Ron Paul has been a well run Republican candidate for President in the most recent campaign only to find himself stifled by the GOP and RNC, by reducing his air time and public exposure, to step aside as they try to bring McCain and Palin to the forefront to win.
By the speech included below you will find him much more well versed and intelligent than their choice of that one they call Palin. Perhaps I will do a side by side comparison of words with Ron Paul, John McCain, and Sarah Palin and we all will be able to see where the intelligence lies for the future.
I am certainly not a republican, although, I do like some of Ron Paul's economic ideas. I am not a fan of much more of his ideas, but I feel he has some very valid issues of the day to be heard regarding economics, economic policy, and governance. He sees the corruption and breakdown of our economy that stems back to the Nixon action of the elimination of the dollar pegged by the gold standard. This action allowed the elite white male in America the unregulated corporate power that only Congress had and was Constitutionally given by the founding fathers.
Now, the reduction of power of the Congress from this action being passed to the Federal Reserve has taken us to very unstable and irregular territory. With the Bush administration reducing the Congressional power even further with the augmentation of the Executive Branch in its powers for declaring war, wire tapping, to how it handles war criminals has created the parameters of a police state in this country hidden behind deteriorating open boarders, deteriorating freedom of speech, clouded freedom of religion, reduction attempts on women and minority rights.
We are riding a fine line of corporate and government free fall of unaccountability or oversight along with a devaluing dollar that continually reduces the saving and buying power of the American middle and lower class citizen. We are hoping for the Change that Obama espoused so prolifically during his campaign and await to see the power of these failings be given back to the people. Time will tell.
It is solely the American optimism that hides many of these deteriorating freedoms from the mindset and necessary daily concerns of its people. Whether this is good or bad is to each their own in order to maintain sanity or survival.
*******
Statement by Congressman Ron Paul in front of the U.S. House of Representatives
On The Abolition of Federal Reserve Board Act
February 3, 2009
Madame Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America’s economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.
From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the current economic crisis caused by the housing bubble, every economic downturn suffered by this country over the past century can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a mis-allocation of resources and an artificial “boom” followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.
With a stable currency, American exporters will no longer be held hostage to an erratic monetary policy. Stabilizing the currency will also give Americans new incentives to save as they will no longer have to fear inflation eroding their savings. Those members concerned about increasing America’s exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation.
Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of special interests and their own appetite for big government.
Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.
In fact, Congress’ constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation’s founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.
In conclusion, Mdm. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans’ standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.
*******
I would like to see Obama put Ron Paul on his economic advisory board! Although, for some reason I don't think that that will happen.
This, the 250th entry in bloggoland! Thanks for reading and coming back. I always enjoy the comments, emails and the banter!!
(c)Copyright 2009 Doug Boggs
Showing posts with label Nixon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nixon. Show all posts
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Saturday, November 15, 2008
A look back in order to look forward
Will this most recent meeting that Bush held with 20 leaders of the world over the financial crisis do much? Will it have any of the similar impact that the Bretton Woods meeting had that was held at the end of WWII? Does Bush have enough respect to create any sort of unity on the global stage in his last 100 days in office?
Bush is a different kind of man and a different kind of leader than President FDR. Roosevelt stated in the discussions at the time, "The economic health of every country is a proper matter of concern to all its neighbors, near and distant."
I have a weird feeling that Bush holds a different sentiment. Just as Bush stated yesterday at the meetings held at the White House, "One of the dangers during a crisis such as this is that people will start implementing protectionist policies,". (You mean like the isolationism style of leadership that he has administrated with over the past eight years) He went on to say that he was pleased leaders had reaffirmed the "principles of open markets and free trade". In other words, 'piss on you guys, we run the world...watch and learn as I make all of the elite, white, more rich in America with free markets and limited or no oversight.'
In July of 1944, British economist John Maynard Keynes addresses the Bretton Woods conference to encourage international trade and investment. Is this going to become the opportunity to create a global currency? As Keynes, the UK equivalent of a Secretary of the Treasury for England in 1944 argued at Bretton Woods for a single world currency. This later became the dollar as the dominant currency for exchange.
At that time, The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was set up to enforce a set of fixed exchange rates that were linked to the dollar. What they created has become a means of indentured servitude of the smaller countries of the world to the U.S. The IMF is set up so that countries in balance of payments difficulties could receive short-term help from the IMF to avoid devaluation, and it could sanction changes in exchange rates when necessary.
The World Bank (officially called the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) was set up to make long-term loans "facilitating the investment of capital for productive purposes, including the restoration of economies destroyed or disrupted by war [and] the reconversion of productive facilities to peacetime needs".
This sounds much like the new failing Bailout Plan that the Bush clan has instituted to keep the lower and middle class of America in a kind of indentured servitude for the wealthy.
At the time of the Bretton Woods meeting created the International Trade Organization, which was designed to encourage free trade, was dead in the water when the US refused to ratify it in 1947. Also, more ambitious proposals from the UK's John Maynard Keynes to set up a world central bank which could issue its own currency (which he labeled Bancor) but was rejected by the US. Keynes hoped a new bank could help infuse the world economy by expanding the money supply.
He also wanted the cost of adjustment shared between countries with trade surpluses and deficits, so that countries with big surpluses would have to revalue their currencies, as well as deficit countries being forced to devalue.
Instead, the Bretton Woods system gave the US currency - which was linked to gold - the dominant position in the world economy and allowed the US to run a trade deficit without having to devalue. Hence, our new debt laden society that we have all come to love.
Since we were the country that 'saved the world' at that time, we held a huge amount of global respect. And the US, which contributed the most money to both institutions, also gained the most voting rights, giving it a veto over major policy decisions.
What transpired was the Marshall Plan. This was an establishment of a rules-based system of international finance that would help restore confidence in the world economy and lead to an extraordinary boom in the post-war years. The strategy that this did for the United States was to make it the pre-eminent power throughout the world. Signed, sealed and delivered when Lord Halifax signed. At that point, the UK signed the Bretton Woods deal but soon found itself needing US aid. The US pumped even more money into the European recovery effort when the World Bank's ability proved inadequate for their full needs.
This program prompted great world trade among developed countries and global trade grew rapidly in the 1950s and 1960s, boosting world output and raising the standard of living, especially in Europe and Japan...and America. Not only did the IMF and the World Bank lend money, but the US sent dollars abroad through both military and civilian aid.
Now, with the financial imbalance of global trade deficits that the United States had created by a growing debt laden society and the Vietnam war, (hmm, sounds like a time that we are in right now) the initial plan began to unravel. So, in 1971, President Nixon tookk the dollar off the gold standard. This devalued the dollar, a move ratified by the Smithsonian Agreement later that year. So, the financial institutions printed more money and the advent of credit cards came to the forefront of our lifestyle.
This led to the abandonment of fixed exchange rates and the introduction of floating rates, where the value of all the main currencies was determined by market trading.
This breakdown had consequences. It led European countries to begin seriously considering closer monetary co-operation, which ultimately led to the creation of the euro in 1999.
At the time it was a grand idea, especially for America. The Bretton Woods system unleashed two decades of financial globalization, encouraged by the deregulation not just of currency markets, but also of rules about banking and investment. Which eventually led to the breakdown of the system. Funny how deregulation can do something like that. When you give greed and corruption no oversight do you really think that all will be well. That is like saying that by taking the police and firemen out of our system we will still be fine and all act civilized.
What this deregulation did though was lead to increased flows of private money to rich and poor countries alike, which helped boost growth but also created greater instability. Everyone thought that things were great, although with the rapid reversal of private money when currencies were threatened with devaluation became the central cause of the Asian financial crisis in 1997-98, which spread to Russia and eventually Argentina.
Many countries have learned that the system is top sided. Meaning, the United States, has orchestrated a global caste system. Or the Reaganomics type of global policy is not necessarily working for them. So, many Asian countries, including China, have accumulated large currency reserves to insulate themselves against future crises, avoiding the need to call on the IMF.
Now, we have a new global financial crisis. It has hit the richest countries the hardest and they have now renewed calls for a new global framework of financial regulation. It is a new world, a different financial world we have today. It is much more integrated and much more complex through the proliferation of financial instruments and the fact that there is no longer one country that dominates the world economy in the way the US did after World War II. Although, the ego of the United States propaganda is telling us that the world still needs the U.S. is true, but certainly not to the same extent as in 1944.
The co-operation of our political leaders today do not have the same impetus today as they did in 1944. We have not gone through a decade of depression, yet. Our wars are still being financed. Yet, people are feeling it now. They are beginning to understand the gravity of the situation. They are beginning to see that this current policy is NOT working. Although, Bush will plunder the rest of the hundreds of billions as there is no congress pushing for oversight at this time allowing him and Paulson a free ride to funnel our future tax dollars to where ever they deem appropriate.
We are in a new time, with new global powers with different sets of players and circumstances. The coming new agreement would have to recognize the power of the rising economies, such as China and India, and reshape the institutions and policies created more than half a century ago.
(c)Copyright 2008 Doug Boggs
Bush is a different kind of man and a different kind of leader than President FDR. Roosevelt stated in the discussions at the time, "The economic health of every country is a proper matter of concern to all its neighbors, near and distant."
I have a weird feeling that Bush holds a different sentiment. Just as Bush stated yesterday at the meetings held at the White House, "One of the dangers during a crisis such as this is that people will start implementing protectionist policies,". (You mean like the isolationism style of leadership that he has administrated with over the past eight years) He went on to say that he was pleased leaders had reaffirmed the "principles of open markets and free trade". In other words, 'piss on you guys, we run the world...watch and learn as I make all of the elite, white, more rich in America with free markets and limited or no oversight.'
In July of 1944, British economist John Maynard Keynes addresses the Bretton Woods conference to encourage international trade and investment. Is this going to become the opportunity to create a global currency? As Keynes, the UK equivalent of a Secretary of the Treasury for England in 1944 argued at Bretton Woods for a single world currency. This later became the dollar as the dominant currency for exchange.
At that time, The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was set up to enforce a set of fixed exchange rates that were linked to the dollar. What they created has become a means of indentured servitude of the smaller countries of the world to the U.S. The IMF is set up so that countries in balance of payments difficulties could receive short-term help from the IMF to avoid devaluation, and it could sanction changes in exchange rates when necessary.
The World Bank (officially called the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) was set up to make long-term loans "facilitating the investment of capital for productive purposes, including the restoration of economies destroyed or disrupted by war [and] the reconversion of productive facilities to peacetime needs".
This sounds much like the new failing Bailout Plan that the Bush clan has instituted to keep the lower and middle class of America in a kind of indentured servitude for the wealthy.
At the time of the Bretton Woods meeting created the International Trade Organization, which was designed to encourage free trade, was dead in the water when the US refused to ratify it in 1947. Also, more ambitious proposals from the UK's John Maynard Keynes to set up a world central bank which could issue its own currency (which he labeled Bancor) but was rejected by the US. Keynes hoped a new bank could help infuse the world economy by expanding the money supply.
He also wanted the cost of adjustment shared between countries with trade surpluses and deficits, so that countries with big surpluses would have to revalue their currencies, as well as deficit countries being forced to devalue.
Instead, the Bretton Woods system gave the US currency - which was linked to gold - the dominant position in the world economy and allowed the US to run a trade deficit without having to devalue. Hence, our new debt laden society that we have all come to love.
Since we were the country that 'saved the world' at that time, we held a huge amount of global respect. And the US, which contributed the most money to both institutions, also gained the most voting rights, giving it a veto over major policy decisions.
What transpired was the Marshall Plan. This was an establishment of a rules-based system of international finance that would help restore confidence in the world economy and lead to an extraordinary boom in the post-war years. The strategy that this did for the United States was to make it the pre-eminent power throughout the world. Signed, sealed and delivered when Lord Halifax signed. At that point, the UK signed the Bretton Woods deal but soon found itself needing US aid. The US pumped even more money into the European recovery effort when the World Bank's ability proved inadequate for their full needs.
This program prompted great world trade among developed countries and global trade grew rapidly in the 1950s and 1960s, boosting world output and raising the standard of living, especially in Europe and Japan...and America. Not only did the IMF and the World Bank lend money, but the US sent dollars abroad through both military and civilian aid.
Now, with the financial imbalance of global trade deficits that the United States had created by a growing debt laden society and the Vietnam war, (hmm, sounds like a time that we are in right now) the initial plan began to unravel. So, in 1971, President Nixon tookk the dollar off the gold standard. This devalued the dollar, a move ratified by the Smithsonian Agreement later that year. So, the financial institutions printed more money and the advent of credit cards came to the forefront of our lifestyle.
This led to the abandonment of fixed exchange rates and the introduction of floating rates, where the value of all the main currencies was determined by market trading.
This breakdown had consequences. It led European countries to begin seriously considering closer monetary co-operation, which ultimately led to the creation of the euro in 1999.
At the time it was a grand idea, especially for America. The Bretton Woods system unleashed two decades of financial globalization, encouraged by the deregulation not just of currency markets, but also of rules about banking and investment. Which eventually led to the breakdown of the system. Funny how deregulation can do something like that. When you give greed and corruption no oversight do you really think that all will be well. That is like saying that by taking the police and firemen out of our system we will still be fine and all act civilized.
What this deregulation did though was lead to increased flows of private money to rich and poor countries alike, which helped boost growth but also created greater instability. Everyone thought that things were great, although with the rapid reversal of private money when currencies were threatened with devaluation became the central cause of the Asian financial crisis in 1997-98, which spread to Russia and eventually Argentina.
Many countries have learned that the system is top sided. Meaning, the United States, has orchestrated a global caste system. Or the Reaganomics type of global policy is not necessarily working for them. So, many Asian countries, including China, have accumulated large currency reserves to insulate themselves against future crises, avoiding the need to call on the IMF.
Now, we have a new global financial crisis. It has hit the richest countries the hardest and they have now renewed calls for a new global framework of financial regulation. It is a new world, a different financial world we have today. It is much more integrated and much more complex through the proliferation of financial instruments and the fact that there is no longer one country that dominates the world economy in the way the US did after World War II. Although, the ego of the United States propaganda is telling us that the world still needs the U.S. is true, but certainly not to the same extent as in 1944.
The co-operation of our political leaders today do not have the same impetus today as they did in 1944. We have not gone through a decade of depression, yet. Our wars are still being financed. Yet, people are feeling it now. They are beginning to understand the gravity of the situation. They are beginning to see that this current policy is NOT working. Although, Bush will plunder the rest of the hundreds of billions as there is no congress pushing for oversight at this time allowing him and Paulson a free ride to funnel our future tax dollars to where ever they deem appropriate.
We are in a new time, with new global powers with different sets of players and circumstances. The coming new agreement would have to recognize the power of the rising economies, such as China and India, and reshape the institutions and policies created more than half a century ago.
(c)Copyright 2008 Doug Boggs
Monday, October 27, 2008
The United States FICO score...
We have purged out some global economic results through watching the unfolding of the crisis throughout the world.
It seems the most powerful participant in the economic arena is the USA. Whether this is liked or not it is the case and has been exemplified with the global situation. It seems to have now been exposed that as the United States stays afloat so does the rest of the world. Ever since the Nixon Administration took the U.S. off the Gold standard and made the dollar the world currency it created a global safety net for the U.S. It is at the very least the means to which the other currencies of the world now are obliged to value their base.
The economic power mongers knew what they were planning at that time, and knew the stability it would create for the United States, and knew it was a ripe time to make that switch in order to guarantee the U.S. dominance in both monetary and military positions.
What we are now beginning to see is the global political pressures mounting due to the balance, or rather known imbalance, of the monetary pressures and the military pressures meeting halfway.
It would be best for the United States to get its financial obligations more in line in order for this imbalance of power to strengthen itself globally again. The respect of position is being lost in the fact that the United States is so heavily debt laden to other nations. The military strength is respected, but the power economically has been lost. We have seen emerging markets, like China and India, begin to create their own individual stability that could be overtaking the imbalance of economic power that the U.S. has held for the past 35 years since the removal of the gold standard. As long as the U.S. continues to be a debtor nation it will reduce its economic power throughout the world and it will become a necessity for the country to rely on military might and pressure to other nations rather than policy and economic partnerships.
As America has been held as the de-facto leader in the global arena, the other countries will not continue to allow this position to be held when the emerging power of another country, based on the debt America has to that country, could cause such economic uncertainty if the country began to sell of its dollars.
China holds the power to do just that. We are witnessing that the power of economic uncertainty is much more dynamic than that of military power and the current most powerful weapon in China's possession. The position that the U.S. continues to hold is if there become a military confrontation it might dismiss its monetary debt.
This would have China lose on both fronts if this were to occur. Whether China would play the sell card is not yet clear, although given the economic uncertainty of our time we may find out shortly. It seems, yet at this time, that the rest of the world still seems dependent on the economic health of America.
It may just be, through this economic crisis, that the U.S. may become the world de-facto leader simply based on the economics of the international interrelations and monetary policies that have become so inbred into today's debtor type of capitalistic society.
Being heralded as and being able to substantiate the claim of de-facto world leader are two different things. Global leadership has reached a tipping point in international politics today. The power players of old have shown that they are incapable of creating this position due to their greed and incompetence and our policies and power players must now change in order for the global transformation of community can be accomplished.
It stems from the fact of entitlement that America has come to own. People in America, and it starts from the examples sitting in the White House, feel that the world must work around the thoughts and ideals of the United States. This may not be altogether true as we are beginning to see today. We must earn the global respect once again, and not assume the de-facto power position, as we are finding the precariousness of that position.
We are seeing through the opinions of other countries and their desire for a major political change that Obama is the desired person at this opportune moment in history to begin to create the necessary changes that we must have globally. Through the global respect of new vision and policies can the other countries begin to fall back in line to the economic leadership of the United States.
We must begin to re-establish ourselves as the leader of the world in policy and monetary stability rather than simply demanding respect through military power. This type of international policy will find its demise to this country if there becomes a global uprise to the current means of global policy that we have experienced over these past eight years.
It is quite simple really, the FICO score of the United States has fallen dramatically in the past eight years. If we are unable to maintain our debt and reduce our debt other nations will reach a point, just as we are seeing banks globally reach a point, to not lend money to those with low FICO scores...
(c)Copyright 2008 Doug Boggs
It seems the most powerful participant in the economic arena is the USA. Whether this is liked or not it is the case and has been exemplified with the global situation. It seems to have now been exposed that as the United States stays afloat so does the rest of the world. Ever since the Nixon Administration took the U.S. off the Gold standard and made the dollar the world currency it created a global safety net for the U.S. It is at the very least the means to which the other currencies of the world now are obliged to value their base.
The economic power mongers knew what they were planning at that time, and knew the stability it would create for the United States, and knew it was a ripe time to make that switch in order to guarantee the U.S. dominance in both monetary and military positions.
What we are now beginning to see is the global political pressures mounting due to the balance, or rather known imbalance, of the monetary pressures and the military pressures meeting halfway.
It would be best for the United States to get its financial obligations more in line in order for this imbalance of power to strengthen itself globally again. The respect of position is being lost in the fact that the United States is so heavily debt laden to other nations. The military strength is respected, but the power economically has been lost. We have seen emerging markets, like China and India, begin to create their own individual stability that could be overtaking the imbalance of economic power that the U.S. has held for the past 35 years since the removal of the gold standard. As long as the U.S. continues to be a debtor nation it will reduce its economic power throughout the world and it will become a necessity for the country to rely on military might and pressure to other nations rather than policy and economic partnerships.
As America has been held as the de-facto leader in the global arena, the other countries will not continue to allow this position to be held when the emerging power of another country, based on the debt America has to that country, could cause such economic uncertainty if the country began to sell of its dollars.
China holds the power to do just that. We are witnessing that the power of economic uncertainty is much more dynamic than that of military power and the current most powerful weapon in China's possession. The position that the U.S. continues to hold is if there become a military confrontation it might dismiss its monetary debt.
This would have China lose on both fronts if this were to occur. Whether China would play the sell card is not yet clear, although given the economic uncertainty of our time we may find out shortly. It seems, yet at this time, that the rest of the world still seems dependent on the economic health of America.
It may just be, through this economic crisis, that the U.S. may become the world de-facto leader simply based on the economics of the international interrelations and monetary policies that have become so inbred into today's debtor type of capitalistic society.
Being heralded as and being able to substantiate the claim of de-facto world leader are two different things. Global leadership has reached a tipping point in international politics today. The power players of old have shown that they are incapable of creating this position due to their greed and incompetence and our policies and power players must now change in order for the global transformation of community can be accomplished.
It stems from the fact of entitlement that America has come to own. People in America, and it starts from the examples sitting in the White House, feel that the world must work around the thoughts and ideals of the United States. This may not be altogether true as we are beginning to see today. We must earn the global respect once again, and not assume the de-facto power position, as we are finding the precariousness of that position.
We are seeing through the opinions of other countries and their desire for a major political change that Obama is the desired person at this opportune moment in history to begin to create the necessary changes that we must have globally. Through the global respect of new vision and policies can the other countries begin to fall back in line to the economic leadership of the United States.
We must begin to re-establish ourselves as the leader of the world in policy and monetary stability rather than simply demanding respect through military power. This type of international policy will find its demise to this country if there becomes a global uprise to the current means of global policy that we have experienced over these past eight years.
It is quite simple really, the FICO score of the United States has fallen dramatically in the past eight years. If we are unable to maintain our debt and reduce our debt other nations will reach a point, just as we are seeing banks globally reach a point, to not lend money to those with low FICO scores...
(c)Copyright 2008 Doug Boggs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
