Ben Bernanke Saves Thanksgiving From Ron Paul

Posted by , Nov 21, 2007 12:36PM

fake

Posted by John Carney, Nov 21, 2007 12:42PM

OMG. Really? That's fake. Thanks for letting us know. Because we were totally sure that Ben Bernake was actually blogging at Newsgroper, a website otherwise full of fake blogs. I mean, wow. We really feel like dumbasses here. Bess, fire an intern!

Posted by J.P., Nov 21, 2007 12:44PM

Bernanke's just mad because Ron Paul stole his lunch money.

Posted by 12:36 PM, Nov 21, 2007 12:48PM

John, I'm always adding value.

Posted by Cleaner44, Nov 21, 2007 12:54PM

Ron Paul is not a "dark horse" or a "long shot". He has clearly surpassed John McCain and is now a "top tier" candidate. He dominates in Straw Polls, Debate Polls, Fund Raising, Web Traffic and Grass Roots Networking. I have gathered the evidence to support this statement and created a website.

Please visit www.thecaseforronpaul.com and judge for yourself.

Posted by infiniti, Nov 21, 2007 1:42PM

Ben Bernanke on News Groper - Fake Economist Blogs, Federal ...Ben Bernanke's satirical fake blog. Upon being named Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke became the leader of the free world in 2006.
www.newsgroper.com/ben-bernanke/ - 47k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Posted by Immigrant, Nov 21, 2007 2:22PM

Its awesome how Ron Paul schooled Bernanke on the lack of need for the federal reserve. If Ron Paul ever sounds crazy to anyone then they probably don't understand what he is talking about or they don't understand the American constitution. Pick up a copy of the constitution or maybe even read Michael Badnarik's book "Good to be King". It will help anyone understand the constitution and therefore Ron Paul. RP is going to win this whole thing despite the media's full scale offensive against him.

www.ronpaul2008.com

Posted by , Nov 21, 2007 2:32PM

"The constitution says so" is an intellectually bankrupt argument for a return to the gold (silver?) standard.

Posted by Bob C, Nov 21, 2007 2:48PM

anonymous you state "the constitution says so is an intellectually bankrupt statement etc. "

Well at least you got the part about "bankrupt" right. That would be us being bankrupted, you know the people who have to pay for all the wars, 700 bases we have overseas etc.

Speaking of the Constitution, nah never mind, you haven't read it, go back to sleep.

For those of you waking up to the fact the latest war will cost each American $46,000 a piece go to
- RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008.
He wants to put a stop to foolish spending and enedless war.
By the time we elect him that $46,000 each and every one of us owes just for a war could well be a bit higher. Trillion here, trillion there, no matter, print up some more inflationary causing dollars!
Budget deficit who cares, right?
Social security ends? , screw em as long as I get mine right?

YAHOOO!! I'm a chicken hawk neo-con, war is for YOUR kids, but not mine!!

Posted by lookatthepuddingfortheproof, Nov 21, 2007 2:52PM

The US dollar is worth less than 4% of what is was worth in 1913 when the Fed was formed, and it continues to trend lower. The US dollar has lost nearly 50% of its purchasing power in just the last 20 years- there is nothing new or "scientific" about that. The Fed is bailing out the Goldman Sachs of the world at the expense of the general population. Lowering the interest rate may not directly cause inflation but increasing the supply of US $'s does- which is what the Fed has done at an unprecedented rate. The Federal Reserve cartel has never been needed and it is time for them to be disbanded and sent on their way. Sound money is the only mechanism that will prevent us from being robbed blind with this form of hidden taxation that inherently transfers wealth from the poorest to the richest.

Posted by John, Nov 21, 2007 3:01PM

The "constitution says so" because the Continental Congress used the same money theory as the Federal Reserve, and found that it bankrupt the nation. Therefore, they made it so our nation may only use "hard money". Their paper money wasn't different than ours, and we've had no advances to make paper money worth anything. The same principles apply to US Federal Reserve Notes as applied to the German, Russian, French, British, Pre-Constitutional American and many others. There is no advance. The benefit of this system goes to the bankers who own the Fed. They charge interest to the government and to you on the money they loan. They're only allowed to make money, so they can only make the money that pays the interest on the money they made from nothing.

Smoke and mirrors. That's all the Fed is. An instrument for your demise. No theory, no conspiracy... look it up.

Posted by John, Nov 21, 2007 3:14PM

few days ago... http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogsp...bank-gold.html

Fox News: "So why do we need a central bank?"

Greenspan: "Well the question is a very interesting one. We have at this particular stage a fiat money which is essentially money printed by a government and it's usually the central bank which is authorized to do so. Some mechanism has got to be in place that restricts the amount of money which is produced, either a gold standard or currency board or something of that nature because unless you do that, all of history suggests that inflation will take hold with very deleterious effects on economic activity. ... There are numbers of us, myself included, who strongly believe that we did very well in the 1870-1914 period with an international gold standard".

Fox News: "We did well without the Federal Reserve. People forget that."

Posted by , Nov 21, 2007 3:30PM

while i like ron paul, man, i cannot stand his supporters. you could argue that they are actually doing him a disservice because their craziness makes him seem illegitimate to most people

Posted by Matt, Nov 21, 2007 3:58PM

The Fed is bailing out the Goldman Sachs of the world at the expense of the general population.

hidden taxation that inherently transfers wealth from the poorest to the richest.

What???

All this internet spamming proves just one point about the vocal Ron Paul supporters - they are essentially a bunch of disgruntled socialists who just think its cool to have a dude who is taking down (and on many issues very very fairly) the Republican candidates from the inside. Beyond that they have precious little appreciation for anything related to libetarianism.

There are very strong arguments for a gold standard. But all of those arguments also pre-suppose a different overall fiscal environment. Implementation of a very radical monetary policy in the midst of massive fiscal profligacy is a sure recipe to disaster.

You cannot curse and wish away one part of the system and turn a blind eye to every other part. I wonder how many of the pseudo-constitutionalists are even aware of the fact that the original constitution did NOT come with a personal taxation plan (progressive or otherwise) - neither did it come with myriad entitlement schemes.

How about eliminating real taxation before attacking hidden taxation? That certainly elicits no response.

The whole system of government today is a massive bailout model. People dont save enough for retirement - govt will fund it. You have kids you cannot afford - government will pay for it.

I personally agree with 90% of Paul's agenda - it makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, it has attracted socialists and anarchists of the worst kind - class warriors mouthing rich/poor vagaries and filled with 'penalize the reach, redistribute income' rhetoric.

Yes, the conomy would be much more 'free' if the Fed was done away with - AFTER the IRS, Social security, medicare, any means of coercive taxation, all forms of entitlement spending and Dept of education were dismantled.

Till you can meaningly support those, realize you hypocrisy (I know it is difficult) and stop littering cyberspace.

Posted by lookatthepuddingfortheproof, Nov 21, 2007 4:59PM

It's called moral hazard. It is an argument that has been used against a "bail out" of markets by adding liquidity. In this case it has to do with monetary policy. It has nothing to do with redistributing income, Socialism, or Ron Paul.

Why are you so angry?

Posted by Gerudomar, Nov 21, 2007 5:03PM

I think one thing should be considered seriously: Central Bank means central planning of monetary and therefore economic issues. Central planning of economic measures is typical of communism. We know now that communism has failed (at least regarding the economy in communist countries). One of the reasons of the failure was central planning. A few men tried to plan production in accordance with the needs of hundreds of millions. Such system was doomed to fail.

Since the USDollar could be made to be the world's most important currency, any decision regarding the Dollar has an impact on most of the world's nations with all their different national economic needs and circumstances.

If such decisions impacting the economic lifes of billions of people are made by a few men in Washington DC, there is a high probability that such central planning will fail just like communist central planning has failed.

It is hard to understand how the most radical advocates of free and globalised markets do not seem to have a problem accepting communist like central planning when it comes to money matters. Did they all become victims of the very intelligently spread myth that central planning of monetary matters can "stabilize" the markets?

Don't they see how many unstable situations have been created since central banks were established?

Posted by andy, Nov 21, 2007 5:11PM

Matt...actually the gold standard assured that government did not run deficits. Running deficits would mean tax hikes, interest rate hikes and depression.
And regarding the rest - it is the same as with Iraq. "They suppose it will be a mess if we leave, implying the implausible that it won't be a mess when we stay".
Continuing in this insane policy is a sure recipe for disaster. And you have to start somewhere.

Posted by Bob A, Nov 21, 2007 5:28PM

"I tell him that lowering interest rates (which has nothing to do with inflation, necessarily) won’t effect Americans’ ability to buy turkey or any other domestic products this Thanksgiving."

Dumb.. people aren't concerned about buying an affordable domestic Turkey once a year.. but (high) energy prices are a thing of the norm..and yes..it takes energy to get a Turkey from Wisconsin to Maryland. As Bernie pointed out..it will mostly affect foreign purchases.. Isn't oil considered foreign? High oil prices aren't a result of "supply and demand".. no..its buying foreign oil with a weak dollar that is the issue now. Beyond that, Bernie is weak in his explanations and is schooled. His amused look isn't that he thinks RP is a kook..its because he knows RP is right, and he knew he was going to get an earful.

Posted by , Nov 21, 2007 5:36PM

Bob A, I don't think Ron Paul is proposing tp prevent foreign exchange rate fluctations. The dollar can depreciate against other currencies even in a monetary system with a gold standard, zero fractional reserve banking (including no printing of money out of thin air by the government).

Posted by , Nov 21, 2007 5:46PM

Gerudomar, um how can there be a monetary system without central planning? Should everyone be allowed to print as much currency as they want? Or should we go back to carrying around gold nuggets and weighing scales?

Posted by Bob A, Nov 21, 2007 5:49PM

I understand that.. but this economy is a self inflicted wound. Our domestic and foreign policies have created this. This is the little picture..the big picture is when China and Japan want us to pay up because their treasury bonds are becoming worthless. Other than owing the Fed Reserve around 7 trillion, we have 2.3 trillion in treasury bonds being held by the rest of the world. The Great Depression was basically caused by "interest only" and margin loans. Perhaps history is repeating itself due to the Federal Reserve and now International Bankers making a grab for every dollar they can put their hand on. I think my personal obligation to the national debt is around $45,000.. but the reality is..I can barely pay my mortgage, never mind put gas in my car.

Posted by Bob A, Nov 21, 2007 5:50PM

I understand that.. but this economy is a self inflicted wound. Our domestic and foreign policies have created this. This is the little picture..the big picture is when China and Japan want us to pay up because their treasury bonds are becoming worthless. Other than owing the Fed Reserve around 7 trillion, we have 2.3 trillion in treasury bonds being held by the rest of the world. The Great Depression was basically caused by "interest only" and margin loans. Perhaps history is repeating itself due to the Federal Reserve and now International Bankers making a grab for every dollar they can put their hand on. I think my personal obligation to the national debt is around $45,000.. but the reality is..I can barely pay my mortgage, never mind put gas in my car.

Posted by 5:46, Nov 21, 2007 5:51PM

Come to think of it, a standardized measuring system also smacks of central planning ... So we're going to have scrap the metric system and go back to the days when practically every neighbourhood had its own set of weighing scales ... Better start weight training now, you're going to be carrying around a hell of a lot of gold nuggets and scale weights.

Posted by lookatthepuddingfortheproof, Nov 21, 2007 6:02PM

I have a question. The American Farm Bureau reported yesterday that the cost of a traditional Thanksgiving dinner is up 11% over last year. Does that sink Bernanke's argument?

Posted by , Nov 21, 2007 6:26PM

The Global Bureau of Meaningless Statistic for Morons Who Love Univariate Correlation Studies Irrespective Of Causality reported yesterday that the cost of a similarly configured desktop PC fell 20% over last year.

Does that float Bernanke's argument?

ps. That Bernanke argument (if you didnt get it) was a spoof. Happy Thankgiving.

Posted by Pacer, Nov 21, 2007 6:50PM

The only 'floating scale' Dr. Paul is concerned with is a currency that is expanded far faster than the rate of real economic growth in this country. That robs people of the value in their savings (unless they're saving in hard assets or deftly moving around in foreign currencies). If you have a savings account, a CD, or anything else denominated in U.S. dollars (such as U.S. real estate) you're the ones being robbed. Ron Paul was speaking out to protect the value of your nest egg, the stored fruits of your labor.

Posted by Gerudomar, Nov 21, 2007 7:44PM

No, we should not need to carry around gold nuggets. We just need a currency that is backed by a tangible asset with intrinsic value accepted by everyone, such as gold and silver, for example. We then carry around papers entitling the holder to a certain weight of these assets. The government can not issue more of these papers as could be exchanged with the tangible asset. This would be honest money which could not be printed beyond the value of the underlying assets.

Talking about a standardized measuring system: Leave it to the free markets. The most logic one will finally be accepted by the majority of the people. Any system forced upon the people will have a hard time to prevail. Just consider the attempt to force acceptance of KW which was supposed to replace the Horsepower measuring the powers of engines. Most of the people prefer to use horsepower rather. KW are used among engineers mainly.

In any case: There's one thing trying to convince the masses to use a certain measuring system voluntarily, and it's another thing to enforce the use of a certain barter medium by sending people to jail who don't want to accept it.

Central planning necessarily leads to dictatorship. You have to use force to make people accept your central planning products. People might want to have something else, but they are forced to use what you offer them.

If you want to have central planning, go ahead and endorse communism. The question remains, though, why the government spent hundreds of billions in the past few decades to fight communism.

Was it for personal profits?

Posted by Julian, Nov 21, 2007 7:56PM

Anyone who actually bristles at the idea that the dollar should be backed by a hard currency needs to have their head examined.

This isnt a matter of opinion...even the US government agrees with this; our currency is IN THEORY backed by precious metals stored in the depositories at Fort Knox.

Ron Paul is one of the very few who has been calling for that gold and silver to be audited periodically to ensure that the hard money supply is still there.

Yeah...how "crazy."

Posted by , Nov 21, 2007 8:39PM

Gerudomar, I recommend that you read up on the history of the metric system and the vast economic benifets that standardization lent to France. This is definitely not about what units of measurement an engineer or a car enthusiast should use. This is about the units of measurments used in financial transactions. That is to say, you can do ahead and trade electricity in horsepower hours instead of kilowatt hours, if you so wish. But what you CANNOT do is sell electricity in donkeypower hours and use whatever arbitrary definition of donkeypower you want on any given day (i.e. defraud customers by exploiting the lack of a standard defintion of donkeypower). That is not communism. I don't think you have seriously thought through your (contradictory) proposals for a fixed quantity of money supply and total decentraliztion (i.e. anarchy).

Julian, what theory says that the USD is backed by metals at Fort Knox "in theory?" This is not a theoretical matter to begin with, it is a legal matter. For all legal intents and purposes, the USD is not backed by anything. Let's say that Ron Paul becomes President, cancels the fiat currency, and then tries to issue a fully-backed gold currency but finds out that there is no gold at Fort Knox. How would Ron Paul issue the gold-backed currency with no gold? What would happen is that domestic trade would grind to a halt, and all goods and services would have been exported in exchange of gold bullion, and then that gold bullion would be exchanged for currency and used for domestic trade. Now thing about the absurdity of all US domestic trade coming to a halt not because of any supply or demand distruption but simply because there is no gold in Fort Knox and Ron Paul will not allow us to use any medium of exchange other than gold deposit reciepts. That's really a stupid idea ... it would make more sense to unhalt domestic trade by justing printing paper money out of thin air and dumping it over the country with helicopters so that people can trade good and services with it.

Posted by 08:39 PM, Nov 21, 2007 8:43PM

"Now thing about..." = "Now think about..."

"justing printing money..." = "just printing money..."

sorry about the typos

Posted by David J. Nitshe, Nov 21, 2007 9:03PM

Mr. B. is only speaking what his master, David Rockefeller, tells hims to say. Imagine that, an average American buying something backed with a value (GOLD) rather than something with a useless piece of paper backed by the useless words and violent efforts of the CFR.

RON PAUL!!!

Posted by John, Nov 21, 2007 9:26PM

Everyone should wake up and know by now
the Federal Reserve is the biggest scam. It
is not owned by the government, but a bunch
of rich, rich bankers and used the name to
sound legit. Ron Paul is trying to get the word
out how the Federal Reserve is stealing from
the american people. This is what the government dosen't want you to know and
that is why they are censoring RON PAUL.
VOTE RON PAUL....He is authentic.

Posted by John, Nov 21, 2007 9:27PM

Everyone should wake up and know by now
the Federal Reserve is the biggest scam. It
is not owned by the government, but a bunch
of rich, rich bankers and used the name to
sound legit. Ron Paul is trying to get the word
out how the Federal Reserve is stealing from
the american people. This is what the government dosen't want you to know and
that is why they are censoring RON PAUL.
VOTE RON PAUL....He is authentic.

Posted by John, Nov 21, 2007 9:27PM

Everyone should wake up and know by now
the Federal Reserve is the biggest scam. It
is not owned by the government, but a bunch
of rich, rich bankers and used the name to
sound legit. Ron Paul is trying to get the word
out how the Federal Reserve is stealing from
the american people. This is what the government dosen't want you to know and
that is why they are censoring RON PAUL.
VOTE RON PAUL....He is authentic.

Posted by Gerudomar, Nov 21, 2007 9:35PM

Anonymous,
With all the words you utter to make your ideas sound reasonable, I still think that there is something fishy in the fact, that people like von NotHaus are criminalized for trying to introduce another tool to facilitate barter.

A government which supports the raiding of a harmless operation like von NotHauses' has already crossed the line in the direction of dictatorship. Hitler would be proud to have Bush as an ally.

Posted by rhys, Nov 21, 2007 9:42PM

To those who continue to claim that they agree with Paul (mostly) but can't get past his supporters - remember, when you pull the lever at the poll, you are not voting for supporters. If that were the case, it would be time to take it to the street, because I can't stand any other politicians supporters. Paul seems like the only politician that doesn't want to spend more money. And he proves it by talking about limiting foreign and domestic interventionism. To me this is proof positive that he is deadly serious about limiting deficit spending and the growth of the Federal Leviathan.

Posted by Julian, Nov 21, 2007 11:05PM

Anonymous,

What is Fort Knox FOR? If that gold isnt supposed to belong to the American people, then who do you think it belongs to? And if it IS "gone," who took it and why? More to the point, why does that prospect not concern you at all and why do you see the proliferation of a fiat currency backed by nothing at all and in steady decline as a substitute to be favorable?

The fiat currency currently being issued is printed whenever politicians (and an unelected body within the federal reserve) deem it "necessary." Since this practice started- and due to overspending (all washington knows how to do)- we have a national debt of over $9 trillion dollars. Not only does this severely hurt the power of the dollar and lower the value of those in your pocket, remember that YOU (we the people) are necessarily assumed to indirectly, eventually, pay it back.

You see NOTHING wrong with allowing a government with an atrocious record of runaway overspending to simply go to a private entity and have it print them more money when they need it?

You see nothing wrong with a government- given the ability described above- to run up a limitless national debt?

Remember that the government is not even supposed to truly HAVE any money- the wealth belongs to the people and through vote-authorized taxation is supposed to be designated to a specific use OR apportioned evenly (if the tax is direct).

Your arguments are essentially for allowing an elected body- incontrol of the people's money- to overdraft our account into the trillions with impunity.

Posted by , Nov 22, 2007 12:21AM

Julian,
You make so much sense and I wish more people woke up and gave a shit.

All,
I'm really quite surprised how many responses this thread got. This is a good thing. Whether you agree with Ron Paul or not, at least it shows people do care.

Posted by NH, Nov 22, 2007 5:49PM

Remember what Don Lufkin said of Paul's acumen on the money situtation -- Bravo BravO, BravISSIMO!

Posted by , Nov 22, 2007 6:01PM

NH, what a logical argument. Don said Bravo.

Posted by , Nov 22, 2007 6:06PM

Ron Paul is the Nassim Taleb of monetary economic theory. That's not a good thing, btw.

Posted by David, Nov 23, 2007 1:06PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvirM1goFq4

Traders on the floor of the exchange cheer Ron Paul's monetary policy, but they don't know anything. A number of reputable people, not "crazy", find merit in this approach, as anyone can research for themselves. Forget all that, everyone better take your economic advice from John Carney, who knows far more than ordinary people, or even experts who make their money by understanding what is going on. John Carney will personally guarantee the economic future of the nation and your family personally, because in his wisdom he knows that if you run out of money he will just print you some more. No problem, now go back to sleep.

Posted by , Nov 23, 2007 1:15PM

"Traders on the floor of the exchange cheer Ron Paul's monetary policy, but they don't know anything."

Exactly right. Those are Vinnies cheering there. Who cares what Vinnies think?

Posted by Ben Bernanke, Nov 23, 2007 1:20PM

I don't want five guys named Vinnie executing monetary policy.

Posted by David, Nov 23, 2007 7:05PM

"Ron Paul is the Nassim Taleb of monetary economic theory. That's not a good thing, btw."

Posted by: Anonymous | November 22, 2007 06:06 PM

Maybe it actually is a good thing, and you're just overestimating the value of your data. "Experts" are famous for doing that, you know.

Posted by , Nov 24, 2007 5:25PM

David, maybe Taleb and Ron Paul are grossly overestimating the value of their ideas ... after all, THEY are the self-proclaimed experts, not me. So you see, Talebesque arguments against his critics are just as easily turned against Taleb himself.