Paul on CNN after signing of the bill

Paul’s speech on the House floor [Other speech]

Paul on Fox Business

Given the recent passage and signing of H.R. 1424, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, I think it’s appropriate to give Murray Rothbard’s take on what they are doing.

From America’s Great Depression, page 19 and 20:

If government wishes to see a depression ended as quickly as possible, and the economy returned to normal prosperity, what course should it adopt? The first and clearest injunction is: don’t interfere with the market’s adjustment process. The more the government intervenes to delay the market’s adjustment, the longer and more grueling the depression will be, and the more difficult will be the road to complete recovery. Government hampering aggravates and perpetuates the depression. Yet, government depression policy has always (and would have even more today) aggravated the very evils it has loudly tried to cure. If, in fact, we list logically the various ways that government could hamper market adjustment, we will find that we have precisely listed the favorite “anti-depression” arsenal of government policy. Thus, here are the ways the adjustment process can be hobbled:

1. Prevent or delay liquidation. Lend money to shaky businesses, call on banks to lend further, etc.
2. Inflate further. Further inflation blocks the necessary fall in prices, thus delaying adjustment and prolonging depression. Furthercredit expansion creates more malinvestments, which, in their turn, will have to be liquidated in some later depression. A government “easy money” policy prevents the market’s return to the necessary higher interest rates.
3. Keep wage rates up. Artificial maintenance of wage rates in a depression insures permanent mass unemployment. Furthermore, in a deflation, when prices are falling, keeping the same rate of money wages means that real wage rates have been pushed higher. In the face of falling business demand, this greatly aggravates the unemployment problem.
4. Keep prices up. Keeping prices above their free-market levels will create unsalable surpluses, and prevent a return to prosperity.
5. Stimulate consumption and discourage saving. We have seen that more saving and less consumption would speed recovery; more consumption and less saving aggravate the shortage of saved capital even further. Government can encourage consumption by “food stamp plans” and relief payments. It can discourage savings and investment by higher taxes, particularly on the wealthy and on corporations and estates. As a matter of fact, any increase of taxes and government spending will discourage saving and investment and stimulate consumption, since government spending is all consumption. Some of the private funds would have been saved and invested; all of the government funds are consumed.¹⁵ Any increase in the relative size of government in the economy, therefore, shifts the societal consumption–investment ratio in favor of consumption, and prolongs the depression.
6. Subsidize unemployment. Any subsidization of unemployment (via unemployment “insurance,” relief, etc.) will prolong unemployment indefinitely, and delay the shift of workers to the fields where jobs are available.

These, then, are the measures which will delay the recovery process and aggravate the depression. Yet, they are the time-honored favorites of government policy, and, as we shall see, they were the policies adopted in the 1929–1933 depression, by a government known to many historians as a “laissez-faire” administration.

Since deflation also speeds recovery, the government should encourage, rather than interfere with, a credit contraction.

¹⁵In recent years, particularly in the literature on the “under-developed countries,” there has been a great deal of discussion of government “investment.” There can be no such investment, however. “Investment” is defined as expenditures made not for the direct satisfaction of those who make it, but for other, ultimate consumers. Machines are produced not to serve the entrepreneur, but to serve the ultimate consumers, who in turn remunerate the entrepreneurs. But government acquires its funds by seizing them from private individuals; the spending of the funds, therefore, gratifies the desires of government officials. Government officials have forcibly shifted production from satisfying private consumers to satisfying themselves; their spending is therefore pure consumption and can by no stretch of the term be called “investment.” (Of course, to the extent that government officials do not realize this, their “consumption” is really wastespending.)

Sound familiar?

http://query.nytimes.com/…

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

By STEVEN A. HOLMES

Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

…

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.

”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

It was obvious to just about everyone… yet Democrats in particular… the likes of Dodd, Clinton, Schumer, Reid, Obama, etc. endorsed and in several cases explicitly benefited from the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The CRA was not the only or even the most important aspect which lead to the current crisis. Bad lending couldn’t have been sustained or would have been possible if not for the Federal Reserves incredibly low interest rates and market manipulation. The CRA was the vehicle which the rode the low interest wave to creating the boom.

September 30. 2008
Alert #29: Aloha Liberty Dollar

Now I am not usually a doom-and-gloom guy. I developed the Liberty Dollar to bring a real solution to the currency situation that I realized in 1974… some 34 years ago! And for all these years I have strived to bring about a proven, positive, peaceful and profitable solution to our country’s controlled fiat monetary system.

And while I greatly appreciated your support (ala the Choir), at almost every turn there has been an invisible force that has thwarted the Liberty Dollar development and larger use. At first you may think, I mean the government. That is not the case. The government had been amazingly supportive up until the raid. The most disturbing “invisible force” is bunch of traitors who confess to have the very ideals that you think they endorse. Unfortunately, most of the time I found our supposed “leaders” to be vain little men, who were much more interested in maintaining their position than saving the country.

Who are these traitors who have steadfastfully blocked or secretly worked to undermine the Liberty Dollar and its ideals? Well over the years I have made several lists, but I am now on Tour and time has long dulled that list… but it is easy to list a few and you may know a few more from your own efforts with the Liberty Dollar.

List of Bellybuttons:
Lew Rockwell, Von Mises Institute
Mark Skousen, Newsletter
Bill Bonner, Agora Publishing
Addison Wiggin, Newsletter
John McManus, John Birch Society
Ed Crane, Cato Institute
Jack Pugsley, Sovereign Society
Vin Suprynowicz, Las Vegas reporter
Charley Reese, Orlando reporter
Sheldon Richman, writer
Doug Casey, Newsletter
Franklin Sanders, Moneychanger-my-ass
Jim Cook, Investment Rarities
Peymon Mottahedeh, Freedom Law School
Ron Paul, Politician

I contacted every one of these bellybuttons. Each had the opportunity to really advance the ideals of liberty but didn’t. They are liars and traitors to the ideals that you may think they support. I would never trust any of them. None will address the issues or even state their objections to the Liberty Dollar. Most will not even reply. A few have said I don’t like them because they would not endorse the Liberty Dollar. Hell, I have never asked for an endorsement from anyone and don’t care if someone endorses the Liberty Dollar or not. But I brand these traitors as bellybuttons because they stonewall, back stab and take adverse positions against the Liberty Dollar while publicly stating that they support the very same ideals but refuse to enter a discourse to move a viable solution forward.

As a student of Austrian Economics, I was particularly drawn to the Mises Institute so I made an appointment to meet Lew Lockwell. When the day finally arrived, his secretary kept me waiting for an hour, then he stood me up and had me forcibly evicted into a driving Alabama rainstorm without a car. Nice business manners, eh?! For that and ten years of behind-the-scenes of negativity, I name Prickwell king bellybutton of the government controlled opposition. Skousen, Bonner, McManus, Crane and Casey are not far behind. Be very careful of whom you ask advice. If you have any doubts, just ask this list of American traitors, because I have and they all made me sick.

Contrary to these lying bellybutton traitors, there have been a great many “ordinary Joes” who have exemplified the greatness of our original Founding Fathers. These men and women have won my heart, not because they support the Liberty Dollar, but because they have devoted their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to furthering the ideals as represented by the Liberty Dollar.

I don’t know what happened at his appointment nor do we know why he’s pissed at the rest of those listed but I’m not getting the feeling that it was anything to garner this kind of response. In my opinion the Liberty Dollar little more than a scam. Selling a one troy ounce silver round for $50 is 3.66 times the spot price of $13.64 (bought in 50 to 100 troy oz batch) at the time of writing. They then attempt to use the $50 face valued coin as if it was worth as much as a $50 FRN. As the cost of silver rose so did the profit margin when it was re-minted with a higher face value. It is no wonder that these individuals didn’t want to associate themselves with von NotHaus and the Liberty Dollar. It’s obviously of questionable legality (not that any of those listed agree with that status but they likely don’t want to be directly affiliated with that) and it questionable morally too. If someone wishes to invest in metals the Liberty Dollar is a complete waste of money and if you wish to use metals as a currency or barter buying generic rounds is not only significantly cheaper but it doesn’t have the legal issues. Those “ordinary Joes”, of which I know a few personally, who are RCOs or are purchasers and users of the Liberty Dollars were suckered into a pyramid scheme.

The idea is right but the implementation is just too off to be an honest business.

Not too surprising given Ludwig von Drake was supposedly named after Ludwig von Mises.

Perhaps some at Disney are Austrians.

I remember that episode when I was a kid.

http://www.bloomberg.com/…

The Federal Reserve will pump an additional $630 billion into the global financial system, flooding banks with cash to alleviate the worst banking crisis since the Great Depression.

The Fed increased its existing currency swaps with foreign central banks by $330 billion to $620 billion to make more dollars available worldwide. The Term Auction Facility, the Fed’s emergency loan program, will expand by $300 billion to $450 billion. The European Central Bank, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan are among the participating authorities.

The Fed’s expansion of liquidity, the biggest since credit markets seized up last year, came hours before the U.S. House of Representatives rejected a $700 billion bailout for the financial industry. The crisis is reverberating through the global economy, causing stocks to plunge and forcing European governments to rescue four banks over the past two days alone.

“Today’s blast of term liquidity will settle the funding markets down, and allow trust to slowly be restored between borrowers and lenders,” said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. in New York. On the other hand, “the Fed’s balance sheet is about to explode.”

Is that hyperinflation I hear? Who needs Congress when you already have the power to bailout these institutions in other ways?

All the money in the world wouldn’t help this… why do they continue to try?