Ron Paul: Blame the Fed for the Financial Crisis

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by ajcrshr, Oct 21, 2011.

  1. Visaria

    Visaria

    From that pragcap article:

    "You can call this manipulation or whatever you want, but it is an irrefutable fact that the Fed controls interest rates as the monopoly supplier of reserves to the banking system."

    No, the Fed does not control interest rates, it's targets them. It is generally successful in doing so in the short end i.e. 3 month Fed Funds rates, but the jury is out on the long term rates eg 30 year bond yields .
     
    #21     Oct 23, 2011
  2. hayman

    hayman

    I just listened to Ron Paul's interview with David Gregory on Meet the Press. Man, the guy has his pulse on what's wrong with our country in both domestic and international affairs. I really recommend you listening to it, if you can.

    Of course, he'll never win. He's too old (76), too quirky, and too radical from the main stream, to be considered a viable candidate by most. Nonetheless, he makes the most sense to me, out of all these talking heads on both sides of the aisle.
     
    #22     Oct 23, 2011
  3. Lornz

    Lornz

    Yes, it was really good.

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Gfth22IuyXU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
     
    #23     Oct 23, 2011
  4. hayman

    hayman

    Thanks for posting that, Lornz !!
     
    #24     Oct 23, 2011
  5. IMO the jury came in a long time ago - anything beyond the three month rate is clealry not controllable by the Fed. More importantly, in times of actual economic dislocation, the Fed barely even has an influence at the long end.

    Mr. Paul is flat out wrong on this.
     
    #25     Oct 23, 2011
  6. Eight

    Eight

    same goes for grownups in general.. about that same time historically Graham Rudmann passed a bill to outlaw borrowing by the Federal Gov. Then Democrats took it to the Supreme court and had it tossed out... I'm really thinking that a shift in attitude towards government took place at that time, not so much a change in economic policy. Conservatives ceased to exist as such, instead they gave us the S&L bailout thingy where all the loan requirements were removed but the guarantees were kept in place. I think that Conservatives always knew that they were the smart adults in the scenario so they said "f^&k it" and went for the slaughter of the pig in the biggest ways they could find. They did it again with the policies of lending to people in the Inner City Reservations put in place and enforced by the Democrats.. they bundled those loans, sold them to risk aversive institiutions all over the world and Fannie MAE/MAC and basically had a field day shoving those leftist policies so far sideways it gives Democrats migraines and makes them dizzy to this very day...
     
    #26     Oct 23, 2011
  7. None, better. Also, none, worse. They are all equally avoiding dealing with the fundamental issue, and are all, therefore, pandering to the American self-image of perpetual growth and prosperity for all.
     
    #27     Oct 23, 2011
  8. Are you referring to Gramm-Rudmann-Hollings? That didn't "outlaw" borrowing by anyone, it was a mechanism for automatically forcing arbitrary spending cuts. It was also bipartisan legislation, both in terms of sponsorship and congressional voting.

    Your posts would be more useful if you could grow beyond the Bullwinkle vs Natasha perspective.
     
    #28     Oct 23, 2011
  9. thanks for posting that Lornz, WOW, there really is no such thing as a "gotcha" question with Ron Paul. The answer starts pouring out of his heart before the little wannabee pixie can get it off his lips.

    Watch for the other morons to start parroting Ron Paul's words even though they have no idea what they mean.

    The democrats won't admit it, but Ron Paul cares more about the little guy than Obama and all the republicans combined.

    But also, check out Keynes and find out why they call it the "dismal science".
     
    #29     Oct 23, 2011
  10. Maybe the media doesn't like him because he doesn't make them look smart by making him look stupid.
     
    #30     Oct 23, 2011