« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Ron Paul: Time To Take Away Those Committee Assignments

From the diaries…

Last week, the House Committee On Financial Services announced that Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Ron Paul (R-Crazytown, TX) would hold a hearing “to examine the impact of Federal Reserve policies on job creation and the unemployment rate”. The hearing is scheduled for tomorrow, February 9, and in their press release, the committee says that witnesses “will be announced at a later date”.

Well, the witnesses have been announced. Here is the agenda, and it is clear, for anyone who had doubts, that Ron Paul is going to use his subcommittee for the sort of political theater that makes the GOP look bad and reinforces stereotypes about conservatives being extremists. Dr. Paul, we want those committee assignments back.

Two of the witnesses, Dr. Richard Vedder (Professor of Economics at Ohio University) and Dr. Josh Bivens (of the Economic Policy Institute) appear to be serious scholars, and I don’t mean to impugn them at all (I don’t know much about either). Dr. Vedder, in particular, is impressive, an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, one of my favorite think-tanks.

The first witness on the agenda, however, is Dr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo, who is an affiliated scholar at the League of the South, a Southern nationalist organization that advocates a second Southern secession. He is an associated scholar with the Abbeville Institute, a relatively unknown but surprisingly large pro-secession organization, named after the hometown of John C. Calhoun, the seventh President of the United States, who openly advocated for slavery as a positive good. He is also associated with the Von Mises Institute, a think-tank that paleo-libertarian Lew Rockwell uses to spread his, ahem, ideas.

Dr. DiLorenzo publishes frequently on lewrockwell.com and doesn’t have much use for the fourteenth amendment. His books include The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe, and Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution – and What It Means for Americans Today.

One of the things that’s always embarrassed me a bit about the South is the existence of people who go beyond defending General Lee and Stonewall Jackson (men of honor and American heroes both) to defending the institution of slavery, which led the South to become, if only for a handful of years, the Confederacy. There aren’t very many folks like that anymore, and I’m thankful for that. There are plenty of legitimate arguments for and against the Confederacy, and Lincoln was far from perfect, but Dr. DiLorenzo’s one-note tune about him being a tyrant smacks a little too much of the sort of things I heard once in a while growing up here in North Carolina.

Over the years, Dr. Paul has been criticized for a number of things, most notably being a conspiracy theorist, being overly close to extremists and accused racists (particularly Lew Rockwell), and using his position as a congressman as a megaphone for weird ideas far outside of the mainstream. It’s a pretty common complaint about certain strains of libertarianism, and reading about anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard, his disciple Lew Rockwell, and their acolyte Ron Paul started the process, for me, of questioning libertarianism, but that’s another story for another day (and I’ll post a piece about it when I’m done writing it).

This subcommittee hearing is a great example of Paul’s inappropriate oddness. With all that government needs to do, and all that it needs to stop doing, the last thing we need is a series of hearings on how the Federal Reserve is causing massive unemployment. That’s probably what Dr. Paul will “uncover”, and while there’s obviously a relationship between monetary supply, inflation, unemployment, and the like, blaming all of our problems on “The Fed” (which he asserts we need to end) is lunacy.

But that’s Ron Paul. He wants to end fractional reserve banking. He claims that gold is “real money” and paper is not (to say nothing of debit cards), without thinking of how uncomfortable mattresses are when stuffed with gold coins instead of dollar bills. He blathers on about 9/11 cover-ups” and comes pretty close to blaming 9/11 on America (Many say that he crosses that line).

Now he’s using subcommittees to give his manic conspiracy theorizing a patina of respectability, which is what many of us figured he’d do. I’ve said it before, but it can’t be repeated too many times: Ron Paul is an embarrassment, and he needs to be kicked out of the GOP. If we can’t do that, it’s time, at the very least, to take away his committee assignments. No more monetary policy for him. And absolutely no Fed oversight.

He’ll still need to do committee work, though. It’s part of the job. I propose that Speaker Boehner has him assigned to a new committee of board game research with Dennis Kucinich. Their salaries are already going to waste. At least they couldn’t do any harm there. The two would be in hog heaven; they can feel like they matter and titter about ending the fed and saving the children while they play Risk and whisper excitedly, “This is just like what the American Empire does to its colonies. It’s kind of fun to be an imperialist pig. Ooh. Look! I just conquered Tasmania!”

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • Scope

    Ron Paul is a raving loon. He didn’t kinda blame 9/11 on the US, he outright blamed the US for 9/11. He said that the islamists attacked the US because we have invaded and occupied their countries, and that is why we got the “blowback.”

    As you have said, he uses his congressional megaphone for far out of the mainstream weird ideas. Unfortunately the love of the megaphone was not lost on his son Rand. We will see if Rand proves to have any influence, as it appears that his only goal so far has been to denigrate and embarrass his fellow Republicans. As bad as some of them really are, I don’t see Rand gaining friends and winning influence in pushing his fiscal agenda. It is unfortunate but, if he isn’t down in the sandbox with his fellow Republican colleagues, working together to pass good legislation, but rather standing over that sandbox like the dad, he will find Washington a very lonely place to be, and, his good intentions will go no where, just as Ron’s haven’t. Mitch McConnell is no prize, however, he walked out on Rand Paul’s maiden floor speech. Ron has been very much the same. He runs out to every MSM TV camera he can get in front of, and more often knocks the Republicans, and makes sure everyone know just how awful and dumb America is. Boehner gets what he deserves.

    • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

      I didn’t want to overstate the case w/ RP Sr. and blowback, but stating it directly would probably have been better. As you know, I share your concerns about Junior. I just googled Rand Paul DiLorenzo, and DiLorenzo has been an apologist for Rand. Obviously, that doesn’t make it a two-way endorsement, but between Junior’s talk about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ending foreign aid (without excluding Israel), etc, I get the same bad feeling about him as I do about Senior.

      I hope and suspect that you’re right about the sandbox. Politicians really can’t get anything done if they ignore traditions and good manners.

    • zizzer

      He makes that VERY clear in his book. There is a difference between placing blame and examining motive.

      Say Bob incessantly annoys Joe every single day and one day Joe kills Bob. Obviously Joe overreacted and deserves the blame for murder. If one were to point out that Bob would have never bothered Joe, Joe would not have murdered him, that person would not be blaming Bob. He would simply be pointing out Joe’s motive.

      • Newton E. Mchuckney

        Bob has not been ‘incessantly annoying Joe every single day’

        fail

        • zizzer

          All you need to take from my analogy is that it’s possible to say that ones behavior partly led to an act of aggression on that person without putting blame on him. That is what Ron Paul has made it clear that he is saying about 9/11.

          If you disagree with him that we didn’t do anything to stir up anger, disagree with him on that reasoning. Don’t make the false accusation that he’s blaming America for people dying on 9/11. He’s made it very clear that the terrorists deserve the blame.

    • laughing

      the cia. sorry scope

  • Finrod

    .

  • jwebb

    Careful, now. I live there. RP serves my congressional district, but you can have him if you want him. Rumor has it, he may make run at the Senate seat held Kay Bailey Hutchison. Maybe he can be on the ballot as a Republican for House and Senate and for President from the tin foil party!

    • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

      I didn’t mean to impugn anyone from the great state of Texas (except for RP, of course). Crazytown is a special place in a transitory state of mind. Can you give us some insights into how he survives primaries? I’ve always been a bit curious about that.

      • Adjoran

        and earmarks. He’s always been one of the top GOP procurers of both.

        What? you say – what about Paul’s lifelong opposition to spending and votes against almost every budget bill?

        He’s a trickster as well as a loon. He carefully secures his own pork spending and earmarks for his district in committee and then, after all the horse-trading is done and an omnibus bill emerges whose passage is certain, Paul makes a huge show of voting against it. He’s been doing this for decades.

        He’ll do anything he can to pump up gold prices, too – nearly all his personal worth is in gold or gold mining stocks (which tend to go up and down with the metal). When people buy gold and the price rises, Paul gets richer. Again, a long-term pattern.

        • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

          He has a history of sticking his earmarks on bills, waiting untilt he whip count is overwhelmingly in the bill’s favor and then loudly voting against said bill that provisions his district w/ the other white meat. Prawn Paul, to my mind, is a pathetic hypocrit on spending. It’s like listening to Al Gore or Baby-Daddy John Edwards lecture on environmentally sustainable family planning.

      • jwebb

        There are basically two kinds of voters that support the Ronulan Overlord, the True Believers and the ill-informed middle class who vote on name recognition. Sure, there is some pork that helps win over a few connected voting blocs, but beyond the crazies, it is the regular conservative housewife and househusband who aren’t that connected to politics.
        And, the Pauls send out a lovely cookbook in December. It reminds the ill-informed that the Ronulan Overlord cares about them.
        Seriously, I have had many conversations with ‘regular people’ who vote consistently Republican, and they have no clue as to how the Ronulan Overlord conducts himself in Congress. It is purely name recognition.
        In the last cycle, we had three primary challengers, all of whom are good men and who combined garnered less than 20% of the vote.
        When I ask leadership why someone doesn’t challenge him more earnestly, what I hear is that lots of people in the northern part of the county want legalized reefer.
        It amazes me that his tin foil hat wearing followers do not see what tools they are for supporting this man.

        • Scope

          I would say that reefer is a main part of why he has so many followers in the country, not just his home district. Does he include reefer in his ingredients list for brownies?

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    The Good Congressman’s name is RONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAUL!!!!!!

    • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

      I need to spell r3VOLution correctly too. Hey, check this out. It’s a way to tell the Department of Social Services that your baby is growing up in a spoiled, overly comfortable home with, like, the most totally amazing, hydroponic gro-lite system for growing kind bud set up in the back closet, dude.
      http://www.cafepress.com/+ron_paul_revolution_love_infant_bodysuit,134288741

  • Leon H. Wolf

    was like giving a six year old a can of gasoline and a book of matches.

    And a bottle of Jim Beam.

    • http://oceanslicentia.blogspot.com/ daniocean

      with this article. First there are several reasons why Ron Paul is the current chairmen of the committee. First it was his time and the party can no longer avoid his appointment, second this is the committee on “Domestic monetary policy & technology” and Dr. Paul is staunch anti-NN advocate. As for his hypocritical position on earmarks he has explained why he acts this way several times. And he stated for Fox News that he intends to use the committee for educational purposes and not for real attacks on the FED. He is restrained by the chairmen of his parent committee and the speaker of the house too, so don’t worry over his actions on the committee HE IS NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING STUPID!!!

      I am amazed by the level of stupidity that some Republicans exert over Rep. Ron Paul. May I remind you that most of the elected officials that run our country are much worse then him and even good people like Reps. Paul Ryan & Eric Cantor have their dirty shirts in the closet. For the reasons stated, in my opinion, this article is just another useless, pointless, unsubstantiated attack on someone who for 40 years in Congress have never done anything wrong, and have brought a swarm of college students in the ranks of the party.

      Don’t get me wrong, however, I am no Ron Paul fan either. While I like some of the things he is saying, I disagree with him on foreign policy, the status of GITMO detainees and some aspects of monetary and economic policy. That said, I still believe that shooting empty allegations that anyone with internet connection and enough free time on his hands can refute is not only pointless, but shameful.

      I don’t know about games, but right know I am reading the whole Honor Harrington series and I’m afraid that we are walking in the footsteps of the main antagonist in the series (People’s Republic of Haven), while in the mean time have the same foreign policy problems that the “Star Kingdom of Manticore” is experiencing in the novels. And if I was to align myself with any of the Manticorian political parties I would have gone with the Centrists(basically what we consider conservatives here in US) and not with the Conservatives with whom Rep. Ron Paul can be associated.

      • jwebb

        Except for himself. He needs to retire and write more books to satisfy his income since he has a base willing to buy them. When it is all said and done, it will be interesting to see if he publicly forgoes his Congressional pension and health care. I for one am not holding my breath on that.

        • zornorph

          Tasmania isn’t a province in Risk, btw. That would be part of ‘Eastern Australia’.
          I am no big Paul booster, but I’m quite happy with him as chairman. I don’t think that everyone needs to speak with one voice in the party and while I do not agree with all of his idea, I do agree with some. I am happy that a light is being shone on the Fed.
          I would take Ron Paul over Joe Barton any day of the week.

    • runner12
  • aesthete

    that Ron Paul has somehow managed to become the pre-eminent representative for libertarian-conservatism: not only is he… whacked on some issues (Southern revisionist history, trooferism, etc), he also associates with creeps (the Thomas DiLorenzo connection is relatively benign, compared to some others) and even on the issues that I agree with him on, he comes across as so zealous that he scares away people not already pre-disposed to agree with those ideas. Jeff Flake, Justin Amash, Paul Ryan… all are libertarian leaning pols who can give pretty good defenses of libertarian-conservatism, and instead what we get is some loon. I guess it’s recompense for libertarian-conservatives having had such a wealth of good representatives in the 80s (Milt Friedman, Barry Goldwater, Reagan, Hayek, etc).

  • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

    It’s complicated, though. There’s a certain strain of self-limitation that most libertarians share.

    Ron Paul’s high profile certainly provides an easy template for caricaturing libertarians, and he also gives ammunition to people who want to connect secessionist types to the GOP. I

  • e_rowe

    They’re both great legislators. But they’re also both close allies of Ron Paul, and they vote (or in Amash’s case, probably will vote) along with him a lot more than almost any other Republicans. I also appreciate a lot of Paul Ryan’s rhetoric. But he doesn’t walk the walk. He voted for No Child Left Behind, for Medicare Part D, for the Iraq War, and for TARP. When the GOP was in control of Congress and the White House and government grew so much, Ryan was one of the enablers.

    Ron Paul does have some peccadilloes like you mentioned that Amash, Flake, Friedman, Goldwater, and Hayek don’t or didn’t. But in the total scope of policy he champions a platform that comes far closer to theirs than any of the big name GOP presidential contenders. If the GOP is the party of free markets and smaller government, why is it that they keep pushing on us year after year candidates who stand for the opposite?

  • aesthete

    Essentially, Rothbard, the anarchistic libertarians, and some Objectivists are on the utopian right: they essentially envision worlds and systems that have never, and will never, exist, existing solely by virtue of their intellectual consistency. They then attack extant society from the mistaken notion that its demise will lead to anarcho-capitalism… somehow.

    One diverging point between them and mainstream libertarians is illustrative of this point: mainstream libertarians have, essentially, made their peace with Nozick’s critique of anarchism (that its incentives naturally lead to monopolies of force similar to government), and tried to deal with the world that Nozick describes. For the utopians, it is less an intellectual point to be responded to, than a betrayal of principle and the perfect system. IMO, the game “Bioshock” does a great job of illustrating where things break down in Nozickian fashion (the follow-up game actually does a good job of critiquing “selfless” totalitarian/communitarian ideologies that spring up in these vacuums as well).

    Mainstream libertarians (and some Objectivists and even some rigid libertarians), on the other hand, tend to see the facts of human existence, including the natural emergence of monopolies of force, in the tragic light described by Sowell. Their response to deal with an ugly world by trying to make it better (but not perfect) within already-established societal constructs. Their awareness of this fact, of structures that prevent the anarcho-capitalist dream, the prevalence of libertarianism in economics, and the strong utilitarian tradition to supplement libertarianism’s deontological tradition, all combine to make libertarians pretty good at looking at structures and their raison d’etre. In many ways, I see these libertarians/classical liberals as a Burkean response to structured (but unjust) systems; Milt, Sowell, De Rugy and several other libertarians of this bent made it their life’s work to find ways to make freedom work within structured systems of coercion. These libertarians tend to revere the Revolution, the Constitution, and the ideas embodies therein because they see them as attempts to do what these libertarians themselves do: maximize freedom and minimize the excesses of Leviathan.

    Where most libertarians of all sorts disagree with conservatives is primarily on the War on Drugs (for obvious reasons), national security (moreso now than during the Cold War), and new developments in law enforcement (generally seeing the more aggressive and federalized police as harmful to liberty).

  • acat

    and your last paragraph about sums it up.

    I’ve not done a lot of reading of systematic political philosophy – I’d rather get my paws dirty packing food for the homeless or hauling donations to the local church-run resale shop, or .. to be fair – working my way through Rapture*.

    It’s very annoying to have Luap Nor as the “leading libertarian”, but it is progress – they used to go interview the Libertarian Party every now and then, and that was even more embarassing… I guess those guys finally wised up a some.

    I’ve compared the use of Luap Nor to someone using Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton as examples of good reverends… unfortunately that doesn’t seem to get much traction – too divisive? I’ve seen Benny Hill (or was it Hind?) tossed around as another example… would I be showing my age to suggest Jim and Tammy Bakker?

    By the way, if Fallout 3 isn’t on your to-play list, it should be.

    Mew

    * the events in the Bioshock videogame series take place mostly in the city named Rapture

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    that Paul would be an embarrassment on the monetary policy subcommittee. All one had to do was look at his past questioning of Bernanke before he became chair to see where he would take this. And with the press that Bernanke gets everytime he speaks anywhere, Paul’s nuttery is going to become mainstream knowledge and displayed even outside the financial media.

  • aesthete

    Did you hear about what the Libertarian Party’s Pres and VP candidates in 2008 are up to now? One is “representing” Baby Doc in Haiti through legal counsel, and downplaying his regime’s murderous streak, and the other is defending Mubarak as the “popular choice” for businessmen. I can imagine making a “lesser of two evils” case, but going to the bat for them? That goes too far, and I guess Ron Paul is a step above those losers.

    I have played through the entire Fallout series, btw, including the new one (Fallout New Vegas). I’m a post apocalyptic junkie, and that franchise feeds that addiction a little too well, sometimes…

  • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

    I still find libertarianism in a vacuum unsettling. It’s the academic thought experiment aspect of it, perhaps. Aesthete, you get it exactly right when you talk about Utopianism of the right. Perhaps it’s my rightward shift as I finally see government as a necessary good (instead of a necessary evil) and the GOP as my party. As I get older, Hamilton seems much wiser than Jefferson (though both are worlds better than FDR).

    Given the state of the national Democratic Party, libertarianism divorced from the GOP seems downright dangerous. I like the Republican Liberty Caucus quite a lot at the moment. I’m still trying to figure out where I fit in the party, as I’m becoming active for the first time in my life.

    BioShock is, for my money, the best refutation of utopian libertarianism to date. I haven’t finished it and probably won’t. Having lived through some pretty dark times (previous marriage), I don’t enjoy violent or disturbing imagery, especially in large or extended doses, and so my gaming tends to be sillier (the recently-remastered Sly Cooper trilogy, for example, or the Katamari games).

  • acat

    I can see how a hypothetical minimalist government – someone to mind the Armed Services, and pay the peace officers and firefighters and maybe EMTs – would be good .. but too far beyond that it toggles over into .. if not evil outright, then evil in potential…

    I think the best way to put it, for me, is that government is necessary, but is not to be trusted. It functions best with a minimum of staff, and no shadows.

    Mew

  • dpmartin

    who engage in ad hominen, straw men, guilt by association, and other logical fallacies.

    For whatever else Ron Paul is or is not, he is right about at least one thing. A central bank (such as the Federal Reserve) is an enormous threat to free market capitalism and limited government (as opposed to the crony-capitalism of the welfare state). And a central bank with a fiat currency is perhaps the greatest threat to free market capitalism and freedom in general (that thing that we call free market capitalism is merely a spontaneous creation of many people exercising freedom in the form of voluntary exchange).

    A central bank with a fiat currency and big government go hand in hand. Until conservatives and others who advocate for limited government realize this, they will continually be disappointed in their efforts to achieve limited government. There can be no limited government when the government has a monopoly on money (central bank) just like there can be no limited government when the government has a monopoly on force (which is why our Founders drafted the Second Amendment). Also, there can be no limited government when the government has the power to tax people without their consent (inflation through printing of a fiat currency). As long as the Federal Reserve exists, we will not have limited government. You can take that to the bank!!!

    Just for the record (and to put this particular straw man to rest), there is nothing that says that bank notes, debit cards, electronic funds transfers and the like can not be part of a gold standard (or silver standard). The important thing is that the physical commodity exists to back up the notes, etc. and can be obtained when someone wants to take physical possession.

  • saintgeorgegentile

    Calhoun was the 7th Vice President, served 2 terms, first under John Quicy Adams then Andrew Jackson.

  • congressworksforus

    This piece is drivel.

    I want RP digging in every little nook and cranny of the Federal Reserve that there is so enough people in Washington finally realize that they are single-handedly destroying the United States.

    But I don’t want him doing this in a dark corner somewhere; I want him digging out there in broad daylight with every camera watching!

    Because while he may be a little loopy from time-to-time, on this issue, he’s right. The Fed is bad news for all of us. All we need is for RP to force open the right doors and then someone else can finish the job.

  • powertothepeople
  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Nazi sympathizers friend is right about. None. Not one.

  • hiimallen

    As a libertarian conservative, (Rather than a lemming “Republican”) I applaud Ron Paul, and my respect for the fools at RedState has hit a new low…

    Ron Paul, the origin of the “Tea Party” movement; is right on so many issues that you people degrade him for it amazes me. Secession is not “pro-slavery” as anyone who has more than a government education can understand. (I suggest reading Thomas Woods “Nullification”) Succession and Nullification were TOOLS that the STATES were given to keep the central government from tyranny. Nullification, and even Succession was used more as a threat and a tool in the northern states prior to the Civil War and Lincoln’s Dictatorship.

    And then there are earmarks. It amazes me that most people take the initial propaganda as “fact”. Now answer me this: Who would you rather be in charge of spending your tax dollars, your elected representative via earmarks or some lifelong government employee and committee in some unaccountable bureau. Duh! When the congress does it it is OPEN. And you lemmings think that you are cutting spending by ending the KNOWN spending?

    Then look at our financial crisis. The Federal Reserve policy of printing any amount that the Federal Government wants to borrow and spend, without any accountability whatsoever on either part. Who is going to pay the debt? Just ask Hyack, his writings are in complete harmony with Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, and Ludwig von Mises.

    You who dismiss the truth about freedom, are not doing yourselves or your country any favors.

  • GreyCloak

    John Calhoun was never President, but he served as Representative, Senator, Secretary of War, Secretary of State, and Vice President. IN THE UNION! “ href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Calhoun”>Calhoun supported states’ rights and nullification, under which states could declare null and void federal laws which they deemed to be unconstitutional.

    Dr. Ron Paul represents Texas City (once almost blown off the map by an explosion), Galveston (more than once almost blown away by hurricanes), Bay City, and Counties from Chambers to Aransas, to include Calhoun County. NOT “crazytown!”

    Dr. Paul has served in Congress off-and-on since the seventies; most recently, he is in the beginning of his seventh consecutive term. His “crazies” tend to re-elect him.

    He is far from my Texas Legislative District, but I have to give him credit. He may be a Liberterian in Republican clothing, but I cannot but agree with some of his “wacko” views, like cutting spending, imposing term lmits, and limiting Government. Unlike most Members, he’s been honest about it. And far more active than most.

  • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

    I can’t believe that I wrote that Calhoun was the seventh President. How embarrassing. Note to self: Proofread.

  • e_rowe

    Having an economic system based on free exchange, as opposed to central management, is definitely contrary to the philosophies that drive the Democrat party and the establishment core of the GOP, as evidenced by the fact that such opinions are so rarely voiced in the Capitol Building. But year after year the same Republican party that silences free market ideas turns around to its base voters and insists to us that that’s what they stand for. A lot of people think of great free market economists like Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and F. A. Hayek, who all insist that free markets provide the greatest recipe for wealth creation and who all insist that central banking is incapable of improving on them, are the economists whose ideas the GOP champions, which it historically has not. And it’s these ideas that RP has invited Di’Lorenzo and the rest to talk about I’m sure, not secession. It’s the Monetary Policy subcommittee after all.

  • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

    You’re one of my favorite people on here, so I certainly don’t do it with any rancor or disrespect.

    Until pretty recently, I held the same view that you espouse, so I certainly understand where you’re coming from. The state is capable of doing very bad things, which is why it needs to be significantly pared down and why its checks and balances need to be properly respected. During the Revolutionary War period, a common complaint was too little government, which is one of the reason that the federal government in the Constitution was stronger than the Articles of Confederation.

    I’m no longer a proponent of a government that provides only the bare bones (military, first responders) for a couple of reasons. The first is that a nation as large and complex as ours requires governing authorities to regulate immigration (not that they really do), plan and maintain infrastructure, ensure certain baseline levels of product safety (not as invasive as they are today, and certainly not regulating the sodium content of food, but basic safety regulation like the FDA and the like), provide a basic social safety net (one designed better than the current one), negotiate trade agreements, provide education, etc. Granted, these functions should take place at varying levels of government (i.e. federal/state/county/municipality), but I don’t think that there’s much evidence that a radically minarchist government leads to better outcomes than a limited, constitutional government in which checks and balances are actually used appropriately.

    This is one of the reasons that I’ve become less inclined toward libertarianism and more toward a government that secures liberty The other is the novelty of libertarianism (being a movement that’s arisen largely since WWII). I think that I’m starting to threadjack my own diary, though, so I’ll stop there.

  • acat

    While we may disagree on where to stop cutting, I don’t think we have a serious disagreement over when to start… now would be good, right?

    Seroiusly, thank you again for going into the details. I’m of the opinion that a lot of this should be up to the States – the nationwide bakeries (Nabisco, forex) used to have all their plants inspected by Pennsylvanians because that was sufficient for other state laws… and I seem to recall auto makers, at various times, selling some or all cars with “california emission controls”…

    I’m not saying that doesn’t create problems, and that we wouldn’t need a federal court system to unwravel some of them, but … a federal one-size-fits-all is pretty much guaranteed to fit nobody very well, yes?

    Again, thanks!

    Mew

  • freedomscribe

    Libertarians of all flavors have always been an embarrassment to the establishment because we want to dismantle the comfortable power structures that support them. As people get older it is tempting to align with those familiar faces that tell us that liberty is too radical, the world too dangerous for freedom and people are too stupid or ignorant to govern themselves.

    Now that the nanny state is on the brink of collapse, suddenly everyone has become a fan of small government, but only if you cut the “right” programs and leave the “important” functions alone. Singling out Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and the anarcho-capitalists as “loons” with dark hints of secession before a single program has been cut, not a dime saved, with the most anti-business President in history still in office, seems a bit premature.

    The Fed and Treasury have loaded up my grandchildren with debt because they panicked. A little heat from Ron Paul, far from embarrassing the GOP will shine a light on how reckless and unlawful our government has become.

    The verdict on this Republic is still to be rendered, we cannot afford to attack our allies, unless you really intend to hand our future to the progressives and marxists.

  • congressworksforus

    So…. you think it’s perfectly OK to print trillions of dollars?

    You do know that the Federal Reserve now owns more of the Federal debt than China does, right?

    You do know that the Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE bank, and not a government-owned bank (unlike central banks everywhere else…), right?

    Still think he’s wrong?

  • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

    I

  • congressworksforus

    You say that and then attach a signature that says “we must demand the the government recognize the power lies with the people” and “it is the people who rule the government”

    Really!

  • http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com IronDioPriest

    “Over the years, Dr. Paul has been criticized for a number of things, most notably being a conspiracy theorist, being overly close to extremists and accused racists (particularly Lew Rockwell), and using his position as a congressman as a megaphone for weird ideas far outside of the mainstream.”

    I’m no defender of Ron Paul, although I think that the “Ron Paul is a loon” dismissals from many “mainstream” conservatives are a bit too easy to whip out as a discussion-ender. I never appreciate that tactic when used by the Left, so intellectual honesty requires me to equally eschew it coming from the Right.

    I’d like to make the point that “the mainstream” has led us to exactly where we are now. It is illogical to look to that same mainstream as the natural solution to the problems we face. There is nothing inherently good about the mainstream, and there is nothing inherently bad about being outside of it.

    I judge Ron Paul’s alleged associations and unorthodox beliefs on their own merits, and I judge him to be wrong on many issues. But in my opinion he’s right about the Fed. Instead of viewing him through the “loon” lens every time he takes a position, we should be thankful that in regard to this topic, there is someone with some level of prominence who is willing to step up and shine a spotlight on this issue. It is important that it be fully explored and not ignored.

  • aesthete

    My main problem with Paul is that he makes an absolute fool of himself in public when explaining his positions, not his voting record (except as pertains the Fed and some of his votes on free trade and national security).

  • jcrestonm

    Great article. It is extremely needed right now. I hope you and others will continue to write about Paul and his ilk.

    The Mises Institute(I assume Ron Paul

  • powertothepeople

    may break my bones, but you still worship an idiot. And what does my sig line have to do with the moron Ron Paul, his moronic ideas, or his moronic followers?

  • Scope

    Then I’m sure you will be much much happier back over at the DailyScrawl. Read my lips, RONPAUL is an idiotic boob. Every time he opens his mouth, more bats fly out of his belfry.

  • Scope

    The Libertarian Party, and those self identifying as libertarians or Libertarians were in very small numbers before the 08 campaign season when Ron Paul ran for the presidency. That’s a fact, look at the % of the vote any Libertarian candidate running for the presidency has ever gotten. It mostly doesn’t even register on the radar. Since the 2008 Ron Paul presidential run, he has made libertarianism into the latest “fad” for many. I would bet that many of his supporters have no clue of what any definition of libertarianism is. All they care about is that he would make pot legal, and would free all prisoners convicted on drug crimes. He would probably do that simultaneously with holding a mass rally, at the Lincoln memorial, for the radical islamists, prayer rugs included.

  • acat

    latest venture outside the borders of reality.

    The danger of a Ron Paul is similar to that of a Jim Jones or a David Koresh – or a late-night infomercial. That is, they sound reasonable, but they don’t stand up to the light of day very well, and if blindly followed, they can cause quite a bit of trouble for themselves, their followers, and for innocent bystanders.

    I’d like to think that most Red State readers can understand that a nutjob calling himself a libertarian and citing the works of people who call themselves libertarian (but who are actually more akin to anarchists) is just as silly as a cult leader who calls himself messiah….

    Mew

  • e_rowe

    The subject of central banking has been given plenty of scholarly attention, and the free market position is not as far out there as you are making it sound. Milton Friedman wanted to abolish the Fed, as does Thomas Sowell. F. A. Hayek is synonymous with Austrian economics, which is the view Ron Paul espouses. Recent books by scholars such as George Selgin, Peter Boettke, Steven Horwitz, and others (including Dilorenzo in writings apart from the unrelated ones you chose to highlight) have very capably adduced “extraordinary evidence” for the claim that the economy is best off when the medium of exchange is subject to the free market, rather than having its value and acceptability in payments of debts be determined by central managers (which to me, just doesn’t seem like such a strange idea). RP himself has written and said a great deal about this subject over the years, and has addressed objections and presented evidence for his ideas. So just picking some quotes from some interview and criticizing the fact that he doesn’t happen to present that evidence within the quotes that you give is a straw man.

  • regent2009

    I agree with your basic argument and I think you raise many legitimate points, but isn’t the claim that the government can declare worthless paper valuable pretty extraordinary. I think so and I think supporters of the Fed have the burden of proof that their system is better than the Gold Standard. I don’t see that proof. I see chronically high inflation today and very little under the gold standard. After all, it is the average level of inflation that matters, not how variable inflation is.

    I don’t consider Ron Paul much of a conservative and the zealotry of his supporters turns me off. But just as I welcomed Sargent Shriver to the pro-life movement, I appreciate Ron Pauls’ position on this issue. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Fed creates inflation. Inflation is a tax. taxes lead to big government. Big government leads to less freedom.

  • hiimallen

    When someone comes along and states the obvious to you, you expect “evidence”. The evidence is there to anyone who will look.
    Those who will not look, the evidence, (which is all over the place now) is useless. It does not make it untrue, merely because you don’t want it to be true.

    If you do want to learn about the damage the Fed has done, just watch Georgia University Economist George Selgin
    http://mises.org/media/5705/A-Century-of-Failure-Why-Its-Time-to-Consider-Replacing-the-Fed

    And DiLorenzo is a very qualified Economist, and historian.

  • Scope

    It doesn’t take listening to the MSM, even though that is where Ron Paul usually appears, to hear what he is saying from his own mouth. When you make so very many irrational and unorthodox statements, about so many things, you lose credibility with everything you say. See Greg’s explanation below concerning how wacky Ron Paul is on his views of the FED. Greg put it together very nicely. I have read similar critiques about Paul’s monetary policy, and views of the FED. Paul makes it appear that if only we got rid of the FED, that Utopia he promises will be right around the corner.

  • acat

    Nullification doesn’t work, never did, and has been struck down by the courts. (I don’t have the cite, but a google of “nullification court calhoun site:redstate.com” ought to find it)

    Ron Paul did not found the tea parties. Michelle Malkin had more to do with them than Ron Paul did – he’s just trying to get in front of the parade. (hopefully, it tramples him a bit)

    Earmarks are not “more open” – if they’re added in committee, there’s no name attached, ya gotta read the transcripts to find ‘em. Ron Paul himself adds quite a few in committee, but only to bills guaranteed to pass – and then he votes against ‘em. Talk about having your cake and eating it too!

    As for the financial crisis, I’ll agree that the Federal Government is culpable – but via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – and I didn’t hear Ron Paul calling out for killing them off. (might have offended his longtime fellow congresscritter Barney Frank…)

    Mew

  • runner12

    It is unfortunate that people think that all libertarians are as “out-there” as Ron Paul.

    I also take great offense to the assertion that Tea Parties were begun by Rep. Paul. It is utterly false. Few, if any, of the Tea Party people would agree with Rep. Paul’s crazy viewpoints.

  • e_rowe

    If a state nullifies a federal law, what good would a ruling by some arm of the federal government (such as one of its courts) be against that? It’s not as though the courts are God and their word on everything is final, so that they can just claim that something that’s unconstitutional is constitutional and their saying so makes it so. All of our legislators at both the state and federal levels take oaths to uphold the Constitution, not what some court claims the Constitution says.

    I participated in a tea party rally on Dec. 17th, 2007. The only other people I know of who did were Ron Paul supporters. When did Michelle Malkin get in on the act?

    Ron Paul’s approach to earmarks is the approach all conservatives should take. Vote against the bills themselves, but make sure that if they pass against your vote your own constituents aren’t left with the bill for earmarks for everyone but them (earmarks which add $0 to the total amount spent). The opposite approach taken by pseudo-conservatives who put symbolism before substance of eschewing earmarks but then voting yes on unconstitutional spending that includes other peoples’ earmarks, is the approach that is truly counterproductive.

    As for Ron Paul’s opposition to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, if you weren’t aware of it, it’s not because he’s been too soft on them, or too afraid of offending Barney Frank.
    http://www.paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1766&Itemid=69
    http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=258&Itemid=60
    Etc.

  • powertothepeople

    we also think him and his cult followers are nutjobs, weirdos, numbnuts, idiots, fools, morons, imbeciles, mentally challenged, IQ deficient………….do you need us/me to continue on explaining what we think of his and his bots?

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    by resigning his seat – or even better, being thrown out of the Republican caucus and tossed out of the Congress – and starting a new career as a garbage man somewhere in Texas.

    I’m perfectly willing to take on the financial problems we are facing in a very agressive fashion, what I’m not willing to abide is letting Ron Paul, Fruitbat, have anything to do with it. The guy is an embarrassment to anybody with even a single digit IQ, his worshipful followers are a disgrace to humanity. He is the poster CongressCritter for the idea that after a fixed number of terms CongressCritters should be required to jump off the top of the Capitol Dome and land headfirst on the Capitol steps. Of course in his case, I doubt the fall would do any damage.

    There is no subject that this fool can open his mouth about that he’s not wrong about.

  • Scope

    meet-up. That’s what they called their little get togethers. Rick Santelli is responsible for the “Tea Parties”, many of which have been co-opted by the libertarian Paulies, unfortunately. That’s one of the reasons for the dust up at CPAC.

  • e_rowe

    Yes, I participated in a meetup group. There are lots of groups that use the Meetup website, including supporters of other candidates as well.

    But here I’m talking about the tea party rallies we held on Tea Party day in 2007 (I get the date wrong, it was Dec. 16th). Santenelli’s call to have “tea parties” wasn’t until well after Obama took office.

  • e_rowe

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2008#Fourth_quarter_2007

  • Wayne

    Though I wade into the topic of Ron Paul with trepidation, I wade none the less because it’s a subject that gets under my skin more often than I would care to admit.

    As a former Democrat (mid 60′s) turned Republican (early 70′s) turned Libertarian (early 90′s) turned Constitutional Party 2009 thinking of returning to the Republican Party again at this writing (since it seems to be regaining it’s dignity), I am not a Ron Paul hater, skeptic or defamer. I look for a leader that is not a carer politician but a leader none the less.

    Ron Paul does not strike me as a tin foil pyramid waring nut job. But I also don’t see him as the leader we need at this juncture in American History.

    None of the potential candidates getting attention to date honestly excite me all that much…

    That’s about all i have time for tonight, it’s late and I’ve got an early rise…

  • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

    I lean libertarian in a lot of areas, but RP embodies a sort of uncomfortable conspiracy-thinking that makes me cringe. I’m in favor of the most free markets possible–less regulated than they are today, lower taxes, a less burdonsome government, etc–but the Mises Institute folks take things to a dangerous extreme. A lot of their ideas have the binary quality of Ayn Rand and the Objectivists (I think that she was closer to being right than most 20th century thinkers, but her absolutism is off-putting). She once called Milton Friedman a Red, kind of similar to the Austrian denunciation of the Chicago School. I don’t see RP as a huge influence, but he’s a bad distraction. Hopefully the Tea Party movement can raise up leaders who avoid the RP extremes.

  • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison
  • Scope

    In the hearing today, a Democrat brought up his shady background. I love that a very enthusiastic group of supporters were on hand to swamp him and ask for his autograph. This is sick. Seems like some Congressional members will have to start asking for restraining orders against the Paulies. They are out of hand.

  • aesthete

    Can you guys shoot me an email at aesthetic_tucsonan@yahoo.com? Thanks.

  • Scope

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/At_CPAC_the_race_for_second_place_as_Paul_goes_all_out.html

  • zizzer

    When one cannot compete on ideas, one tries to discredit the individual. DiLorenzo’s views on Abe Lincoln have nothing to do with monetary policy; it should not have even been brought up.

  • e_rowe

    If you’re not willing to read any of what’s been written on the subject, then you’re being disingenuous in your claim that you’re waiting for the evidence. You can’t just demand that anyone who ever has done that research must prescind from stating their conclusions in any setting whatsoever, unless in that very same setting they recite the evidence no matter how unamenable that setting is to such a recitation, to say nothing of a case such as the one you’ve quoted where we have no way of knowing if the interviewer asked Ron Paul for his evidence or what Ron Paul said if he did. That being the case, you also can’t just point to such an example and declare that the person speaking has failed to adduce the evidence, when they not only have done so themselves in other sources that are readily available, but can also point to more authoritative sources that have as well.

    Would you really do the same with quotes you can find from Friedman or Sowell where they advocate abolishing the Federal Reserve? Or would you give them the benefit of the doubt and suppose that, were you to ask them for the evidence of for their beliefs, they’d probably be able to produce it.

  • e_rowe

    Just in case you or anyone else actually is interested in evaluating the evidence in favor of a market-based system of currency, here are a couple recent books by George Selgin you might want to look at that you should be able to find at any decent university liberary:
    http://www.amazon.com/Deregulation-Monetary-Routledge-International-Studies/dp/0415140560
    http://www.amazon.com/Good-Money-Birmingham-Beginnings-1775-1821/dp/0472116312/

    And a good and easy-to-read introduction to the whole concept of how order emerges through the complicated process of millions of free individuals making their own uncoordinated decisions, and why it can be so hard to fulfill the demands for evidence that critics of free markets often make, “I, Pencil.” by Leonard Read should be required reading.
    http://fee.org/library/books/i-pencil-2/

    If people were as used to letting central managers control the production of pencils as they are to letting them control our medium of exchange, they’d be just as incredulous that a free market could improve on pencils as they are now that it could improve on banking. Explanations of how these things might work and how the failures of central planning can be identified is not something one should expect in a format like that Fortune article.

  • Scope

    http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/143039-dem-accuses-witness-invited-by-ron-paul-of-hate-group-ties

  • dpmartin

    One thing I find interesting about many conservatives is their advocacy for limited government, balanced budgets and the like coupled with their defense of the Federal Reserve and fiat currency. The inconsistency arises on many levels. The first is a political inconsistency. In most things conservatives seem to be in favor of freedom and representative government. But, when it comes to money, many of them seem to be in favor of the

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    RONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAUL

    And who is this “we” of whom you speak? “We” conservatives aren’t hiding gold under our mattress and blathering on and on about fiat currency.

  • dpmartin

    I love to hear some conservatives decry “redistribution” when talking about Obama’s (or any other socialist/communist) fiscal policies. Yet, here are many conservatives defending the redistributional policies of the Federal Reserve (central bank).

    The Federal Reserve is perhaps the worst (read, most powerful) redistributional mechanism in our economy. Through printing money, it redistributes wealth to the member banks and their owners. But, perhaps this is the type of redistribution some conservatives can get behind (redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthiest among us).

    The Federal Reserve is not a stabilising mechanism in our economy, but a destabilising mechanism. The Federal Reserve is merely a cartel to protect the banks and give them enormous control of our economy coupled with a method to shift any losses to the federal Treasury (FDIC and bailouts) which creates an enormous moral hazard for bankers. Lest we forget about the bailouts of the last 100 years and think somehow that the recent bailouts were an anomoly, we should go back and remember the little baby steps (at least they seem so now) that got us here such as the Continental Bank of Illinois, the savings and loan crisis and the like. These are strewn throughout the history of the Federal Reserve (and every other central bank has similar episodes). It is inherent in the design of the system.

    Now, I know that there are many problems that brought this Republic to the verge of bankruptcy, but the Federal Reserve deserves much of the blame.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    RONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAUL

  • dpmartin

    Don’t bother me wtih the Constitution or consistency, “we” conservatives are just the other side of the liberal coin:

    We quote the parts of the Constitution that support our agenda, but don’t bother us with the parts that we would like to forget (they quote the parts that they like and don’t bother them with the parts they don’t).

    We like the type of economic control that we like, and they like the type of economic control that they like.

    We like redistribution from the bottom up, and they like redistribution from the top down.

    We like our central bank to fund a massive federal government, and they like taxes to fund a massive federal government (taxes may actually be more honest if you think about it — not that you would since all you hear is “RONPAULRONPAUL…”).

    It seems to be about control. In every age there are people who want to control the lives of others. It is very difficult to take a conservative seriously when they whine about a liberal controlled massive federal government when after parsing through their objections you figure out that it’s not the massive federal government or the suffocating controls that they object to but rather that the people in control have “Ds” next to their names rather than “Rs”. (It reminds me of the lyrics from a Who song–”meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.)

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Seriously. You use the word conservative as an epithet. You quote the Constitution as thought it were written in a vacuum, without acknowledging nor trying to understand the deep moral and religious convictions of the ones that wrote it.

    Your man-god shouts from the mountaintops about fiscal conservatism while regularly paying off the shrimp farmers that keep him in office. His hypocritical actions and deep-rooted antisemitism is completely lost on you, because your worship of property consumes you.

    Look, I understand your great desire for people to leave you alone while you smoke your weed in your house in the foothills, but isn’t your day full enough between cultivating your crop and daily counting the gold you hide in your mattress?

  • dpmartin

    “You quote the Constitution as thought it were written in a vacuum, without acknowledging nor trying to understand the deep moral and religious convictions of the ones that wrote it.”

    Really??? You base this on what exactly? Do you assume that I know nothing about the Founders or the history of the Constitution? Do their deep moral and religious views trump the text or the intent? Do you assume that I haven’t read The Federalist Papers, Madison’s Notes on the Convention of 1787, Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution or any other work that I would need to read to “understand” their convictions? Do you assume that because of my antipathy toward a central bank and fiat currency that I am not a religous person? Is there something that I missed? Is the Federal Reserve ordained by God? Does it further the Kingdom on Earth? Wow, how stupid of me not to see that.

    “Your man-god shouts from the mountaintops about fiscal conservatism while regularly paying off the shrimp farmers that keep him in office. His hypocritical actions and deep-rooted antisemitism is completely lost on you, because your worship of property consumes you.”

    Again, really??? You assume that because I happen to agree with a person on one issue that I worship that person, that I agree and endorse all of his beliefs and statements, and that I “worship” property.

    “Look, I understand your great desire for people to leave you alone while you smoke your weed in your house in the foothills, but isn

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister
  • hiimallen

    Like many others, I was not even politically active until the Ron Paul run. I held no other views than the ones I do now, he just gave my views the greatest airing in my lifetime, and perhaps even my fathers.

    This country is going to hell in a hand basket financially, and the R party (which USED to be somewhat true to their rhetoric) has been nothing but a bunch of liars and hypocrites, Reagan was the last to even come close to the freedom movement behind Ron Paul, and the Bushit family has twisted the word “conservative” almost to the point that I hear the word “National Socialist” every time I hear it. Big government is BAD, no matter who is doing it.

    This country is facing the worst financial catastrophe in its history, and it doesn’t bode well for anyone in the world. Yet it is the people of like mind with Ron Paul (The Austrian Economists) who are telling you what you and your fellow citizens need to do. Prayer rugs included.

    The only thing worse than a Republican, is a Democrat. It just depends on what you want to fear… prayer rugs or weather.

  • cordpt

    I strongly disagree with Ron Paul’s stances on fractional reserves, central banks and currency, but your stances are truly bizarre. How the heck do you invoke the fathers and then you say that anyone who argues against a central bank is a weed-smoking survivalist? I mean, have you ever read Thomas Jefferson or James Madison about these issues?

  • Bill S

    Well said, as usual.

    The Ronulans really put the icing on the cake today, with their “WAR CRIMINAL” jeers at Dick Cheney at CPAC. They are lowlife, plain and simple.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    You might want to consider opening up a bit more than you have in the past few days; you know, voice your opinion, let chips fall and fur fly, don’t worry so much what people are thinking about you.

    Heh. Good show.

  • cordpt

    It’s not supposed to be played by the rules of academic debate. If you’re not willing to play the game, just go home.

  • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

    Inflation isn’t chronically high today. It was when I was thirty years ago, but it’s hovered around 3% or so for many years, at least nominally. The massive deficit spending of Pelosi/Reid/Obama contributes to long-term instability, but the Fed is not the cause of big government. Our representatives are.

    I think that the burden of proof is on RP and the Paulistinians (terminology h/t: RMJ), because their claims appear to be pretty wild. Read the two interview exchanges that I quote above. Is the Fed really the cause of war, entitlement programs, and various other apocalyptic horsemen? Perhaps so, but I have not seen the case made successfully.

    Someone else on here asked how conservatives can be for a free market but not for a free market of money. It’s an important question, and a relatively difficult one, but the best answer that I can come up with is that a central currency allows for the free exchange of productivity, risk, and investment using a stable, agreed-upon tool. A single currency allows for efficiency and enables trade that is free and fair (in the classic sense of the parties knowing the value of the currency exchanged). The only body that can issue a single, national currency is necessarily centralized, and the oversight of govenment lessens the probability that the currency will be gamed by bad actors.

    Before the first U.S. bank, people traded in the currency of other countries and engaged in barter and the like. Hamilton, a rare genius, championed the strong federal government that strengthened America and enabled the young country to borrow, invest, and build. Madison, as you mention below, advocated against a national bank, and Jefferson was no fan either. However, when given the reins of power, both men took important steps to follow Hamilton’s model for the federal government: Jefferson with the Louisiana Purchase and Madison with the charter of the Second Bank of the U.S. (to use two examples). Jefferson (particularly early Jefferson) is not a voice for how to create a stable republic. But I digress. Jackson detested the central bank and undermined it, and even without the Civil War, the period after its collapse can hardly be called stable. Boom and bust, overly tight credit, and significant levels of privation were regular occurrences.

    Considering that the Federal Reserve has been in place since 1913, I think that it is extremely implausible that it caused all of America’s problems, just as it is implausible that it caused all of America’s prosperity. There have been times when it’s been run well and others when it’s been run poorly. But times have been pretty good, for the most part. It’s hard to imagine our success in WWII, the Cold War, the Space Race, the information revolution, etc without a flexible monetary supply. Think about the 20th century, though. We were on the gold standard (in one form or another) until Nixon was President. Did we really enter a period of massive decline at that point? I don’t think so. We’ve had good leaders and bad, but it’s the decisions of politicians and millions of individuals that have led to our successes and failures. Does the central bank play a role? Sure. But it’s not the root cause of our outsized government. We (and our representatives) are.

    I’m not an economist, though.

  • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

    Murray Rothbard was an unscrupulous anarchist nut, and they publish way too much fringe material to be taken seriously. They’re right up (down) there with the John Birch Society.

    A lecture by a Mises Institute economist isn’t very convincing evidence. Dr. Paul is flat-out wrong when he asserts that

  • hiimallen

    And those who will not learn from history, are destined to repeat it.

    Obviously the only “good” or “Acceptable” evidence for you is more b.s. rhetoric given by some neo-con Keynesian economist. The Mises Institute folks are probably more diverse than your redstate fellows, and your dismissing them out of hand only lessens your own credibility as one who can discern truth from error. Fear of the truth is the greatest blinder of all.

    Dr Paul never once said that economic downturns are not possible without the Fed. The Austrian approach to the business cycle is that a true laissez-faire free market would be preferred, the rest of the study is “how it is” rather than the “how we can fix it” of the Keynesian macro-foolishness. All markets should be free to private citizens, Including the market of money. The more the government gets involved, the worse it becomes. The evidence is all around you.

    Maybe you would listen to Henry Hazlitt? Fredrick Hayek?
    Here, just deconstruct this rap video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

  • zizzer

    …then why do you have to resort to discrediting the individual instead of his ideas?

  • hiimallen

    “First, some background information: About thirteen years ago three fellow academics from Emory University, the University of South Carolina, and the University of Alabama asked me if I would deliver a few lectures on the economics of the “Civil War” to a group of about twenty students at a week-long summer seminar. Two of them were historians and one was a philosopher, and they wanted to add some economics to the curriculum. They had just started something called “The League of the South Institute.” Since I lecture to students all over the country, and these were three fellow professors who I respected, I enthusiastically agreed. I recall it being a very enjoyable experience, as it always is when I get to teach students who attend a summer seminar for no college credit, just for the sake of learning. Such students are always among the very best that I encounter. That is the only connection I have ever had with the League of the South, which apparently still lists the titles of those old lectures somewhere on its Web site.

    “Clay lied through his teeth by stating that I “work for” the League of the South, and further stating that, consequently, I must endorse everything everyone associated with that organization has said in the succeeding thirteen years since I spoke to those students about the economics of the Civil War. This makes as much sense as saying that I endorse everything Congress says and does because I gave a presentation there on February 9. ”

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo201.html

  • barry915barry

    I would like to think that I support the 10th amendment as much as the next guy. Perhaps you are familiar with the idea of the supremacy of the federal govt over the many states??? Nullification is a nice idea that is rooted where in the constitution?? Perhaps you could enlighten us, the legal scholar that you are. BTW, SCOTUS has consistently rejected nullification. Your comments below are so ridiculous they simply leave me speechless.

    “If a state nullifies a federal law, what good would a ruling by some arm of the federal government (such as one of its courts) be against that? It