificial debt, leaving ever less of the same circulation to represent/tokenize the value of property. Thus interest makes abiding by our necessary principles of immutable tokenization impossible.

    1. The only circulation which sustains all these necessary objects therefore is a volume of circulation which is at all times equal to the remaining value of all property.

    2. The only way to maintain such a circulation is to pay principal out of circulation at the rate of consumption or depreciation of related property.

    3. Thus as a circulation comprised of promissory notes only represents FINANCED property (subject to promissory obligations), the only way to sustain a circulation which necessarily represents the remaining value of all property is to further accommodate immediate conversion of equity into currency.

    These in fact then are the principles of mathematically perfected economy™; and this is a vital path of the logic of overall solution.

    But our question asks if money is a product? Essentially, this is to ask if it MUST be a product in order to serve these vital purposes of a just currency, which of course must eradicate all potential for systemic offense.

    We can see however, even on an abstract level, that the concept of tokenization can only go awry if the need for tokenization must account for all products, and the concept of tokenization requires A product or a few productS to do so. Yet even according to the concept of tokenization itself, the token is distinct from the product itself — unless to be an immutable token of value, “money” must actually exist in the physical form or instances of some such “product.” In other words, if just/”honest” money IS a product; how then and why would argue this restrictive concept of A product or products? How can either case serve the objects of volume equaling the volume of ALL products, if money “must” be A product or products; and if the volume of THE product or products must yet equate to the volume of ALL products?

    In fact, given the aforesaid observations, we readily recognize that nothing but ALL products CAN so represent all products; and the only reason folks like the Austrian “economists” are trying to insist on A product (or products) for their obfuscated claim to tokenization, is they refuse to acknowledge the very principles they pretend their ONE or few products somehow uphold — and yet are proven not to uphold.

    As Franklin likewise observes, never did their precious metal monetary standards result in actual consistent values of money; and the reasons are evident in these principles: There is no perpetual 1:1:1 relationship between remaining circulation: remaining value of represented property: and obligation, because the Austrians refuse to recognize that the only mathematic course to this perpetual relationship is to pay off promissory notes comprising obligations of principal only, at the rate of consumption or depreciation of the related property — with the payments thus retiring the circulation as the value of the property itself is consumed. In fact, only promissory notes of principal, paid at this obligatory schedule of payment CAN accomplish these purposes; and do so even without regulation.

    Thus we readily understand the problems of gold, which itself in fact perpetually violates our necessarily perpetual 1:1:1 relationship; and which further violates these principles when it coexists with interest, which perpetually disposes ever more of the circulation to servicing a perpetually multiplying sum of artificial debt — leaving ever less of the same circulation to sustain commerce.

    Thus the answer to the original question is that money CANNOT BE A product, if it is to be an immutable token of value, because A product, in which the resultant circulation would ostensibly be redeemable, ITSELF cannot represent All products! Thus it cannot provide a perpetual 1:1 relationship between volume of circulation and redeemability which purportedly eliminates subversion of value.

    Effectively, the Austrians (and others) claim virtues of gold which do not exist, while the principles they exalt instead would endorse only mathematically perfected economy™, because the only currency which CAN accomplish this purpose of making the circulation effectively not A product, but in fact at all times ACTUALLY REDEEMABLE in ALL products, is mathematically perfected economy™ — which alone therefore, immutably tokenizes all products represented by the circulation, and in such a way that the circulation is always redeemable in the very scope and volume of products it was from the beginning, intended to represent.

  • Movie/TV actors Al Franken, Ronald Reagan and now Ron Paul are in politics?

    Ron Paul for President and Borat for Vice !

  • actonbath

    Movie/TV actors Al Franken, Ronald Reagan and now Ron Paul are in politics?

    Ron Paul for President and Borat for Vice !

  • Douglas

    The Federal Reserve is currently coming up with a plan to help boost the US economy. The main effort they are proposing is to buy US securities. I am trying to understand why some say this will devalue the Dollar, so, please someone tell me your thoughts.

    The only reason I can think of is that the value of the purchase is based upon the profit from Federal Reserve investments in Foreign National Investments. If the Dollar drops because of this then to me it means they are using the profits they made off foreign loans. Why else would competing National currencies rise above the Dollar?

    This is why Ron Paul seeks to Audit the Federal Reserve System. To find out how much US currency was issued in the form of loans to Foreign Nations through various ‘Private Banks’. The only reason US Private Banks would follow the lead of the Federal Reserve in foreign national investments is to reap greater profits off the over consumption of the US. In other words, they wanted to bypass US Government Policies that require, Humane Rights, Environmental Responsibility, Labor Rights, Benefits, Natural Resources Conservation and good old fashion proper Citizen Representation.

    So why would the Federal Reserve allow the issuance of US currencies into foreign Nation over the pas ONE HUNDRED YEARS? Ask, David Rockefeller and His CFR posse, they have a secret agenda. What is the result of these so called ‘Elite’? A total Global economic self-destructing nightmare!

    The other instigation concerning the Federal Reserves plan to buy US securities is that it will cause the price of oil to rise. This again is something that I am struggling to understand. We the US tax payers and the BLOOD of US Military are fighting to defend our US oil contracts in the Middle East. So, why would the buying of US securities by the Federal Reserve cause the price of oil to rise?

  • Fem

    One more issue:

    The origin, development and amplification of corruption.

    That should be a subject of REAL research in many fields, including the modern technology, I’m guessing!

    At least the field of genetics/biology is watched, or more known, and because of that is possible to catch the abusers if a normal society exists. Research and science should be mainly public, but it requires civilized people to handle it.

    So, where do people and patriots stand on that?

    Thanks for reading.

    • Douglas

      I see what you are getting at. The most straight forward answer I can give is that the owners of true corruption have the means to bribe or buyout anyone who is in more need for money than standing by US Constitutional Law.

      When dealing with monetary policy we get into the proper representation of all citizens involved in doing business with that system. So, if the system is privately control then the citizens are subjected to uncertain prospects and betrayal.

      The amount of profit the’ Private Central Bankers’ enjoy affords them the option to buy and develop any advanced scientific research on the market. Thus, they currently enjoy extremely advanced technologies the average common investor could only dream of. They have and utilize advanced technologies that no Government has any knowledge of!

  • Female

    I think the only way to change the situation is doing something real about it.

    If one of the main problems is the economy, then let’s fix it, or if the problem is the economic system then let’s change it. Or if it is the political system then it has to be fixed to what works or has worked before the corruption took over while every one was busy.

    If the above issues do not get solved fast it means the world is already set and going for the same type of economy AND the million people that it can accomodate, because it probably only works for that number. Somebody ought to calculate if that is the reasonable functional limit.

    Also the health, education, and media systems will only function for continuous wars. And the focus is just that.

    Nothing else will count.

  • bclarke3

    I created a twitter account and blog to bring attention to the philosophy of liberty. Follow me on twitter, Im bclarke3. My blog is