How to fire up Ron Paul supporters

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>they had very limited powers then. look at the history of economic failures prior to the Fed and then come back.

The "history" is that after Andrew Jackson got rid of the national bank he was able to COMPLETELY PAY OFF the national debt. That's because the government stopped accruing debt.

The "economic failures" you refer to - between jackson's abolition of the national bank and the Fed's creation in 1913 - are nothing more than the business cycle. There were periods of growth, and periods of recession. You certainly cannot say that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 changed that.

Goose wrote:

<quoted text>The "history" is that after Andrew Jackson got rid of the national bank he was able to COMPLETELY PAY OFF the national debt. That's because the government stopped accruing debt.
The "economic failures" you refer to - between jackson's abolition of the national bank and the Fed's creation in 1913 - are nothing more than the business cycle. There were periods of growth, and periods of recession. You certainly cannot say that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 changed that.

they were complete banking and market failures. The dips were deeper and duration was longer than any since the Fed gained any real regulatory power.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>they were complete banking and market failures. The dips were deeper and duration was longer than any since the Fed gained any real regulatory power.

So then .... You are an aspiring novelist!?

Only Ron Paul as republican, he is really the best US politician. It seems that openly he would have better chances as democrate to get this nomination but everything is a little or maybe more than a little bit wired in USA.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>2. having no central monetary policy body.(see history of US markets prior to and after formation of the FED.)(Also see, The current EU problems)

Let's take this one first, since it's the most retarded.

Prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve, the US had a period of rapid growth and great price stability. Even the experiment with bimetallism didn't do much to interfere with this. What troubles there were, were caused by laws that allowed individual banks, to a greater extent than now, to perform the destructive act of inflating the supply of money and credit that the Fed has excelled at and that prohibited banks from diversifying geographically.

Th boom-bust cycle of bank-injected funny money is well understood and well documented. Just as the (central) Second Bank of the United States was a major cause of the Panic of 1819 (for which, see http://mises.org/daily/3395 ), and the Federal Reserve was the primary cause of the Great Depression (exogenous causes being ruled out) and a sine qua non, at least of the tech-stock and housing bubbles (which cannot exist without the inflation of the supply of money and credit), so, too, can individual banks cause recessions.

Individual banks, however, are limited in their ability to destroy the economy; they ultimately have to pay off the money they've borrowed, and if they've lent too much money they don't have, they risk going out of business; they have a need for either a solvent bank, or, as in 1819, 1932, and recently, they need to be bailed out by a central bank or granted special privileges (e.g. laws/regulations protecting them from having to pay off their notes) to survive.

Blaming the lack of central banks for the relatively small panics that preceded the creation of the Federal Reserve is like Cain claiming that Abel's disappearance is none of his business. It is a white lie, pointing to an irrelevant fact in an attempt to absolve the real culprits.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>1. Isolationism.( See US history)

The stock example of isolationism is the period leading up to the United States' entry into World War II. It's riddled with problems.

In fact, Japan's entry into the war against the United States was a prime example of interventionism, not non-interventionism. FDR continually intervened on behalf of Soviet-Union-fomented rebellions in Japanese-controlled Manchuria. He even went to the extreme of choking off Japan's oil supply, an act which he knew would lead to war.(He wanted to enter the war so badly that he directed commanders in the Pacific to be attacked first. He also knew the evening before the attack on Pearl Harbor that Japan was about to declare war, that a significant military attack was scheduled for 1PM EST on December 7th, 1941, and that Pearl Harbor was being monitored for an aerial attack. He simply failed to anticipate the extent of the damage that he invited.)

Even after choking off Japan's oil supply, FDR took several more steps to foment and invite war with Japan. One of them was to weaken the fleet at Pearl Harbor by denying it supplies that were being sent to Britain and its allies and by transferring several dozens of ships from Pearl to the North Atlantic.

It isn't clear what would've happened to the war with Hitler's National Socialists. Public opinion in the United States was such that it would likely not have tolerated the conquest of England. The only question is what would've happened if the United States had entered the war too late, to which I doubt we'll ever know the answer.

Or did you have a different example of interventionism in mind?

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>3. Removal of EPA.(see pollution rates before regulated)

What a populace is willing to tolerate of the depredations of polluters, and of many other undesirable things that aren't necessarily wrongs, is largely related to its economic condition. It is insufficient to point to historical pollution and claim that it is an example of underregulation, especially where court decisions intervened on behalf of polluters.

Please come up with a specific example, if you can. So far, you're batting .000 with two at-bats.

TDavidHudson wrote:

<quoted text>
as in 1819, 1932, and recently

Correction: 1933, not 1932.