Ron Paul and Friends: On The Dollar - Great Stuff!
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
FRESH OFF THE TUBE!!!
FROM TODAY (7.16.08)
Ron Paul on Fox Business News talking about the semi-anual scheduled appearance of Fed Chief Ben Bernanke before the legislature.
Ben Bernanke admitting to Ron Paul that INFLATION IS A TAX. Still wish i could find the rest of these sessions. Some CLASSIC shit said to Bernanke by SEVERAL folks.
I LOVE this clip:
Ron Paul on CNBC's Kudlow & Co. today!. url=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=305529373137157416&q=ron+paul+kudlow&ei=hfZ_SL-QLpTU-wHQlsmFAw&hl=en]part II[/url Kudlow was actualy on CNBC this afternoon, and he LAID IN TO Steve Liesman today over Fed policy. I had NO IDEA Kudlow was such a hater of the Fed. OMFG. He went OFF! (Well, okay, for a CNBC personality, he went off! lol) This clip cracks me up. Ron Paul has this relatively huge grin on his face as Kudlow talks. He can't believe he is hearing people come around to his very own tune!
PAY CLOSE ATTENTION. PAUL IS RIGHT! You can NOT have a functional Fed that "does it's job" in a time of crisis. You have HUMANS trying to deal with a crisis, and they are SUBJECT TO "POLITICAL" PRESSURE from all sorts of parties. The Fed tries to do something, and Wall Street sends it a message with Fed Funds Rates that WAG THE DOG.
That second guy is dead on. This may be an investors unthinkable nightmare, but it is a fucking traders dream! And sense he mentions Keynesianism (fiat money, exchange rates, & steady inflation), lets take a look at what he himself had to say:
First, remember three things.
1. Keynes (this link is pure gold, itself!) was a Socialist
2. He was working for "Capitalists" -- "The Elite" i always talk about, who are really nothing more than glorified communists wrapping themselves in fascist capitalist flags for the moment until they can bring poor America to her knees (which they are suceeding in doing right now).
3. This is the guy, along with H.D White at Bretton Woods, who designed our monitary system.
And by "our" system, i mean ALL OF IT. THE system.
Without further ado, the quotes:
"By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.”
and then:
“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”
and finally:
“The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.”
One other good exchange with Bernanke -- still a few i wish i could find, though.
Anyhow.
FROM TODAY (7.16.08)
Ron Paul on Fox Business News talking about the semi-anual scheduled appearance of Fed Chief Ben Bernanke before the legislature.
Ben Bernanke admitting to Ron Paul that INFLATION IS A TAX. Still wish i could find the rest of these sessions. Some CLASSIC shit said to Bernanke by SEVERAL folks.
I LOVE this clip:
Ron Paul on CNBC's Kudlow & Co. today!. url=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=305529373137157416&q=ron+paul+kudlow&ei=hfZ_SL-QLpTU-wHQlsmFAw&hl=en]part II[/url Kudlow was actualy on CNBC this afternoon, and he LAID IN TO Steve Liesman today over Fed policy. I had NO IDEA Kudlow was such a hater of the Fed. OMFG. He went OFF! (Well, okay, for a CNBC personality, he went off! lol) This clip cracks me up. Ron Paul has this relatively huge grin on his face as Kudlow talks. He can't believe he is hearing people come around to his very own tune!
PAY CLOSE ATTENTION. PAUL IS RIGHT! You can NOT have a functional Fed that "does it's job" in a time of crisis. You have HUMANS trying to deal with a crisis, and they are SUBJECT TO "POLITICAL" PRESSURE from all sorts of parties. The Fed tries to do something, and Wall Street sends it a message with Fed Funds Rates that WAG THE DOG.
That second guy is dead on. This may be an investors unthinkable nightmare, but it is a fucking traders dream! And sense he mentions Keynesianism (fiat money, exchange rates, & steady inflation), lets take a look at what he himself had to say:
First, remember three things.
1. Keynes (this link is pure gold, itself!) was a Socialist
2. He was working for "Capitalists" -- "The Elite" i always talk about, who are really nothing more than glorified communists wrapping themselves in fascist capitalist flags for the moment until they can bring poor America to her knees (which they are suceeding in doing right now).
3. This is the guy, along with H.D White at Bretton Woods, who designed our monitary system.
And by "our" system, i mean ALL OF IT. THE system.
Without further ado, the quotes:
"By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.”
and then:
“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”
and finally:
“The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.”
One other good exchange with Bernanke -- still a few i wish i could find, though.
Anyhow.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Source criticism, please. Also on non-mainstream and non-government sources. It's the centerpiece of gathering reliable information.
Oh, get over yourself. Everybody is not "after america" (The last beacon of liberty or whatever). Keynes influenced many countries in the post-ww2 world, and most of these countries do not have the same system that you have. (With a private monetary printing press)
I have always wondered why these people can't just be hardcore marxists and be done with it. After all, the centerpiece of marxism is opposition to the capital(ists), and a deep suspicion of their activities explained through structural analysis. But since they're americans, and communism/socialism/marxism is of course to blame for all of america's ills by default, they (have to) add the twist that it is the capitalists that are the fascist (you did war with germany too) communists. Whether they are satanic homosexuals as well is optional...
It seems weird to me that these people dont oppose the capitalism which enables the elite to be so rich that they are able to wield their ungodly socialist influence on society. Capitalism funnels money upwards by default, and since money = influence, capitalism is at the root of the problem. An argument like this would at least be coherent, and not read as some evangelical nationalist right-winger's wet dream of all that he doesnt like being rolled together into the same people. The evangelical streak has no problem with that of course, since to them it is totally believable that all evil can be traced to evildoers in league with the devil, which is the source of all evil. A crusade on these evil men would then set the world right again.
Anyways. It doesnt look good if when you want to debate Keynes or whatever you drag out what reads like pure, malevolent slander of him. When you have to grab for the "but he was an atheist homosexual pervert" card to discredit him, it really doesnt look good on you either. And do you really not see the agenda and underlying motives for some of the people and sites that you link? Do you ever question them, or isn't that necessary since you agree with them? Seeing how anything mainstream or official is analyzed with much criticism and delineating motives and interests, why not do the same with other sites and people outside official/mainstream channels? This is my main criticism, the lack of questions and critical distance to everything else.
(edit) As for Ron Paul on the dollar, he may well have some points.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Oh.
Wowwy, wow wow.
With all due respect (pretty much nil),
i haven't a foggy clue what you are on about, old boy.
Regarding the article on keynes, i cited it as "pure gold" with the assumption that anyone reading it would understand that it was WAY over the top.
That being said, what exactly the fuck is your thrust here?
You've suceeded in using the term "they" more than i usually do, and thus i don't even know WHO you are on a kick about.
My only point regarding Keynes was that he was basicaly in a position somewhat equivilant to what is refered to as "moral hazard" given that he WAS a socialist, but was in "charge" of designing the entire capitalist system for the globe.
Beyond that, the MAJOR thrust of that section was to show that, even though he was a big player in the design of the global capitalist system, he was a keen economist (although Friedman proved him wrong about his inflationary dreams in many respects) and his OWN quoteS show his absolute disdain for the very system he was helping construct. He thought it would fail, and he thought the exact system he was creating for the bankers was one that could itself be abused ruthlessly to destroy the working class.
So again,
besides the fact that you seem to think me some raging homophobe (couldn't be farther from the trurth), what exactly is your problem here?
???
If I opened it now would you not understand?
This post I have no problem with whatsoever. I respect your opinion on the matter, when it's formulated soberly.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Big Admission:
certainly,
i was nothing approximating sober when i wrote that last night.
But i stand by what i wrote.
If the only thing you can find fault with in my original post is that I was in a jolly mood and linked to a half-cocked article trashing a long gone economist who probably WAS most of the thing the article insinuated, then i am at a loss. It seems like the only thing you are up in arms about is the value judgements attached to that linked "article".
?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
rofl.
my clipboard malfunctions are becoming legendary, me thinks.
fixed the link.
sheesh.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Your first link is still bringing me to Hitler...is that supposed to happen? So are the Kuldow & Co. links
jesus fucking christ!
it was like HITLER FEST.
I posted that in the Obama\Slavery\Education thread,
and i guess my fucking clipboard just froze up.
EVERY link was that hitler clip.
Shit.
Fixed now.
I THINK!
:rolleyes:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Note that I didn't mean sober in the sense of
But in the sense of But if the shoe fits...
But seriously.
That article wasn't actually that much further out than other stuff you link. So if you were joking, the link wasn't self-evident of that.
My long-winded "they" thing in my first post referenced these conspiracy people, some of who you frequently link. The whole community of (nationalist) right-wing evangelical conspiracy folks.
My problem with this particular thread was again the sensationalist angle and (again this week) accusations of gayness from the "elite" as if it was a disease or something to be feared or at least something that totally discredits the person (revealing the reactionary evangelical sources). Maybe he was gay, I dont know or care. But one should get suspicious when people are constructing the evangelical right-wingers' ultra-enemies: Satanic greedy capitalist totalitarian socialist gays. I mean, come on! Don't you see the wishful thinking in there?
Also I reacted a bit to the "bring poor america to her knees" bit, which to me smacks too much of flag-waving nationalism, which I truly dislike.
But I still really really beg of you to enact some source-criticism of non-mainstream non-government sources. You have a critical mind and analyze a lot when mainstream/government are concerned, but it seems to me that you switch it off when considering other sources, particularly on the net (when in reality one should be at least as sceptical, and maybe more, to info one finds on the net. Anyone can put up whatever easily). A lot of the links you post I clearly see is biased and agendaed from a evangelical right position, which you seem to fail to notice. Apply your good capacity for criticism also to the sources you like and tend to agree with.
Also you seem to always go for maxxing out the scale. If something points towards, say in between a spectrum of 3 to 10 on a 1-10 scale, you invariably go for the 10. So instead of "there might be something here", you go to "there IS something here, and since there's something, it must be like this:..."
Your main theme to be sceptical to authority and the powers-that-be, I am totally on board with. I also think that the richest people have too much power and influence. But I do not accept the loads of extra baggage you pile on top from dubious and questionable sources, and I think that really does your argument a disservice.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I can see right through you, man. It's some vast conspiracy you are trying to start up by getting everyone to view that clip and only that clip.
Hilter Fest today, but tomorrow perhaps it will be Hitler indoctrination in our every day lives.
Being a socialist does not imply being against capitalism.
Being a communist does imply being against capitalism.
They are two different things.
So even if Keynes were a socialist, he worked within the capitalist system, he did not try to revolt against and establish communist utopia.
What's the basis for your moral hazard argument?
Very well, and soberly, said
If you are fundamentaly opposed to the very idea you are being paid to devise an economic mechanism for, it might pose something similar to moral hazard, may it not?
The guy didn't even like capitalism,
and HIS OWN quoteS are admission that WHAT HE WAS SETTING UP, in his own words was a system that was WIDE OPEN to exploitation by the his very employers.
Need i pull the quote up again?
THAT is WHAT KEYNES WAS DOING.
SETTING UP THE BEST WAY, not just "A way", the BEST way, to DESTROY THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM!
And what was he paid by the "Capitalists" (really communist international "By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.”[/banker scum) [and i say "communist" meaning that the international bankers would immenently prefer that ALL COUNTRIES be communist, so that they could be the ruling elite pulling the strings, and confiscating that wealth via the state mechanism from the population base] that employed him?
HE WAS PAID TO CREATE A MASSIVE INFLATIONARY SYSTEM with numerous levers, guises, and obfuscations.
ie. He was ENSURING that the masses would be UNable to comprehend what the fuck was taking place, so that "By a continuing process of inflation, government [could] confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.”
THAT is what i mean by "moral hazard".
I don't know WHY Kenyes would help a system that he despised.
Maybe he was aware that such a "economic structure" (the world bank\exchange system) would ultimately undo itself (like it is NOW DOING) and would lead to his penultimate socialist revolution?
What is your take on it?
Oh wait:
Thats great. But please reference KEYNE's OWN GODDAMN QUOTATIONS!
HE WAS IN FACT, "AGAINST CAPITALISM".
So what are you trying to assert?
And FOR OUTOFBREATH,
i could give two shits about Keynes being homosexual,
I DO care about sodomizing POOR LITTLE BOYS FROM 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES. Something his very own lover alleged against him!
:cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Ok, first I need to adjust to your different typing argument style to understand what you're trying to say! although really there is no need to shout internet style...
Moral hazard for my understanding is the lack of consequences for certain behaviours - indeed the consequences fall on others and the individual/s responsible are bailed out instead because society as a whole would be worse off and suffer too much if no action was taken.
So in this sense I do not see how Keynes by trying to shore up the capitalist system is culpable of moral hazard.
My post was merely to point out that socialists and communists have different objectives and I put it in very basic terms (it is quite a long history of disagreements within the left historically, especially in Europe where the workers movement and ideology first originated.)
So yes, socialists do not want to destroy the capitalist system but want to reform it within. And so yes Keynes could perfectly criticise the capitalism system, so the fact he didn't like it doesn't mean he wants to replace it - better it most likely, do away with it doubtful.
Communists instead believe there is no point anymore to reform the capitalist system but more drastic action is needed - revolution and the establishment of a communist society.
Do you have a source for the Keynes quotes so that I can check it? I mean, primary source, his books, writings, etc.
Cheers
I NEVER said he was guilty OF moral hazard, BOTH times i said "something similar to moral hazard" or "somewhat equivilant", knowing FULL well what the specific definition of "moral hazard" is.
I suppose it was a poor choice of analogies, but i can think of no term that better equates. What i was TRYING to ellude to was that, by virtue of his disdain for capitalism, he would inherently be someone you would NOT want to task with the job of designing the back bone of the capitalist system.
FURTHER, that very mechanism -- the global fiat currency exchange system -- is the EXACT same one that Keynes is quoted for saying will be the DESTRUCTION of the Capitalist system.
THINK ABOUT THAT.
This guy is tasked with desigining a global fiat system.
He is ON RECORD saying this will destroy capitalism.
Yet he is HIRED by "capitalists" to design JUST THAT.
WTF !??!
What would YOU conclude from that?
Is something not computing? (and this isn't a dick statement, i want to know WHAT you are seeing or infering that i am not)
Because when i read that someone hates something, and they know a way to destroy it ... and then i see a bunch of people that allegedly love something (the international bankers, in "theory" love capitalism) and they HIRE that person to implement THE VERY SYSTEM which he is on record as describing to be the destruction of that institution ... I START TO ASK QUESTIONS!
The only way it makes sense, is if you understand that the international bankers ACTUALY WANT SOCIALISM\COMMUNISM THEMSELVES!
THEY WOULD PREFER IT!
As the corporations, THEY would still be making money hand over fist.
FUCK, THEY OWN THE BANK THAT LENDS TO THE BANKS!
But YOU, ME, the private citizens of this world GET THE BOOT TO THE SKULL!
He did NOT want to better it.
Again, what are you reading in to this?
He said he didn't like Capitalism.
He said inflationary currency is the mechanism to destroy Capitalism.
HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING THAT MECHANISM.
How do you go from that logic chain to, "he must have been trying to improve Captialism" ???
As far as citing the quotes,
no. i'm not that scholarly.
THOSE quoteS ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE
They are WIDELY attributed to Keynes.
If you want to do some research, go look it up.
They most LIKELY come from his "magnum opus", The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money.
I originaly heard the quotes on a The Teaching Company series of mp3s about great economists.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
OK, I'll play
So what I know of Keynes - bear in mind, I am not an economist and indeed find the subject quite boring - is that he was a social liberal British economist who advocated an interventionist role of the state in the economy, after WWII, as a way to mitigate unemployement with publicly-funded projects, and thus lessen the worst effects of capitalism. (This position was then criticised by the Hayek and Friedman and the School of Chicago advocating instead the pre-eminence of the free market.)
You claim that because he disdained capitalism he would of course build an international system that would bring about the destruction of capitalism.
I do not see this link - it does not logically follows. Too much of a jump to conclusions without enough supporting evidence.
First, I pointed out - because of the possible misinterpretation of socialist and communist - that even if you are a socialist (or a social liberal) this does not imply that you want to destroy capitalism.
Second, I just googled Keynes quotes:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_maynard_keynes.html
Yes, the quotes you posted are also there.
However, one is not complete. Or rather, the one you posted has something more.
[don't know how to bold text, etc]
Originally Posted by - Drifting quoting - Keynes
“The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.”
The first part "The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency" I could not find anywhere.
I then checked the first link about Keynes you published, which is as the title of the article says "John Meynard Keynes: Lavander & Bolshevik" a clearly biased piece focusing mainly on his homosexuality (by the way, also getting wrong his homosexual lover - see Keynes entry on Wikipedia) and leftist convinctions.
Then I re-read your posts and tried to see your point of view.
The quotes of his I've read do support that he is critical of capitalism but not that he wants to destroy it. Where's the logical causal link between these?
So the first part of your argument that he wants to destroy capitalism doesn't hold. (If you can find the link for that quote, that would help - although one should always take quotes in the context they were made, otherwise their meaning can be distorted.)
But let's assume for the sake of argument that Keynes wanted to destroy capitalism. Where's the evidence that capitalism has been destroyed? I would say it's thriving and has been so for centuries.
Furthermore, why would bankers want the suppression of capitalism? they've been made richer and richer by this very system. (I don't think in Soviet Russia bankers thrived.)
Do bankers want to set up an Orwellian big brotherish society instead of capitalism? Is that why you quoted 1984?
Cheers
Wow.
This is getting out of hand. (i guess my fault and not yours)
I posted some links to some good information\videos on the state of the economy and the principles of free market,
and at the end of my post wanted to reference some quotes from the guy who helped coin our system of funny-money economics to illustrate the destructive potential of such a system.
In so doing, i made the evidently HUGE mistake of daring to hazard an inference about the motives of a dead man. OOPS
Anyhow.
Here is the EXACT quote:
So, see. He was referencing and AGREEING with Lenin. Then he expounded on and added upon that base.
I care NOT to further speculate on the motives of Keynes himself.
The ONLY point i was attempting to direct attention to was the FACT that Keynes, even though he devised the current inflationary mechanism of central banking, was KEENLY aware of its potential for DESTROYING the very system it was meant to support!
THAT was my only intended point.
EVEN THE GUY WHO MADE IT thought it was a flawed system that caused unecessary, very certain, and WICKED suffering.
As to your question about "bankers" and communism,
YES, i propose they would LOVE communism.
Why?
Because the "state" would have the largest control over resource distribution,
and THEY would have HUGE influence over the state.
That is, ASSUMING the state functioned on a FIAT currency, and that THEY controlled the ISSUANCE of that currency.
This would DEFAULT to being true under the current (and expanding) notion of a GLOBAL CENTRAL BANK (IMF\World bank)
Remember, there is no greater customer than a government that is IN DEBT to you.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
in my world communist governmets seized the banks not the other way around...
and "bankers" wouldn't gain anything from being in control over the money supply, because outside the respective country, the money is worthless (ever exchanged dollars with rubels?)...and INSIDE the respective country...there's not much you can buy really...ever actually read something about real communism not the theoretical one?
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
No, I don't think it's getting out of hand but actually getting to the crux of the matter: credibility of sources backing whatever claim. And I mean ALL, mainstream, alternative, offical and unofficial
You posted links on Ron Paul, which I checked for general update and information - so far, so good.
Then you also claim that Keynes wanted to destroy capitalism, which was news to me and I first thought it might have been a misunderstanding of the word socialist and communist (which can happen especially because of the different history in the States).
So, I wanted to find out why you claimed that and checked your other links because I might have missed something too. After all, there have been members of the British upper classes, Cambridge graduates too, who supported communism and actively worked against the West and the capitalist system (have you heard of the Cambridge Five?)
But the first link about Keynes was a clearly biased-sourced, focusing on homosexual experiences and bolshevism, when a simple reference to Wiki shows the inaccuracies of the facts posted on that biased source.
Besides, what's the relevance of one's sexual preference to the validity of one's ideas? None. You agreed with that, but then made a reference to the fact he travelled to Africa for little boys.
Again, so what? this has nothing to do with his ideas.
After all, even the Church with all its opposition to homosexuality still embraced Aristotle's ideas - and for centuries - as the foundation of its theology, and Aristotle was a pederast, and that was common practice in Ancient Greece.
Thanks for posting the full quote.So, yes, I see Keynes quotes Lenin and agrees with him on that aspect of his critique of the capitalist system. But so what? It does not logically follow that he also advocates the overthrow of the capitalist system.
Where does he say that?
Besides, history and his own personal life does not back up that claim, for a start. He even made money out of the capitalist system as an investor, so how did he destroy it?
From Wikipedia: "Keynes was ultimately a successful investor, building up a substantial private fortune. He was nearly wiped out following the Stock Market Crash of 1929, but he soon recouped his fortune."
Again, you can support a system even if you are aware of its flaws. It does not follow that you by default want to destroy it because of these flaws.
I don't know anything about FIAT currency so I will have to research it before I can comment on it.
I just mentioned to you Soviet Russia because that's one example of a real historical communist experiment lasted 70 years or so. Have bankers profited from state-ownership of resources there? That should be a starting point of your hypothesis and assumption that bankers will benefit from communism.
And if not Soviet Russia, check more contemporary examples of communist regismes (Cuba or North Korea and China and its hybrid communist/capitalist system) then you can see if your proposition is backed up.
As I respected your viewpoint and checked it for validity (the whole open-mindedness and test for credibility issue), you should also check my references to see if they hold any water.
Finally, I appreciate the sober discussion
EDIT - I don't mean to sound patronising and I appreciate that you have an open and inquisitive mind. (And whether one is a scholar or not is completely irrelevant to that. I only asked you for the primary source quote as an alternative to that biased article about Keynes. It wasn't meant as a dig to you. Apologies if it came across that way.) I just think one should verify all sources, see the bigger picture and not jump to conclusions. That's all. Cheers
As for the rest of it, I refer to lgt, who seems to already be saying what I might have.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965