On Monday, Congressman Paul appeared on CNBC to respond to critics of Audit the Fed and to discuss the true causes of the economic crisis, the failure of the Fed to keep the dollar stable, and the need to know who is receiving our money.
I love the guy to death,,, Dr. Paul has changed my life,,,BUT,, for the life of me,, will someone please reign him in on how he answers questions... IMO he needs to remember that he is educating the viewers,, at the same time he can be very distinct in answering the question. This would have been an even better interview if he just bullet pointed right back to the question the failed history of the Fed, a snippit of FreeMarket Monetary systems and tied into The Pretense of Knowledge. Pointing to the history defends any challenge,, and the politizing issue.. again point out the specifics of that critizism being hogwash. Always great to have Dr. Paul getting facetime with the media,, but I'd like him to tighten it up in the era of sound bites.
I couldn't stand the guy who defended hiding the insolvency of banks; doesn't he know what insolvency is?! Depositors have the right to know whether their assets will be available on demand, because they own deposits! Not loans! Hiding insolvency is a form of fraud.
Amazing that with such a small amendment calling for transparency over the government in Barney Frank's bill would attract so much hell from corporate media. The Fed must really be desperate to hide something...
AAaAhhhgG!! He wasn't on the top of his game here... :-(
I feel like in some interviews he does a FANTASTIC job of hitting the main points hard, and then in other's he's all over the place and seems kind of nervous almost...
I agree Sproge. I always watch Dr. Paul's interviews from the perspective of someone who isn't well informed, or may have already had their opinion molded by some other MSM outlet. It is difficult to watch when he gets a little tripped up, as I feel he did in this one. He did do a good job of rebutting the insolvency claim though.
I would suggest that Dr. Paul really make an effort to clearly state that the Fed has failed at it's primary "purposes". Namely, protecting the value of the dollar, and the stability of the domestic economy.
Due to the back and forth questions he gets during these interviews, and the complexity of monetary and banking policy, I think the important points are not coming through clearly.
But it is VERY clear that the Fed has failed, and those points need to be stated very clearly and repeatedly.
At this point it might be better if Dr. Paul sat back a joined their conversations. Lots of softball question allowing for quick clear answers. I noticed Peter Schiff also trying to cram as much information in his time as possible. That heavy lifting of education and detailed information is our job and our other friends around town. If Ron and Peter and others set the hooks we need to reel em in. Our "Catch and Release Program"
Did anyone count the number of times Dr. Paul was interrupted by this bunch? I agree he must be careful to pursue the points that need to be made. He needs to be aware that these people are not his friends and a concerted effort is being made to derail the audit of the fed. There is too much money at stake for too many people to allow a true audit of the fed and I do not believe it will ever happen (under the current government). I would like to see Alan Grayson talk to these folks on live TV. He is definitely not as nice a guy as Ron Paul, and I believe these clowns would be afraid to interview him.
Posted 11/23/09 6:11 PM BruceKoerber Cedar Rapids, IA
http://moneyandethics.blogspot.com/
Monday, November 23, 2009
Ron Paul Discusses The Harm Caused By Central Banks.
It is immoral and corrupt to collectivize the failing banks and hide the information from the people. This is what we have accepted as normal when we accept a central bank.
Like Ron Paul said, if the banks were private there would be a rating system in place that would instantly provide information to the people about the financial status of each bank. Those that were doing the right things would attract people and their money and those that were acting in fraudulent ways would go out of business.
The media is trying to discredit Ron Paul by asking him questions from reporters of all types. Are they really that dumb or are they coached to act that way?
Regardless, Ron Paul will answer their questions and in the end they will be amazed by his answers and they will inadvertently further expose the corruption of the ego-driven interventionists.
Posted 11/23/09 7:07 PM RomanRepublic Hicksville, NY
It's too late in the game to get thrown off by the old "do we want to jeapordize the independence of our monetary policy" argument. Note the performance of the FED since its inception. Independence DOESN'T work. Large corporations have the biggest opportunity to abuse the system and they currently have the most representation at the FED. If the people (Congress) had control over it, it would be much better. Ordinary people do not try to increase profits by influencing monetary policy, most are only concerned with having a stable currency. Therefore, the people, rather than corporations, should determine monetary policy. The people would vote for a stable currency (by electing Congressmen), and all corporations would have to play within those bounds. Independent from Congress means in "in the hands of corporations, independent of the people". The people would vote stable currency (by electing Congressmen), and all corporations would have to play within those bounds. It's a whole lot better than massive corporations manipulating the system, pushing the limits, and gambling with our entire economy at stake.
Regarding the criticism of Dr. Paul's performance, what the above critics all need to keep in mind is that he is being intentionally set up by paid shills who have each trained for hours on one or two straw man arguments, as well as their extensive training in hypnotic gestures and mannerisms. As usual, despite having the deck stacked against him, Dr. Paul destroys their agenda just by being polite, and clearly smarter than the strident imbecilic talking heads...
Posted 11/23/09 10:40 PM VictimOfFeds San Clemente, CA
They cut him off right when he points out that the President appoints the Fed Chairman. Then he points tries to argue that a congressman up for reelection could convince the Fed to keep rates lower. How is that at all related to an audit? Santelli is the only guy at CNBC that gets it. The rest are drones.
I agree here, it was great that 13 minutes was devoted to debating the Federal Reserve but I wish Dr. Paul was more straightforward, direct, and even on the offense with his responses.
I see what he's doing though, he's responding to these questions the same one one would do to a registered voter when knocking on their door. You make it seem like they are right but in actuality you're educating them how your position is actually right but you're wrong.
Peter Schiff responds to these types of questions, I feel, in the way that needs to be done to get the point across to the viewers and the pundits. Roll the sleeves up more often!
This was a high pressure tag team interview where each interviwer has an agenda to attack the bill in different ways. As the next interviewer jumps in they are required to cut off Dr Pauls answers before he completes his answers. Considering this I thought he handled it as best as anybody could have done.
Posted 11/24/09 12:16 AM mysticgeek Pelican Rapids, MN
Those newscasters are idiots imho. They can't even think about their keynesian economic views.
OMG!! The people so supportive of secrecy in the Fed have lame talking points. Everyone knows money is passed out just before elections to bribe the public into voting for the incumbent. Money is passed out at the polls to lubricate the candidate to win. Money is available for corporate patronage. Money is the lubricant for the political big wheels to turn favorably either these people are pious frauds or horribly stupid to think the fed independent from the entire politicofinance process.
I think that Dr. Paul handled these idiots in the only way possible. It is very hard to get a point across when you are being interrupted every time you are about to conclude your point. These shills were adept at interuptions, not reporting.
Any media exposure where Dr. Paul gets to speak is more than welcome. It's not possible to nail every single debate/interview when you're dealing with hostile opponents. I think that Dr. Paul always does a GOOD job however and manages to get some key points across.
My only disappointment about this interview was his answer to the question about how Congress fits into the picture. It is the Federal Reserve and other central banks throughout history which ENABLE the government to fight wars and engage in massive spending programs. When you have a near limitless supply of "free money" and don't need to deal with the political consequences of taxation, it's an easy way to embark on these crazy militaristic and socialist crusades.
He did manage to make the point about the Fed being the major purchaser of recent issues of Treasury securities, but I'm quite sure that most people don't see the full implications of that. I like to share news articles that describe this and then ask people what it means to have the Federal Reserve printing money and then loaning it to the government (at interest) to fund spending.
RomanRepublic,
"It's too late in the game to get thrown off by the old "do we want to jeapordize the independence of our monetary policy" argument. Note the performance of the FED since its inception. Independence DOESN'T work. Large corporations have the biggest opportunity to abuse the system and they currently have the most representation at the FED. If the people (Congress) had control over it, it would be much better. Ordinary people do not try to increase profits by influencing monetary policy, most are only concerned with having a stable currency. Therefore, the people, rather than corporations, should determine monetary policy.
The Fed is not independent, it is politicized; you're right. However, Congress should NOT be given the authority to determine monetary policy. That is not the purpose of HR1207, and that should not be our goal in the least. The market should determine what money is and what it's worth. Re-establishing that principle should be our goal.
Your argument is that the Fed is too political and too much influenced by special interests, so it can't be trusted with monetary policy. Then, you propose that substituting an even more political entity (Congress) for the Fed is a good course of action. I think the flaw in your logic is self-evident.
Giving Congress power over monetary policy would be a disaster. Believe it or not, right now The Fed has the power to curb government spending. It can do this by refusing to buy government debt. If that barrier was removed, Congress would destroy the dollar at a much faster pace than it is currently.
"The people would vote for a stable currency (by electing Congressmen), and all corporations would have to play within those bounds."
Is a stable currency really something you can vote for? Don't over-estimate democracy. If you can vote to have a stable currency, then you can also vote not to have one, and that is tyrannous. It's tyrannous because you're forcing those who would have a stable currency to use an unreliable means to store value. What's the difference between that and what we have right now?
Posted 11/24/09 10:56 PM RomanRepublic Hicksville, NY
JohnF,
I'd like things to be as Laissez Faire as the next guy. However, I believe you have mistaken my point. As far as the role of Congress in monetary policy, I was referring to who the power of determing monetary policy ultimately lies with. It should be taken away from the FED, in the trust of Congress, which has the constitutional authority for it. I did not make any mention of Congress determining interest rates. I also believe interest rates should be determined by the market, but more importantly I believe that there should be a currency standard. It does not have to be a purely gold standard, but rather a basket of commodoties. What I certainly do NOT want is the FED as it currently exists. You stated,
"Then, you propose that substituting an even more political entity (Congress) for the Fed is a good course of action. I think the flaw in your logic is self-evident.
Giving Congress power over monetary policy would be a disaster. Believe it or not, right now The Fed has the power to curb government spending."
First, I will state the obvious. The FED's track record is horrible. What we've seen since its inception in 1913 is relentless accomodation of rich Wall Street interests through its money spicket. As of right now, Congress cannot even find out who they are passing this money around to. Loose monetary policy benefits the connected who get the money before inflation sets in, but everyone else gets an inflated currency. The dollar has been devalued 96% since its inception. As I have ALREADY stated, the boards of the various FED branches as well as the Fed Board of Governors, are majority filled by representatives of the wealthiest corporations. Do you believe Jamie Dimon (JPM) and Jeff Immelt (GE) and the chairman of Pepsi care about hard working people? At least Congress is accountable to the people.
You misunderstood what I meant by "the people will vote for stable currency".
"Is a stable currency really something you can vote for? Don't over-estimate democracy. If you can vote to have a stable currency, then you can also vote not to have one, and that is tyrannous. It's tyrannous because you're forcing those who would have a stable currency to use an unreliable means to store value. What's the difference between that and what we have right now?"
First of all, this is a Republic. What I meant was that people would elect representatives that promoted a stable currency, as that is in their interest. I did not mean that people should vote in California-style propositions for a stable currency, it is proposterous for someone to even interpret it that way. Second, having a stable currency is just plain common sense. I don't know how you're relating this to tyranny, other than that you are just looking for arguments.
Posted 11/24/09 11:05 PM RomanRepublic Hicksville, NY
Just one last point to my last post is that for the FED to be removed, this country would have to make some drastic changes. Of course we cannot run our empire at anywhere near its current level without our super elastic currency. That is why this country deviated from the gold standard in the first place. However, it cannot last forever. The dollar is headed for collapse at the pace we are going. We should not repeat history's mistakes by ignoring the importance of stable money and balanced budgets.
I think these were soft-ball questions, as raised by the naysayers. Those are the question good journalists ask. They are asking the questions for their viewers, and Dr. Paul got a chance to answer and then some.
True not all these events have been friendly.
What is your simple yet compelling answer to each question? Its good practice when you go out for discussion.
Dr.Paul was as good he could be in the time alloted. Heonce again informed us of the lousy job the fed has done for nearly a century and the need for transparency to insure indpendance.
At least until we get rid of the fed altogether. We have to use the same incrementalism they use on us.
Paul was off his game a bit here, but he did as good as he could when he had like 80 people coming at him from 50 different directions. And really, you can't blame the reporters for asking him the tough questions. That's their JOBS; to ask the tough questions and hold the politicians to their word (if only they would do it more than once a year). Speaking for myself, I became a major Ron Paul supporter not after listening to a "pandering" interview or a speech he gave, but after listening to a hard and pointed back-and-forth interview where he was asked tough questions and gave tough answers. Wouldn't we want Lindsey Graham to be asked tough questions if he were to ever go on Judge Andrew Napolitano's show? We can't hold double standards, folks.
Posted 11/27/09 8:35 PM msbmulvi03 Charlottesville, VA
Ron Paul gave a good up standing interview. He gave honest true answers. Even when the questions were tought he still came through. America needs this man. Ron Paul for President!
Judd Greg talks the talk for the Fed . Only because he is leaving office. Pure Scum. Not many people I know here in N.H. think there is anything wrong with an audit of the Fed. He read this bill 1207 ? I doubt it. Just running his yap for the Fed . Member of the Good ole boys club.
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
