Wednesday, 14 November 2007

Ron Paul on inflating the dollar

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul makes an awful lot of sense when he talks about what he knows: how central banks destroy the value of a currency. ABC News summarises his questioning of Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, the head of the US central bank, in the latest Senate hearings [hat tip Vigesimal Pundit]:
When people crow to the Fed to lower interest rates and make larger sums of money more accessible, argued Paul, they're not really asking for the interest rates to be lowered; they're asking for the government to print more money.

"But they never ask you, and I don't hear you say too often, 'The only way I can lower interest rates is I have to create more money. I have to lower the discount rate, I have to make it generous, I have to increase reserves, I have to lower the interest rates and fix the interest rates.'"

Later, Paul called it "a fallacy" that made the dollar "weaker" and "invites inflation."

"It is that not only have we had a subprime market in housing; the whole economic system is sub prime," Paul railed. "We artificially lower interest rates. And it wasn't under your tenure in office; it's been going on for 10 years and longer and now we're bearing the fruits of that policy." Paul argued the government shouldn't be concerning itself with deceptive lending practices but with its deceptive monetary policy.
All too true, and much the same here in New Zealand where the Reserve Bank has inflated the currency year on year by around fifteen percent -- and this is in a bid to reduce inflation!

Paul is the only American politician who understands the economists' injunction that "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. Such a shame he's also a supporter of conspiracy nuts, and a total flake on foreign affairs.


  1. I kinda wonder how withdrawing the U.S. military to protect U.S. interests in U.S. borders is flaky; or withdrawing from the U.N., which also does not have U.S. interests at heart. The man's running for president of the U.S., not president of the world. Unlike all the other candidates.

  2. Ron Paul doesn't support conspiracy theorists. He really only supports the Constitution and his message, and anyone who follows him is welcome to follow. There are some conspiracy theorists who support him, I think mainly because he is anti-establishment. But as a 10-term Congressman, he is not one to entertain such theories--has has said clearly that he does not believe 9/11 was a conspiracy.

    As far as his foreign policy, it is one of non-intervention. He is the only candidate that offers a different foreign policy from the current one, which has landed the U.S. in two wars and an unending "War on Terror." In addition, the current policy has caused the U.S. to currently maintain troops in over 130 countries.

    Ron Paul wants to bring our forces home and stop interfering in other countries internal affairs. He argues that the U.S. should treat other countries as we want to be treated, i.e. that we should not depose foreign rulers at will.

    Ron Paul is the only U.S. candidate who has ruled out a pre-emptive nuclear first-strike against Iran! Who's crazy?

    I am a career U.S. Naval officer who has always been politically neutral, but voting for Ron Paul is about voting for America and our Constitution--which I took an oath to preserve. Only Ron Paul respects that oath.

  3. Ron Paul is not a supporter of any conspiracy nuts! You are wrong and should not be spreading such gossip. As a 10th term congressman he knows of agendas not privy to you or me so I believe him when talks about the North American Union and the fact that Obama, Hillary and Giuliani are signed on as part of it. Maybe you should stop spreading rumors and investigate what the "conspirators" are so passionate about. You might learn a thing or two.

  4. Anon said...
    I am a career U.S. Naval officer who has always been politically neutral, but voting for Ron Paul is about voting for America and our Constitution--which I took an oath to preserve.

    There will be bullies everywhere if the US doesn't maintain world order and that is a fact that which is undeniable. Who benefits? Us, small countries who cannot defend ourselves and of course the US itself. Our forefathers fought alongside the US marines in WW2 here in the Pacific against the Japs. The small defenseless Pacific Islanders (Tonga, Fiji, Samoa) accepted the request from the US government at the time (Roosevelt) to setup military bases in those islands so that the supply line to the theater of war (Solomons) is much faster. Thank, God that if Ron Paul was president at that time, then we (us Pacific Islanders) would have been occupied by the Japs. Everyone knows including cockroaches when a totalitarian power occupies a country, they usually massacre the local population with no accountability at all, ie, no one to stand trial over those atrocities, because that is how totalitarianism is all about (no rule of law). In comparison US soldiers (or any Western military personnels) do have to show accountability and obey the law or else they face court marshal. The US has vital interests in the world and it has to protect that interests including regional stability.

  5. Hey, sailor! If you are sworn to protecting the US Constitution why oh why are you not doing it? The greatest destroyers of the US Constitution are in Washington. Yoyu'd better get busy.


  6. The (anonymous) comments here from Paul supporters rather support the point made in the ABC News summary, that for Paul the most important reason to stand for president is to advance the argument for rational monetary reform, whereas he gets more support from assorted "conspirators" du jour, and more press and more support for being the only Republican candidate openly planning to cut and run from Iraq.

  7. Ron Paul is great. I don't agree with everything he stands for on foreign policy, but the principle of non-intervention is closely linked to libertarian principles. Don't be so quick to those views!

  8. oops
    don't be so quick to dismiss those views

    on this topic, check out

  9. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.

  10. Falafulu Fisi. Bullie everywhere if the US doesn't intervene? There already are and the US is not intervening!

    Bush's rhetoric of "Iraq is ruled by a tyrant therefore we must oust him and install democracy" has grandly been contradicted by their treatment of every country in their pocket or without a resource they lust after. Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, North Korea, Libya, Cuba and many others. This is accompanied by the fact that US foreign policy has directly created, supported or currently supports tyrants and terrorist.

    Essentially US foreign policy has done a great deal to radicalise Islam and generally make the US and the world less secure. We'd be much better off if America only went to war when their constitution determines, in defence of themselves or their allies.

  11. definitely ron paul is the only presidential candidate i see who could resalvage the constitution and put the USA back on the straight and narrow. aside from the toned down message of his campaign.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.