Btw, Have you heard about Campaign for Liberty?
The government can only spend as much as it spends because of the FED. Without the FED, the government would have to levy large taxes which would be wildly unpopular. I oppose the Ron Paul’s bill, but only because the belief that the government will really investigate itself, in fact, its own financing branch, is quite absurd.
My point is that the elephant in the room is the government, not the Fed.
I did concede that point in the first post. But I think that had more to do with his campaign.
You invoke Rand Paul and the “Founding Fathers” instead of Mises and Rothbard?
Yes, I am a member.
Ron Paul tackles everything there using that organization. So I do not understand your rant.
You seem to have inferred that that was a major objective of the bill. I quote:
His bill will not even get rid of the Fed. And it is a fucking pipe dream to think that once the Fed is audited that it will make a difference.
My argument was that neither of these were his real intentions when he introduced the bill.
Maybe, maybe not. It seems as if people have forgotten all about Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and all other GSEs. Even two years ago, the majority of people did not see a connection between the bad housing loans made and the existence of these GSEs. These connections were made by those who immediately disagreed with any pro-government reason behind the business cycle, but not by everyone else.
Although Ron Paul and the libertarian movement could possibly profit from attacking these GSEs, apparently they don’t profit as much as they do by attacking the Federal Reserve. It is all a question of opportunity cost. It is also important to remember that politics tends to be very intricate. Ron Paul may be ignoring some issues in order to gain support from others. The “Audit the Fed” bill, for example, has received support from those who do not explicitely agree with Ron Paul’s economic ideologies. There may be a web of reasons why Ron Paul does not introduce legislation against other elements behind economic poverty and business fluctuations.
That said, I disagree with the premise of your post, which was that Ron Paul’s efforts have caused priorities to shift, or what “people don’t know what to do with it [liberty] now”. This is not the issue, at all.
This is my interpretation of his decision-making.
It might, and Ron Paul does actively argue this. I remember watching a video of him arguing against Cash for Clunkers, and something to this effect came up. His Audit the Fed bill is not the only thing he has done, or is currently doing. He may not be introducing a bill against government spending, but there are barriers to do so, and there are also trade offs. I think you should give Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt.
To a large degree I agree with you. I have consistently argued that even if the Federal Reserve is abolished, it does not guarantee a free-market in money. The power to print money will still be held by the U. S. Government, and so ending the Federal Reserve does not really solve the issue. But, like I said in the post you responded to, ending the Federal Reserve was probably not Ron Paul’s main goal (that is, the short-term objective of his actions).
You are accusing him of at least not addressing these issues:
I am so sick of this crap! The Fed is a problem, but it is not the main problem for the economy. The problem is government spending!!! Why isn’t he pushing for legislation to have the government sell off Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, Amtrak, and the banks?!!
Then, what was your point?
Whilst this may be true, aboloshing the government is even less realistic than aboloshing the Federal Reserve. What Ron Paul is doing is bringing up more agreeable arguments against the government to people’s attention, so that over the long-run there is a general trend in the rise of liberalism. Besides, as ensuric said, the Federal Reserve does play a very large role in financing government spending (and Ron Paul makes this connection in End the Fed).
I know this, of course. But the layman does not. And I don’t think assertions are very effective.
Agreed.
I should have said the elephant in the room is government spending.
I can see quite of a few cracks in that statement.
Good old emergence. Decentralizing organization into the future.
Now then, tell me why is Ron Paul so unique? What is the difference between him and his son? There is a reason why he’s referred to as one in a billion.
Yeah, I’m a double agent. Didn’t you read the memo?
Never mind.
Again, I meant to say government spending.
I am not sure where these questions came from. Regardless, my opinion would be that he is the most principled politician at the Federal level, ever.
Doh! I must have missed it. [:)]
My point stands, even if you replace “government” with “goverment spending”. The very fact that the Federal Reserve is an intricate topic makes it an easier topic to attack. If people don’t know much about the topic you are talking about, they can be easily persuaded, because they will assume that all the facts that you present are correct. While this is true of government spending, as well, for the most part people’s minds have already been made up. Without the bailout, the economy would have been utterly destroyed and we would have become a third world country. This is a much more difficult concept for Ron Paul to attack, so he is focusing on areas where people’s minds have not yet been made up, like the Federal Reserve (because, prior to Ron Paul, who really cared about the Federal Reserve in the mainstream? When the recession hit the focus was on fiscal policy, not on monetary policy).
So, if he can get people to agree with him on the Federal Reserve, these people will in turn be more receptive to his more controversial opinions on government spending.
Very well then, it’s not central banking that is the elephant in the room, thanks to Ron Paul and friends, but expenditure of government fiat that is backed by nothing except expropriation.
Getting warmer…
I’ll give you a hint and a riddle:
-
Rally for the Republic
-
I move mountains day and night, but I never falter. What am I?
This thread is proof, for me at least, of the old adage: you can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can’t please all the people all the time.
Yes, but everywhere else it just seems to be audit the Fed.
Ah yes, the Sell Off Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, Amtrak, et al Act. That would pass JUST as many hurdles as the Fed Transparency Act has.
"Well, " you might say, “one of them at a time.”
Okay, so say Ron Paul works toward selling off just Fannie Mae, itself a herculean task. Then, one might just as well say, “I am so sick of this crap! Fannie Mae is a problem, but it is not the main problem for the economy. The problem is government spending!!! Why isn’t he pushing for legislation to have the government disestablish the Fed (whose policies enable the government to increase spending) and sell off Freddi Mac, GM, Amtrack…?!!”
In any case, in terms of problems divided into single, targetable agencies (and not broad, non-targetable classes of problems – like “government spending” or “economic regulation”), the Fed IS the biggest problem for the economy, as I argue in the article in my sig.
Definitely food for thought. If that is his actual thinking, I can see how it could have validity.
Well then you are wrong. Because the agency that is the biggest problem for the economy is the Federal government. [;)] But I would probably give you that it is the second biggest problem, and that for Ron Paul to attack the government would be much more difficult than attacking the Fed. However, I would say that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are the next two largest agencies harming the economy. The question is, would it be an easier sell than the Fed? Jonathan made some good points, I believe, as to why the Fed may be an easier sell.
Unless you want him to make deals with the Devil left and right he’s going to be ineffective in the short-term. Unfortunately a liberty loving transitional dictatorship would be the only way of effecting any meaningful change in the foreseeable future. There are too many special interests and average citizens who benefit, or believe that they and/or the less fortunate, from government programs and by logical extension to the Fed. And most people on the Hill who support his bill do so because they want Congress to have more regulatory control over the Fed, not because they want to abolish it. I applaud his efforts and respect the man, but I don’t see victory through a political approach any time soon.