Former Texas congressman Ron Paul has been a track star, flight surgeon, obstetrician, author, political theorist, and presidential candidate. Now he has written a book about American education. What motivated him to do so, and when did he develop an interest in curriculum, education technology, and pedagogy?
The answer, he explains in his preface to The School Revolution, is rooted in his personal experiences as a young student in the 1940s and 50s. Dr. Paul was educated in a small public school in a suburb of Pittsburgh. He explains that he grew up when the “federal government was not yet endowed with the authority to keep us safe from ourselves,” which is to say, when the messianic character of American education had not yet set out to secularize the youth, condition them to accept the ideals and principles of Statism, and divorce them from the canons and foundations of Western Civilization. The young Paul was instructed in prayer and the Bible and never saw his peers use drugs or commit crimes more serious than skipping recess or gym class.
Paul excelled in math and would finish assignments before the other students could. “The sooner I finished,” he remarks, “the longer I could loaf while waiting for everyone to catch up, all the while probably making noise and interrupting others.” The hours he spent waiting on his peers caused him, later in life, to realize that “it would have been better for the school to adapt the teaching scenario to each student’s ability—something now well understood in homeschooling.”
Dr. Paul’s book is not an autobiography, despite what its opening pages might suggest. It is, rather, as its title declares, nothing less than a call to revolution. Dr. Paul says as much: “Because I see my work for liberty as extending far beyond politics, and because I see that freedom is not divisible, I offer this book as the second phase of the revolution.” The first phase of the revolution, to which he dedicated his career, was political (see, for instance, his 2008 book The Revolution), but this second phase is educational and, in that sense, foundational—for one must be educated in liberty before one may become an ambassador for liberty.
Government schools cannot cultivate the wisdom and freethinking necessary to achieve such education, for their very existence is antithetical to liberty. Against government schooling, which seeks always to validate its powers and hence to authorize the taxation and spending that sustain it, Dr. Paul presents “a libertarian view of education, from kindergarten through high school and college.” He submits that the stakes are higher in education than in taxation because “future voters are trained in the principles of who should decide on taxes.” In other words, one must learn to be aware of organized State theft (taxation) before one can effectively oppose organized State theft; however, one cannot, or cannot easily, learn about the dangers of the State from a State-sponsored system that seeks to train students into unthinking worship of the State.
Government schooling is premised on the false notion that every child can achieve the same level of success if only increased funding and nationalized curricula were mandated. This ideal and its cult of followers, the most ingenuous, well-meaning of whom are decent and moral yet misguided and indoctrinated teachers and parents, have only served to delay the maturity and personal responsibility of the youth while instilling in students a dangerous sense of entitlement: when students fail, the teachers are at fault; when students cannot complete their homework, the homework is too difficult; when books are too long, the authors failed to account for their readers’ attention span.
The cumulative effect of these pedagogical errors is that students come to college with no plans for their future and with little appreciation for, or understanding of, the costs of their education. Once they incur student loan debts, they turn to the State to bail them out through “loan forgiveness” programs based on “civil” or “public” service. The predatory State thereby ensures and expands its power by making perpetual, infantilized dependents of the youth, who in turn pass along the inculcated values of Statism to the next generation.
Only in the hands of the central planners, those elite missionaries for Statism, could this massive, bureaucratic deformation and ideological transformation come about. “[T]he modern welfare state,” Dr. Paul says on this score, “is premised on the view that individuals are not fully responsible for their actions, and therefore they do not deserve extensive liberty.” He adds that the “welfare state winds up treating adults as if they were children,” for just as “children are not granted a great deal of liberty of action by their parents, so the modern welfare state constantly expands its authority over the lives of individuals.” The more massive and more paternalistic the government education system becomes, the less mature the students become, and the further behind they fall in their competition with students of other nations.
By contrast, Dr. Paul proclaims, “[l]iberty is inescapably associated with responsibility.” Therefore, he reasons, “as individuals mature, they must accept greater personal responsibility for their actions.” Indeed, “there can be no extension of liberty without an accompanying extension of personal responsibility.” If modernity taught us anything, it was that the “most meaningful way to improve the world is to free up the creativity of individuals.” Too often our textbooks depict the history of Western Civilization as progressing in intelligence and creativity when humans were liberated from the constraints of the church—Stephen Greenblatt’s The Swerve: How the World Became Modern comes to mind, although it isn’t a textbook—but something quite different is the case: the sciences and the arts flourish when they are disentangled from State interference. Even the most memorable and talented preachers, saints, and theologians thrived when the church was liberated from the corruption and oversight of government.
If Dr. Paul had limited his commentary in this book to the descriptive—that is, to the cataloguing and categorizing of failures in the government education system—then readers would be in for a gloomy account. Yet he recommends exciting, profound alternatives to Statist education and advocates for rigorous leadership training “grounded in a system of cause and effect that rewards productivity, as assessed by consumers, and [that] promotes voluntary transactions and institutions.” He urges readers to support homeschooling, an increased role for Web-based technologies in the classroom, rivaling education systems in which parents choose to place their children, the restoration of family-based practices and curricula, and drastic cost-cutting or more localized funding to finance measures in keeping with community values.
No longer should parents be forced to subsidize a flawed educational system that seeks to undermine family values and capitalism that together have done more than anything else to elevate the quality of life among all classes in all places, alleviate poverty, generate innovation and creativity, develop the humanities, facilitate wider access to basic healthcare and medicine, and expand general human happiness. This book, in conjunction with the Ron Paul Curriculum, redirects us to the family and capitalism and attempts to correct decades of educational regression. As the proverb says, “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he should not depart from it.” The School Revolution offers the children a direction in which they should go. Now let us train them.
Tuesday
A WELCOME US/SAUDI RESET
Last week it was reported that Saudi Arabia decided to make a “major shift” away from its 80 years of close cooperation with the United States. The Saudi leadership is angry that the Obama administration did not attack Syria last month, and that it has not delivered heavy weapons to the Syrian rebels fighting to overthrow the Assad government. Saudi Arabia is heavily invested in the overthrow of the Assad government in Syria, sending money and weapons to the rebels.
However, it was the recent diplomatic opening between the United States and Iran that most infuriated the Saudis. Saudi Arabia is strongly opposed to the Iranian government and has vigorously lobbied the US Congress to maintain sanctions and other pressure on Iran. Like Israel, the Saudis are fearful of any US diplomacy with Iran.
This additional strain in US/Saudi relations came at the 40 year anniversary of the Arab oil embargo of the US over its support of Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war. At the time, the embargo caused quite a bit of trouble for Americans, including gas shortages and long lines at the filling stations. A repeat of this move, however, would not have the same effect on the US economy. Though it would not be desired, these are not the 1970s and oil is now a more fungible commodity no longer solely in Arab hands.
Why does Saudi Arabia insist that the United States fight its battles? The Saudis are strongly opposed to the governments in Syria and Iran so they expect the US to attack. It is their neighborhood, why don’t they fight their own wars? Israel shares the same position in the region as Saudi Arabia: it has been fighting to overthrow Assad in Syria for years, and Israeli leadership constantly pushes the US toward war on Iran. They are both working on the same side of these issues but why do they keep trying to draw us in?
We have unwritten agreements to defend Saudi Arabia and Israel, which keeps us heavily involved militarily in the Middle East. But when the US becomes so involved, we are the real losers—especially the American taxpayers, who are forced to finance this global military empire. Plus, our security guarantee to Saudi Arabia and Israel creates a kind of moral hazard: there is little incentive for these two countries to push for more peaceful solutions in the region because the US military underwrites their reckless behavior. It is an unhealthy relationship that should come to an end.
If Saudi Arabia and Israel are so determined to extend their influence in the region and share such similar goals, why don’t they work together to stabilize the region without calling on the US for back-up? It might be healthy for them to cooperate and leave us out of it.
One of Osama bin Laden’s stated goals was to bankrupt the US by drawing it into endless battles in the Middle East and south Asia. Unfortunately, even from beyond the grave he continues to successfully implement his policy. But should we really be helping him do so? If Saudi Arabia wants to pull back from its deep and unhealthy relationship with the United States we should welcome such a move. Then we might return to peace and commerce rather than sink under entangling alliances.
However, it was the recent diplomatic opening between the United States and Iran that most infuriated the Saudis. Saudi Arabia is strongly opposed to the Iranian government and has vigorously lobbied the US Congress to maintain sanctions and other pressure on Iran. Like Israel, the Saudis are fearful of any US diplomacy with Iran.
This additional strain in US/Saudi relations came at the 40 year anniversary of the Arab oil embargo of the US over its support of Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war. At the time, the embargo caused quite a bit of trouble for Americans, including gas shortages and long lines at the filling stations. A repeat of this move, however, would not have the same effect on the US economy. Though it would not be desired, these are not the 1970s and oil is now a more fungible commodity no longer solely in Arab hands.
Why does Saudi Arabia insist that the United States fight its battles? The Saudis are strongly opposed to the governments in Syria and Iran so they expect the US to attack. It is their neighborhood, why don’t they fight their own wars? Israel shares the same position in the region as Saudi Arabia: it has been fighting to overthrow Assad in Syria for years, and Israeli leadership constantly pushes the US toward war on Iran. They are both working on the same side of these issues but why do they keep trying to draw us in?
We have unwritten agreements to defend Saudi Arabia and Israel, which keeps us heavily involved militarily in the Middle East. But when the US becomes so involved, we are the real losers—especially the American taxpayers, who are forced to finance this global military empire. Plus, our security guarantee to Saudi Arabia and Israel creates a kind of moral hazard: there is little incentive for these two countries to push for more peaceful solutions in the region because the US military underwrites their reckless behavior. It is an unhealthy relationship that should come to an end.
If Saudi Arabia and Israel are so determined to extend their influence in the region and share such similar goals, why don’t they work together to stabilize the region without calling on the US for back-up? It might be healthy for them to cooperate and leave us out of it.
One of Osama bin Laden’s stated goals was to bankrupt the US by drawing it into endless battles in the Middle East and south Asia. Unfortunately, even from beyond the grave he continues to successfully implement his policy. But should we really be helping him do so? If Saudi Arabia wants to pull back from its deep and unhealthy relationship with the United States we should welcome such a move. Then we might return to peace and commerce rather than sink under entangling alliances.
Monday
DEBT CEILING DEAL: D.C. WINS, AMERICANS LOSE by RON PAUL
Washington, DC, Wall Street, and central bankers around the world
rejoiced this week as Congress came to an agreement to end the
government shutdown and lift the debt ceiling. The latest
spending-and-debt deal was negotiated by Congressional leaders behind
closed doors, and was rushed through Congress before most members had
time to read it. Now that the bill is passed, we can see that it is a
victory for the political class and special interests, but a defeat for
the American people.
The debt ceiling deal increases spending above the levels set by the “sequester.” The sequester cuts were minuscule, and in many cases used the old DC trick of calling reductions in planned spending increases a cut. But even minuscule and phony cuts are unacceptable to the bipartisan welfare-warfare spending collation. The bill also does nothing to protect the American people from the Obamacare disaster.
As is common in bills drafted in secret and rushed into law, this bill contains special deals for certain powerful politicians. The bill even has a provision authorizing continued military aid to opponents of the Ugandan “Lord’s Resistance Army,” which was the subject of the widely-viewed “Kony 2012” YouTube videos.
Most of these unrelated provisions did not come to public attention until after the bill was passed and signed into law.
Members of Congress and the public were told the debt ceiling increase was necessary to prevent a government default and an economic crisis. This manufactured fear supposedly justified voting on legislation without allowing members time to even read it, much less to remove the special deals or even debate the wisdom of intervening in overseas military conflicts because of a YouTube video.
Congress should have ignored the hysterics. A failure to increase government’s borrowing authority would not lead to a default any more that an individual's failure to get a credit card limit increase in would mean they would have to declare bankruptcy. Instead, the failure of either an individual or a government to obtain new borrowing authority would force the individual or the government to live within their means, and may even force them to finally reduce their spending. Most people would say it is irresponsible to give a spendthrift, debit-ridden individual a credit increase. Why then is it responsible to give an irresponsible spendthrift government an increase in borrowing authority?
Congress surrendered more power to the president in this bill. Instead of setting a new debt ceiling, it simply “suspended” the debt ceiling until February. This gives the administration a blank check to run up as much debt as it pleases from now until February 7th. Congress can “disapprove” the debt ceiling suspension, but only if it passes a resolution of disapproval by a two-thirds majority. How long before Congress totally abdicates its constitutional authority over spending by allowing the Treasury permanent and unlimited authority to borrow money without seeking Congressional approval?
Instead of seriously addressing the spending crisis, most in Congress would rather engage in last-minute brinksmanship and backroom deals instead of taking the necessary action to reign in spending. Congress will only take serious steps to reduce spending when either a critical mass of Americans pressures it to cut spending, or when investors and foreign countries stop buying US government debt. Hopefully, those of us who understand sound economics can convince enough of our fellow citizens to pressure Congress to make serious spending cuts before Congress’s reckless actions cause a total economic collapse.
The debt ceiling deal increases spending above the levels set by the “sequester.” The sequester cuts were minuscule, and in many cases used the old DC trick of calling reductions in planned spending increases a cut. But even minuscule and phony cuts are unacceptable to the bipartisan welfare-warfare spending collation. The bill also does nothing to protect the American people from the Obamacare disaster.
As is common in bills drafted in secret and rushed into law, this bill contains special deals for certain powerful politicians. The bill even has a provision authorizing continued military aid to opponents of the Ugandan “Lord’s Resistance Army,” which was the subject of the widely-viewed “Kony 2012” YouTube videos.
Most of these unrelated provisions did not come to public attention until after the bill was passed and signed into law.
Members of Congress and the public were told the debt ceiling increase was necessary to prevent a government default and an economic crisis. This manufactured fear supposedly justified voting on legislation without allowing members time to even read it, much less to remove the special deals or even debate the wisdom of intervening in overseas military conflicts because of a YouTube video.
Congress should have ignored the hysterics. A failure to increase government’s borrowing authority would not lead to a default any more that an individual's failure to get a credit card limit increase in would mean they would have to declare bankruptcy. Instead, the failure of either an individual or a government to obtain new borrowing authority would force the individual or the government to live within their means, and may even force them to finally reduce their spending. Most people would say it is irresponsible to give a spendthrift, debit-ridden individual a credit increase. Why then is it responsible to give an irresponsible spendthrift government an increase in borrowing authority?
Congress surrendered more power to the president in this bill. Instead of setting a new debt ceiling, it simply “suspended” the debt ceiling until February. This gives the administration a blank check to run up as much debt as it pleases from now until February 7th. Congress can “disapprove” the debt ceiling suspension, but only if it passes a resolution of disapproval by a two-thirds majority. How long before Congress totally abdicates its constitutional authority over spending by allowing the Treasury permanent and unlimited authority to borrow money without seeking Congressional approval?
Instead of seriously addressing the spending crisis, most in Congress would rather engage in last-minute brinksmanship and backroom deals instead of taking the necessary action to reign in spending. Congress will only take serious steps to reduce spending when either a critical mass of Americans pressures it to cut spending, or when investors and foreign countries stop buying US government debt. Hopefully, those of us who understand sound economics can convince enough of our fellow citizens to pressure Congress to make serious spending cuts before Congress’s reckless actions cause a total economic collapse.
Sunday
WHAT I THINK........JON RAPPORT
From a certain angle, history
could be called the sum of succeeding limited solutions to basic
problems. The result is a pile and a mess, which appears to have no
exit, except more limited solutions.
On and on it goes.
You hear people say, “WELL, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, the only thing we can do now is X.”
In other words, things are so far gone, so muddled, there can be no going back to the original basic problem. There can be no working on the basic problem. The basic problem is buried so deep, it can’t be retrieved and resolved.
Imagine a nation whose people, over the course of a few hundred years, have undergone a vast reduction in intelligence. At this point, a small group asserts, “If we few, who have somehow retained our IQ, want to communicate with these morons, we’ll have to deploy horrifically simplified language and ideas. We’ll have to bring them, one tiny step at a time, toward an even rudimentary consciousness about life, current affairs, and situations that need repair.”
“Only limited solutions will work.”
But this doesn’t pan out. It only serves to make things worse. The morons inevitably pervert these limited solutions and parlay them into more problems. Each glint of light turns into a cloud of darkness.
The history of public relations reveals these developments. Finding simpler and simpler ways to reach audiences, PR people discover they have to resort to more infantile strategies, because the audience is becoming more brain-addled.
No, it turns out that the way to resolve all this is to return to the beginning, where the corruption first took place.
That’s the place where individual freedom, power, imagination, and the desire for uncompromising justice were bent and twisted.
Returning to the beginning works because people never really forget. They try to, they pretend to, but they don’t.
Somewhere down deep, they recall freedom and power and they want it again. Somewhere down deep, they aren’t morons at all.
If you can strike THERE, astonishing things can happen. A tremendous amount of spoilage and degradation and passivity can ignite and burn off.
But this requires faith, and it requires the knowledge that time (opportunity) is endless. There is no deadline, despite all appearances.
This also requires realizing that offering limited solutions geared to severely limited minds accomplishes exactly the opposite of what you want.
There is a further temptation. Often it is the limited solution that has backing, money, significant support, whereas striking at the heart of the problem and addressing it begins to pay dividends with only a whisper of a few people.
Imagine this: In the year 2982, all 600 million Americans are getting their food from Government Central bins. Instead of taking five of these people out to a farm in the wild and showing them food at its source, in nature, emerging from the earth in the rain and sun, you decide the way to go is:
“Let’s try to wean 500 million people away from the packets of ketchup at Central. It’s a start. If we can do that, then we might be able to show them the mayo is a bad idea. And then we can work on revelations about the fries…”
But lo and behold, this doesn’t yield positive results. People don’t seem to care about attacks on ketchup. They yawn and tear open the packets and squeeze the red stuff on their fedburgers.
“Well,” you say, “maybe we aimed too high. Let’s go slower. Let’s reboot and attack aspartame packets for the coffee. You see, people can always resort to sugar. They have an option. Let’s promote sugar, not aspartame…”
But again, nothing. No results.
Whereas, if you said, GOVERNMENT CENTRAL FOOD IS EVIL AND AN ASSAULT ON YOUR FREEDOM, a few people, at first, would wake up to the basic problem. A small spark, but one that travels deep.
Now you’re dealing with the subconscious memory of all 500 million people, where the desire for freedom still lives, where instinctive knowledge of what’s evil still resides.
Despite media attacks on Ron Paul, despite arguments about his credentials, his past record, his “horrendous” potential to steal votes from Republican candidates, when he said LET’S BRING ALL OUR TROOPS HOME FROM AROUND THE WORLD NOW, a hundred thousand people started to wake up that day.
“What are we doing with all those soldiers of ours? Why are they overseas in hundreds of places? What the hell is this? What’s our agenda? BRING THEM HOME. The Constitution specifies military force for direct defense of the United States, that’s all. BRING THEM ALL HOME.”
Paul didn’t say, “I believe we can soon initiate a partial draw down of troops in the area surrounding Kabul, given that our effort to build A-frames and swimming pools in Afghan villages are bearing fruit…”
The method of limited solution is a mirror of what the individual tends to do with his own mind. He looks for potential answers that swim across the surface, answers that appear clever, “in light of what he’s dealing with.”
As opposed to going to the place where his freedom and power live.
On and on it goes.
You hear people say, “WELL, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, the only thing we can do now is X.”
In other words, things are so far gone, so muddled, there can be no going back to the original basic problem. There can be no working on the basic problem. The basic problem is buried so deep, it can’t be retrieved and resolved.
Imagine a nation whose people, over the course of a few hundred years, have undergone a vast reduction in intelligence. At this point, a small group asserts, “If we few, who have somehow retained our IQ, want to communicate with these morons, we’ll have to deploy horrifically simplified language and ideas. We’ll have to bring them, one tiny step at a time, toward an even rudimentary consciousness about life, current affairs, and situations that need repair.”
“Only limited solutions will work.”
But this doesn’t pan out. It only serves to make things worse. The morons inevitably pervert these limited solutions and parlay them into more problems. Each glint of light turns into a cloud of darkness.
The history of public relations reveals these developments. Finding simpler and simpler ways to reach audiences, PR people discover they have to resort to more infantile strategies, because the audience is becoming more brain-addled.
No, it turns out that the way to resolve all this is to return to the beginning, where the corruption first took place.
That’s the place where individual freedom, power, imagination, and the desire for uncompromising justice were bent and twisted.
Returning to the beginning works because people never really forget. They try to, they pretend to, but they don’t.
Somewhere down deep, they recall freedom and power and they want it again. Somewhere down deep, they aren’t morons at all.
If you can strike THERE, astonishing things can happen. A tremendous amount of spoilage and degradation and passivity can ignite and burn off.
But this requires faith, and it requires the knowledge that time (opportunity) is endless. There is no deadline, despite all appearances.
This also requires realizing that offering limited solutions geared to severely limited minds accomplishes exactly the opposite of what you want.
There is a further temptation. Often it is the limited solution that has backing, money, significant support, whereas striking at the heart of the problem and addressing it begins to pay dividends with only a whisper of a few people.
Imagine this: In the year 2982, all 600 million Americans are getting their food from Government Central bins. Instead of taking five of these people out to a farm in the wild and showing them food at its source, in nature, emerging from the earth in the rain and sun, you decide the way to go is:
“Let’s try to wean 500 million people away from the packets of ketchup at Central. It’s a start. If we can do that, then we might be able to show them the mayo is a bad idea. And then we can work on revelations about the fries…”
But lo and behold, this doesn’t yield positive results. People don’t seem to care about attacks on ketchup. They yawn and tear open the packets and squeeze the red stuff on their fedburgers.
“Well,” you say, “maybe we aimed too high. Let’s go slower. Let’s reboot and attack aspartame packets for the coffee. You see, people can always resort to sugar. They have an option. Let’s promote sugar, not aspartame…”
But again, nothing. No results.
Whereas, if you said, GOVERNMENT CENTRAL FOOD IS EVIL AND AN ASSAULT ON YOUR FREEDOM, a few people, at first, would wake up to the basic problem. A small spark, but one that travels deep.
Now you’re dealing with the subconscious memory of all 500 million people, where the desire for freedom still lives, where instinctive knowledge of what’s evil still resides.
Despite media attacks on Ron Paul, despite arguments about his credentials, his past record, his “horrendous” potential to steal votes from Republican candidates, when he said LET’S BRING ALL OUR TROOPS HOME FROM AROUND THE WORLD NOW, a hundred thousand people started to wake up that day.
“What are we doing with all those soldiers of ours? Why are they overseas in hundreds of places? What the hell is this? What’s our agenda? BRING THEM HOME. The Constitution specifies military force for direct defense of the United States, that’s all. BRING THEM ALL HOME.”
Paul didn’t say, “I believe we can soon initiate a partial draw down of troops in the area surrounding Kabul, given that our effort to build A-frames and swimming pools in Afghan villages are bearing fruit…”
The method of limited solution is a mirror of what the individual tends to do with his own mind. He looks for potential answers that swim across the surface, answers that appear clever, “in light of what he’s dealing with.”
As opposed to going to the place where his freedom and power live.
Friday
RON PAUL INTERVIEW WITH BUZZFEED'S ANDREW KACZYNSKI
Ron
Paul doesn’t know what twerking is and he doesn’t care. Neither do his
often-young libertarian-minded fans who enjoy his new venture the Ron Paul
Channel. The retired congressman who spoke to BuzzFeed Monday was the same
Federal Reserve-bashing, anti-government spending Paul as always, but seemed a
bit more relaxed now that he’s free from the constant call of Washington.
1. Meet the Ron Paul Channel, Paul’s new grab-bag
anything-goes outlet for expressing his views on a routine basis. You can
subscribe, for just $9.95 a month.
“I
want to have a channel where people can come together, have a take on the news
that’d be different from what they can expect from any major network or almost
anything they see on TV. Like, this morning I did a commentary on some articles
that showed up over the weekend,” Paul told BuzzFeed, before launching into his
usual “end the Fed” rhetoric that so many have come to know him for.
“Not
exactly what you would hear on the evening news,” says Paul of the expected Fed
critique you would see on his channel. “My goal was to talk about economic
policy, monetary policy, all the spending, the attack on our civil liberties,
and also the foreign policy, which would be not unique entirely but different
from what you would see on the television. And people who are seeking more
information, and a more truthful approach to the news would get it from our
channel.”
2. Paul said he doesn’t know if his
high-profile son, Kentucky senator and possible presidential hopeful Rand Paul,
watches his channel. Paul said he’s never even asked him.
“Oh,
I don’t know. I’ve never asked him. He’s so busy. I can’t watch all his
YouTubes, because he’s on so many and I have my thing, so, my guess would be he
wouldn’t have time to but he was on the channel,” Paul said. “His schedule and
mine do not overlap, we sort of keep up, but not on a daily basis.”
3. And Paul’s not worried about opposition
researchers digging through his channel to find tidbits to attack his son
should Rand decide to run for president. He doesn’t think it could get any
worse than what people have already found.
“Couldn’t
be any worse than they’ve already done. He’s already vulnerable — you know,
it’s a mixed blessing for him because I think any individual who’s been in
public life, there’s gross distortions and exaggerations, and they’re out
there, and they’ve already been used against him. At the same time, the freedom
movement, I’ve been closely associated with it, and there’s a large number of
people involved and I was able to help him with fundraising and get him started
on the Senate race. So yeah, it has to be mixed, but a lot of politics is that
way. You have advantages and disadvantages.”
4. For Paul, leaving Congress has been a time
to relax and do the things he didn’t have the time to do as a member of
Congress.
“It’s
been really quite enjoyable because my time is more my own. I’ve gotten to go
to the universities. I’ve been to several universities, and I like talking to
young people who are interested in the freedom philosophy as well as Austrian
economics. So I’ve traveled. I’ve got a book out on homeschooling. I’ve got the
channel started. I do some radio. And it’s just something that is on my time.
Also, one of my former staffers helped me get started on a new institute. The
Institute for Peace And Prosperity, which concentrates on foreign policy. So my
activities have probably been busier. Before, a lot of time consumed but not
really accomplishing a whole lot by running back and forth and going at the
behest of the speaker. So now I don’t have to do that and have more time to do
the things that I enjoy doing.”
5. Paul also said Rand’s done eye exams on
him, correcting this reporter, who originally misstated that his son was a
previously a dentist.
“Before
he was in politics, if my wife and I stopped in to see the family in Kentucky
we’d have our eyes checked. It would save me a visit to an ophthalmologist down
here because I don’t have any problems, but there’s a history of glaucoma in
the family, so it’s best to get the pressures checked. He’s done those
examinations on me.”
6. Paul doesn’t have high hopes for Janet
Yellen.
7. He also thinks it’s “fantastic” the
neo-conservatives lost on Syria, not to mention that he’s not so sure the rise
of the libertarian wing of Republican Party means they’re disappearing — they
could just be biding their time until the next conflict.
“They
won’t go away quietly, they’re still there. All they need is some excuse and
they’ll be back in it if there’s some serious confrontation in the Middle
East,” Paul said. “I thought it was just fantastic that the neo-cons lost the
public debate about bombing Syria and planning a war for Iran. And now they’re
negotiating, making an effort to talk to the Iranians in the first time in all
these years. I think it’s fantastic, but the neo-cons definitely have a
setback, but I think they’re going to be around for a long time. They’re just
looking for another excuse. The 9/11 episode certainly gave them their excuse
to do what they’ve been wanting to do all along. They’re the ones who had the
Patriot Act sitting around for years, waiting for the opportunity, and they’ve
also wanted to remake the Middle East. They’ve done a good job of remaking it,
but it turns out it’s a lot worse now than it was before they started. Just
think of how many people have been killed and how much money we’ve spent.”8. And twerking? Paul doesn’t know what it is. He doesn’t care either because he says his viewers and fans care about the big picture, not the little things.
“When
I’m totally oblivious to those very important things that people your age love,
they don’t hold it against me because they know that the system I’m interested
in, freedom of choice and freedom to allow people to have their own social
values, they understand that. So I think they get a big charge out of the fact
that I’m the last guy in the world that would ever be involved with marijuana
and then yet I’m the champion of legalizing drugs. I think it gives that
movement some creditability, because I don’t have ulterior motive. My guess is
they don’t hold that against me and they think it’s rather neat. But I know a
lot more than I did a few years ago.”
9. Glenn Greenwald, Julian Assange, and Jesse
Ventura have all been on his channel already. Now he’s eyeing to bring on one
of his most famous supporters.
“Maybe
someday I will get one of my supporters who donated money to me, Edward
Snowden. Maybe he’ll come on the show. Who knows.”
REVISITED INTERVIEW WITH LEW ROCKWELL (PODCAST 356)
ROCKWELL:
Good morning. This is the Lew Rockwell Show. And what an honor it
is to have as our guest, Dr.
Ron Paul. What do we say about Dr. Paul? Because I could take
up the entire podcast just describing — (laughing) — his qualifications and his
achievements and not even begin to go over them. I’ll just simply say
he’s the great leader for liberty and for free markets, Austrian economics, who
has influenced millions of people all over the world, young people especially.
So, Ron, it’s great to have you with
us. And I thought we’d get started by talking about your wonderful last
column where you discussed the Neo-Cons, the people who seem to want perpetual
war, the role of Bill Kristol and similar intellectuals in promoting the
warfare state and the empire.
PAUL:
Yeah, Kristol had written this recent article and he was lamenting the fact
that the problem with Americans is they get war weary. Yeah, after 10
years or more –
(LAUGHTER)
– and many, many deaths and hundreds of
thousands of people suffering and an epidemic of suicides. Yeah, and
people getting sick and tired of it, and he’s crying about it. But he
goes in and tries to expand on this that we didn’t even end World War II
right. You know, we didn’t fight Vietnam long enough; 60,000 lives lost
weren’t enough. So he goes on and on. But, hopefully, he’ll lose
credibility. Unfortunately, the Neo-Cons have a lot to say about the war
propaganda that gets out and converts the people into a pro-war stance.
But maybe he’s over the top this time. But I’m not holding my breath
because, so often, the American people start off being quite opposed to a war.
I mean, just look at the Iraqi War. You know, 60% to 70% of the people
were opposed to it and then the war propagandists, the Neo-Cons came in and
changed that. Even before World War II, most Americans were opposed to us
getting involved until things were orchestrated in a certain way that the
people more or less had to join in.
But, no, I think the Neo-Con should lose
credibility, which means that he doesn’t want us to ever leave Iraq, ever leave
Afghanistan. He wants us to continue to build up in Syria. And he’s
the kind of guy that’s anxious for us to march on to Iran. And it’s
scary. I wish the people would wake up.
But I’m sort of subtly optimistic that this
will have to end, in a sad sort of way, in one sense, in that this country will
be bankrupt and will have to quit. More of less, how the Soviets had to
give up their empire. So maybe some good can come out of a bit of a
financial crisis that will come. And we have to admit that this financial
crisis has been perpetuated and accentuated by the fact that we spend all this
money on the military and on all these useless wars.
ROCKWELL:
You know, it’s interesting, the Kristols of earlier times, of course, used to
complain about war weariness, too. But it began much earlier, before the
Federal Reserve, because people were simply being taxed. So they got sick
and tired of the high taxes for wars as well as all the other reasons that, of
course, they should have been against the wars. So it’s very difficult
for governments to
maintain these long-term wars.
With the coming of the Fed, they can just print up the money for the defense
budget. There’s not even — I mean, I remember when they were going to war
against Iraq or whatever, except for you, nobody was raising the question of
costs. I mean, how much was this thing going to cost in addition to the
moral and other issues having to do with war? Because, you know, they
just phoned Greenspan and he turned on the printing presses.
PAUL:
That’s what’s so sinister about, you know, the Federal Reserve accommodating
the warmongers is that the payment is delayed. There’s no doubt it’s a
benefit to those who want to perpetuate and promote big government, whether
it’s for welfare or the warfare. A direct tax to make people pay for
these wars would bring it to a halt a lot sooner. But it’s very
convenient to put it off. Then nobody knows exactly who the victims
are. Even the victims don’t realize it, you know, that their cost of
living is going up. And then they’re convinced, oh, it’s those rich
people, it’s the oil people; they’re gouging us, everybody is gouging us with
high prices. It’s never the government’s fault, nor is it the fault of
the mentality that supports these endless wars and endless spending and the
printing of money. So they’re interconnected.
And you know me well enough to know that,
when I first started, I talked a lot more about — you know, economics motivated
me, you know, during the ’70s and the Bretton Woods and that sort of
thing. But as years went on, I became more and more convinced of the
interrelationship with financing these wars, how it’s related to the financial
system, not only because of taxes and every penny you spend on militarism comes
out of the peoples’ hide here at home, it hurts the economy. At the same
time, the ability to do this and hide the cost I think is what’s been so
detrimental to this country. But it’s all interconnected.
And that’s why I think the philosophy of
liberty and the things that we have talked about brings us all together.
Whether it’s personal liberty on how people should run their lives or allowing
other countries to solve their own problems, it all comes together once an
individual understands what the concept of personal liberty is all about.
ROCKWELL:
And, Ron, don’t you think — or at least it’s certainly my impression that the
young people that you’ve attracted to these ideas don’t like the wars. I
mean, they don’t like the Fed and they don’t like other things, too. They
don’t like the wars. And maybe they’re realizing as you’re explaining it
to them that, in addition to everything else wrong, they’re being ripped off.
PAUL:
I think that is the case. But, you know, at times, I get praised
for doing such and such with young people and all, but one thing that I hope
I’ve contributed to and that is get conservatives and limited-government
people, Libertarians and people who like the military and supporters of America
in general — have been taught that we should not feel guilty about not being
pro war. And I think this is what the propaganda has
achieved. You know, how many times have they accused me of being
un-American and unpatriotic and I don’t support the troops and this sort of
thing? But there’s no reason in the world why we can’t feel good about
taking this position. And the young people seem to be very receptive to
that. Their instincts, like the instincts I think of most people
initially, is against the war. Then they’re told, well, if you’re not for
the war, you’re not a good person. And I think if they hear the truth, then
they might feel more comfortable.
Sort of like when I discovered Austrian
economics. You know, when I naturally thought free markets were good, I
kept hearing the story, well, no, that’s not good; you have to have a fair
society; you have to have a little redistribution and all that. So I was
delighted when I came across Mises and Hayek and Rothbard because they were
able to explain this to me, that there’s nothing to feel guilty about if you
believe in freedom. And they say, oh, no, you’re just a selfish person
and you just want to — you know, you don’t care about other people, this sort
of thing. But I finally came around to the point where if you do have an
instinct to care about other people, you ought to care about freedom because
that will help the maximum number of people, and the best chance for us to
achieve peace and prosperity.
ROCKWELL:
Ron, do you think that the whole drone warfare business — I guess Obama’s and
the Pentagon’s plans to have eventually thousands of drone bases all around the
world. Is this the way that they’re attempting to counter the fact that
Americans don’t like all the American causalities? Unfortunately, they
tend to care nothing about the foreign casualties.
PAUL:
Yeah.
ROCKWELL:
But they don’t like the American casualties. And this is a way to — you
know, some guy in a basement in Virginia is
sending in the drone in Pakistan, he’s not going to get hurt.
PAUL:
No, I think what they’re trying to have is a neat little system that promotes
the empire without getting their hands dirty. But, you know, it’s not
going to work because we’re in a different system. We’re not fighting
World War II. We’re in a fourth-generational warfare time where wars are
fought differently. And they’re fought differently because it’s not going
to be against government against government. So what could warrant,
incite a people to rebel against certain individuals than being hit with a
drone by somebody who, in many ways, in their eyes, they don’t even have the
guts to look at us in the face and — they do it in secret from thousands of
miles away. And when the individuals are killed, when there’s the
collateral killings and families are killed, how many tens of thousands if not
millions of people are affected like that? You know, the torture goes
on. The pictures have been there. And this just, you know, builds
up the enemy. So the sterile wars with the drones will not solve the
problems of the Neo-Cons who want this world occupation. In many ways,
it’s just going to bury the issue in the sense that it’s going to be more
terrorism and more attacks in this way. But the world will certainly be
less peopled.
And I also predict that all these
individuals who run the drones, they will not be — they will not be able to
avoid some of the backlash on them. Like, we have now a suicide epidemic
because of people going over and doing wars, that they realize they were
killing kids and doing a lot of other things they shouldn’t be doing.
Well, I think the operators of the drones will suffer in a similar way. I
don’t know if there’s any statistics that bear that out yet, but I think
eventually, if they’re a human being and they know, well, I did shoot that
missile and it killed 10 extra people, you know, it can’t help but eventually
bother these people. And they bury these thoughts into their mind.
They’re told it’s OK. They’ve been conditioned that war is wonderful and
good. But deep down inside, there’s a conflict. And I think that’s
why people are struggling and they’re suicidal.
ROCKWELL:
Ron, in support of your position, there was a recent item that the drone
command, or whatever it’s called within the Pentagon, was assigning chaplains
specifically to counsel the drone killers and, of course, to convince them that
everything they were doing was perfectly OK. So obviously, they are
having — as you say, if they have consciences, if they’re human beings, they
can’t feel good about this, unless you’re, of course, a serial killer and a
monster.
PAUL:
You know, they say about 5% — and I don’t know if this is true. They say
about 5% of the people who go into the military are psychopathic, you know, to
begin with because, you know, they just like guns and shooting, and it’s
excitement and all this. Most people go in for different reasons.
But if they withstand — if they are exposed to battle and these kinds of
conditions of killing, after a while, some theorize that they all become, in a
way, psychopathic or, you know, it’s very difficult to handle their
emotions. But I think it’s much more difficult when you’re trying to
adjust to an aggressive war, when we’re the aggressors and not the
defenders. I think it would be a lot easier to adapt to some of the
horrors of World War II because of Pearl Harbor and this sort of thing; and
they adjusted better. But I think people are starting to realize we don’t
have a noble cause over there. You know, it’s just not noble to send our
young people 6,000 miles away. And quite frankly, I’m convinced some of
these young people who didn’t get very far in school and for economic reasons
they resort to going into the military — and they probably don’t even know
their geography that well, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them end up
in some of these countries they’ve probably never heard of or exactly knew what
was going on. And they’re sent over to kill these people. And then
we wonder why there’s a down side to this.
ROCKWELL:
Ron, speaking of down sides, tell us what you think the effects of the whole
Cyprus situation is going to be from the standpoint of the banking industry in
Europe and, for that matter — and, of course, governments, and governments and
banking systems in this country, too?
PAUL:
Well, you know, in a way, it’s hard to take it and say that’s exactly what’s
going to happen to us, but something similar to that will happen. How it
evolves, we don’t know. But in Cyprus, they didn’t do what they did in
Iceland. Iceland allowed a lot of bankruptcies to occur and, evidently, they’re
back on their feet again. So they liquidated debt, which is what should
be the goal of the correction. In Cyprus, you know, there’s a lot of
bailouts. They’re not allowing the real liquidation so it looks like some
of the big guys are going to get bailed out. And the bondholders of the
Greek bonds and different things like this, they’ll get the bailout. But
there was still some liquidation of debt and confiscation of wealth. But
my prediction will be, when you’ve worked all that out, it will be unfair.
It’ll be that — just like our bailouts occurred. There was some
liquidation of our debt in ’08 and ’09. Some people did lose some money.
And it usually was, you know, people that might have had a mortgage and
lost their job and they got the bad part of the deal. And yet, the
wealthy were bailed out.
So I think this is going to continue.
I think the pyramid of debt is still huge. And there’s no stomach for
allowing the liquidation of debt to occur. Politically, it just won’t be
acceptable. It’s always going to be more acceptable to keep the printing
presses running. And as long as the world takes our dollars, we’re going
to keep printing them until the trust is lost. And when that day arrives
— nobody knows exactly when. But I see no foundation to our system.
And each day, like what went on in Iraq, that steadily undermines
confidence. And one day, that’s going to happen worldwide with the
dollar, and that’s going to be really bad news for a lot of us.
ROCKWELL:
Well, I thought it was interesting when that European official announced that
there would be similar haircuts, as they put it, for big depositors in Italy
and Spain. And then, of course, they’re shocked to find out that people
are taking their money out of the banks. And then he’s backtracking, oh,
no, no, no, he didn’t really mean it. But probably not smart to keep huge
amounts of money in a bank account whether you’re an American or a Spaniard or
an Italian or anything else.
PAUL:
Yeah, but weren’t there some reports also in Cyprus that a few of the big
depositors were tipped off — (laughing) — you know –
ROCKWELL:
Yeah, that’s right.
PAUL:
— a little bit early?
ROCKWELL:
That’s right.
PAUL:
And they got their money out. That always seems to happen.
But it’s a very, very fragile system.
And anybody who understands Austrian economics understands that permanent
prosperity cannot be achieved by inflating a currency and pyramiding
debt. And that once it happens and it quits functioning and producing
anything, then you have to clear the market of that. And you have to get
rid of this bad debt so you can start building again. And that
has not been permitted. I guess the last time that truly has happened on
any significant downturn was probably in 1921 here in this country where we
allowed the liquidation to occur. And it wasn’t a prolonged
depression. It’s only been since the Keynesian-type mentality has taken
over that has prolonged these depressions and recessions so long. It’s
been going on in Japan. And they still, right now, believe, well, if we
just print more money, you know, it’s going to happen. But if that were
the case, we wouldn’t have to really work for a living. You know, we
could just print dollars and –
(LAUGHTER)
– and export dollars. So right now,
that’s our best export.
ROCKWELL:
Well, Ron Paul, thanks so much for coming on the show today and sharing your
wisdom. And great to hear from you.
PAUL:
Great to talk to you, Lew.
ROCKWELL:
Bye-bye.
PAUL:
Bye.
Sunday
NEW FED BOSS SAME AS THE OLD ONE by RON PAUL
The news that Janet Yellen was nominated to become the next Chairman of
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System was greeted with
joy by financial markets and the financial press. Wall Street saw
Yellen's nomination as a harbinger of continued easy money. Contrast
this with the hand-wringing that took place when Larry Summers' name was
still in the running. Pundits worried that Summers would be too
cautious, too hawkish on inflation, or too close to big banks.
The reality is that there wouldn't have been a dime's worth of difference between Yellen's and Summers' monetary policy. No matter who is at the top, the conduct of monetary policy will be largely unchanged: large-scale money printing to bail out big banks. There may be some fiddling around the edges, but any monetary policy changes will be in style only, not in substance.
Yellen, like Bernanke, Summers, and everyone else within the Fed's orbit, believes in Keynesian economics. To economists of Yellen's persuasion, the solution to recession is to stimulate spending by creating more money. Wall Street need not worry about tapering of the Fed's massive program of quantitative easing under Yellen's reign. If anything, the Fed's trillion dollars of yearly money creation may even increase.
What is obvious to most people not captured by the system is that the Fed's loose monetary policy was the root cause of the current financial crisis. Just like the Great Depression, the stagflation of the 1970s, and every other recession of the past century, the current crisis resulted from the creation of money and credit by the Federal Reserve, which led to unsustainable economic booms.
Rather than allowing the malinvestments and bad debts caused by its money creation to liquidate, the Fed continually tries to prop them up. It pumps more and more money into the system, piling debt on top of debt on top of debt. Yellen will continue along those lines, and she might even end up being Ben Bernanke on steroids.
To Yellen, the booms and bust of the business cycle are random, unforeseen events that take place just because. The possibility that the Fed itself could be responsible for the booms and busts of the business cycle would never enter her head. Nor would such thoughts cross the minds of the hundreds of economists employed by the Fed. They will continue to think the same way they have for decades, interpreting economic data and market performance through the same distorted Keynesian lens, and advocating for the same flawed policies over and over.
As a result, the American people will continue to suffer decreases in the purchasing power of the dollar and a diminished standard of living. The phony recovery we find ourselves in is only due to the Fed's easy money policies. But the Fed cannot continue to purchase trillions of dollars of assets forever. Quantitative easing must end sometime, and at that point the economy will face the prospect of rising interest rates, mountains of bad debt and malinvested resources, and a Federal Reserve which holds several trillion dollars of worthless bonds.
The future of the US economy with Chairman Yellen at the helm is grim indeed, which provides all the more reason to end our system of central economic planning by getting rid of the Federal Reserve entirely. Ripping off the bandage may hurt some in the short run, but in the long term everyone will be better off. Anyway, most of this pain will be borne by the politicians, big banks, and other special interests who profit from the current system. Ending this current system of crony capitalism and moving to sound money and free markets is the only way to return to economic prosperity and a vibrant middle class.
The reality is that there wouldn't have been a dime's worth of difference between Yellen's and Summers' monetary policy. No matter who is at the top, the conduct of monetary policy will be largely unchanged: large-scale money printing to bail out big banks. There may be some fiddling around the edges, but any monetary policy changes will be in style only, not in substance.
Yellen, like Bernanke, Summers, and everyone else within the Fed's orbit, believes in Keynesian economics. To economists of Yellen's persuasion, the solution to recession is to stimulate spending by creating more money. Wall Street need not worry about tapering of the Fed's massive program of quantitative easing under Yellen's reign. If anything, the Fed's trillion dollars of yearly money creation may even increase.
What is obvious to most people not captured by the system is that the Fed's loose monetary policy was the root cause of the current financial crisis. Just like the Great Depression, the stagflation of the 1970s, and every other recession of the past century, the current crisis resulted from the creation of money and credit by the Federal Reserve, which led to unsustainable economic booms.
Rather than allowing the malinvestments and bad debts caused by its money creation to liquidate, the Fed continually tries to prop them up. It pumps more and more money into the system, piling debt on top of debt on top of debt. Yellen will continue along those lines, and she might even end up being Ben Bernanke on steroids.
To Yellen, the booms and bust of the business cycle are random, unforeseen events that take place just because. The possibility that the Fed itself could be responsible for the booms and busts of the business cycle would never enter her head. Nor would such thoughts cross the minds of the hundreds of economists employed by the Fed. They will continue to think the same way they have for decades, interpreting economic data and market performance through the same distorted Keynesian lens, and advocating for the same flawed policies over and over.
As a result, the American people will continue to suffer decreases in the purchasing power of the dollar and a diminished standard of living. The phony recovery we find ourselves in is only due to the Fed's easy money policies. But the Fed cannot continue to purchase trillions of dollars of assets forever. Quantitative easing must end sometime, and at that point the economy will face the prospect of rising interest rates, mountains of bad debt and malinvested resources, and a Federal Reserve which holds several trillion dollars of worthless bonds.
The future of the US economy with Chairman Yellen at the helm is grim indeed, which provides all the more reason to end our system of central economic planning by getting rid of the Federal Reserve entirely. Ripping off the bandage may hurt some in the short run, but in the long term everyone will be better off. Anyway, most of this pain will be borne by the politicians, big banks, and other special interests who profit from the current system. Ending this current system of crony capitalism and moving to sound money and free markets is the only way to return to economic prosperity and a vibrant middle class.
Wednesday
WHAT I THINK........NICK GIAMBRUNO
The speech is titled "The End of Dollar Hegemony" and discussed the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system—which most people know about—and the de-facto system that replaced it—which most people do not know about. This speech is an absolute must listen; you can watch it at this site http://vimeo.com/5372026 or read the transcript at this site:
The most important part of the speech is where Paul discusses the petrodollar system, a primary factor in maintaining the dollar's role as the world's premier currency after the breakdown of Bretton Woods.
I believe that once the dollar loses its status as the world's premier reserve, the US will start to implement the destructive measures we frequently discuss: capital controls, people controls, price controls, currency devaluations, confiscations, nationalizing pensions, etc.
Such things have happened recently in Poland, Cyprus, Iceland, Argentina, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and a number of other countries.
Take a glance at history and you will quickly notice these measures are the norm when a government gets into serious fiscal trouble. Many nations have made the mistake of thinking they were somehow "exceptional" and that these kinds of things couldn't happen to them.
There is no question the US is and will continue to be in serious fiscal trouble unless it implements drastic (and politically impossible) changes. The only saving grace for the US has been its ability to print the world's reserve currency. But once that special privilege is lost, it will revert to the measures all other governments throughout history have taken.
You absolutely want to be internationalized before the US dollar loses its status as the world's premier reserve currency.
"It all ended on August 15, 1971, when Nixon closed the gold window and refused to pay out any of our remaining 280 million ounces of gold. In essence, we declared our insolvency and everyone recognized some other monetary system had to be devised in order to bring stability to the markets.Ron Paul told me that although this speech is relatively unknown in the US, it was widely received around the world. As we discussed the implications of these issues, Paul said that the premise of this speech still applies today.
Amazingly, a new system was devised which allowed the US to operate the printing presses for the world reserve currency with no restraints placed on it—not even a pretense of gold convertibility, none whatsoever! Though the new policy was even more deeply flawed, it nevertheless opened the door for dollar hegemony to spread.
Realizing the world was embarking on something new and mind-boggling, elite money managers, with especially strong support from US authorities, struck an agreement with OPEC to price oil in US dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This gave the dollar a special place among world currencies and in essence "backed" the dollar with oil. In return, the US promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup. This arrangement helped ignite the radical Islamic movement (Al Qaeda) among those who resented our influence in the region. The arrangement gave the dollar artificial strength, with tremendous financial benefits for the United States. It allowed us to export our monetary inflation by buying oil and other goods at a great discount as dollar influence flourished.
This post-Bretton Woods system was much more fragile than the system that existed between 1945 and 1971. Though the dollar/oil arrangement was helpful, it was not nearly as stable as the pseudo—gold standard under Bretton Woods. It certainly was less stable than the gold standard of the late 19th century.
The agreement with OPEC in the 1970s to price oil in dollars has provided tremendous artificial strength to the dollar as the preeminent reserve currency. This has created a universal demand for the dollar, and soaks up the huge number of new dollars generated each year.
Using force to compel people to accept money without real value can only work in the short run. It ultimately leads to economic dislocation, both domestic and international, and always ends with a price to be paid.
The economic law that honest exchange demands only things of real value as currency cannot be repealed. The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or euros. The sooner the better."
I believe that once the dollar loses its status as the world's premier reserve, the US will start to implement the destructive measures we frequently discuss: capital controls, people controls, price controls, currency devaluations, confiscations, nationalizing pensions, etc.
Such things have happened recently in Poland, Cyprus, Iceland, Argentina, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and a number of other countries.
Take a glance at history and you will quickly notice these measures are the norm when a government gets into serious fiscal trouble. Many nations have made the mistake of thinking they were somehow "exceptional" and that these kinds of things couldn't happen to them.
There is no question the US is and will continue to be in serious fiscal trouble unless it implements drastic (and politically impossible) changes. The only saving grace for the US has been its ability to print the world's reserve currency. But once that special privilege is lost, it will revert to the measures all other governments throughout history have taken.
You absolutely want to be internationalized before the US dollar loses its status as the world's premier reserve currency.
Monday
AN OPENING FOR IRAN? by RON PAUL
Last week, for the first time since the 1979 Iranian revolution, the US president spoke with his Iranian counterpart. Their 15 minute telephone call was reported to open the door to further high-level discussions. This is a very important event.
I have been saying for years that we should just talk to the Iranians. After all, we talked to the Soviets when they actually had thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at us! The Iranians have none, according to our own intelligence services. I even suggested a few years ago that we should “offer friendship” to them. Unfortunately, so many so-called experts have a stake in keeping tensions high and pushing us to war. They did not want to hear what I was saying. It seems, though, this is beginning to change now with these recent events.
The phone call was one of the most important moves away from war and conflict in a long time. Taken with the Obama administration’s decision to hold off on bombing Syria, we should be encouraged.
It is also probably a good sign that this phone call has infuriated the neoconservatives at home, the pro-war faction in Israel, and the hard-liners in Iran. Now that a process of negotiation has begun, the chance of war has been significantly reduced. The US is very unlikely to bomb Iran while it is talking with them, and Israel is also unlikely to start a war while the US is at the negotiating table with the Iranian leadership.
But we should also remain very cautious. Obama’s war on Syria was only stopped because the American people finally stood up and said “enough.” The message was received loud and clear and it shocked the neocons pushing war. They were used to being in charge of foreign policy.
In a recent CNN poll, more than 75% of Americans favored negotiations with Iran. This is very good news, but those pushing for war will not give up that easily. Believe it or not, some Members of Congress have recently introduced legislation to authorize war on Iran – even as these first steps toward a peaceful resolution of our differences begin to bear fruit!
So no, they will not give up that easily. There are many in the president’s own Cabinet who do not want to see US/Iranian relations improve. Even the president himself seems unable to avoid provocative statements -- such as his claim that the Iranians are only willing to talk because the sanctions have been so successful in bringing them to the table. That is a false and unnecessary boast, and if he continues in such a way he will destroy what progress has been made.
But we are in the majority now. There are more than three-quarters of us who do not want war on Iran. It is essential that we keep the pressure on the Administration to ignore the war demands in both political parties and among the so-called foreign policy experts. There will be much more war propaganda coming our way as the warmongers get more desperate. Americans must see this propaganda for what it is. They should educate themselves and become familiar with alternative news sources to gain the tools to counter the propaganda. We do have a better chance at peace, but this is no time to let down our guard!
I have been saying for years that we should just talk to the Iranians. After all, we talked to the Soviets when they actually had thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at us! The Iranians have none, according to our own intelligence services. I even suggested a few years ago that we should “offer friendship” to them. Unfortunately, so many so-called experts have a stake in keeping tensions high and pushing us to war. They did not want to hear what I was saying. It seems, though, this is beginning to change now with these recent events.
The phone call was one of the most important moves away from war and conflict in a long time. Taken with the Obama administration’s decision to hold off on bombing Syria, we should be encouraged.
It is also probably a good sign that this phone call has infuriated the neoconservatives at home, the pro-war faction in Israel, and the hard-liners in Iran. Now that a process of negotiation has begun, the chance of war has been significantly reduced. The US is very unlikely to bomb Iran while it is talking with them, and Israel is also unlikely to start a war while the US is at the negotiating table with the Iranian leadership.
But we should also remain very cautious. Obama’s war on Syria was only stopped because the American people finally stood up and said “enough.” The message was received loud and clear and it shocked the neocons pushing war. They were used to being in charge of foreign policy.
In a recent CNN poll, more than 75% of Americans favored negotiations with Iran. This is very good news, but those pushing for war will not give up that easily. Believe it or not, some Members of Congress have recently introduced legislation to authorize war on Iran – even as these first steps toward a peaceful resolution of our differences begin to bear fruit!
So no, they will not give up that easily. There are many in the president’s own Cabinet who do not want to see US/Iranian relations improve. Even the president himself seems unable to avoid provocative statements -- such as his claim that the Iranians are only willing to talk because the sanctions have been so successful in bringing them to the table. That is a false and unnecessary boast, and if he continues in such a way he will destroy what progress has been made.
But we are in the majority now. There are more than three-quarters of us who do not want war on Iran. It is essential that we keep the pressure on the Administration to ignore the war demands in both political parties and among the so-called foreign policy experts. There will be much more war propaganda coming our way as the warmongers get more desperate. Americans must see this propaganda for what it is. They should educate themselves and become familiar with alternative news sources to gain the tools to counter the propaganda. We do have a better chance at peace, but this is no time to let down our guard!
Wednesday
BUY A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY by RON PAUL
o this little car has some history to it. Yet it has only 69,000 miles on it. It was repainted after my youngest daughter used it at college, and has been garaged for the last 10 years. But it starts and runs, and is as cute as when Tip wanted to bomb it.And you can own it, and aid the cause of peace and prosperity at the same time. The person who makes the highest pledge of a tax-deductible donation to the FREE Foundation by October 15, 2013, and redeems it, will own this historic little vehicle. The proceeds will be used to fund the work of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. That’s the one that outrages the neocons, so you know it is important.
e’ll have a nice turnover ceremony at the FREE office in Clute, Texas, that we’ll photograph, and I’ll also present you with a Congressional license plate that was actually used on the car. So drive history forward, and make your pledge, mailing it to FREE, 837 W. Plantation, Clute, TX 77531 or email it to free1776@comcast.net or phone 979.265.3034
See you in the driver's seat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
