End The Fed

 
(2009)
Ron Paul


Finished Reading: 03.2012

"The Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States, provides the nation with a safe, flexible and stable monetary and financial system." - www.federalreserve.gov

Not really. Ron Paul would beg to differ, and he does in this heated demand to abolish the federal agency which supervises the nation's money supply and banking industry. Though a topic few politicians are interested in discussing, let alone we the people with cash in hand, Congressman Paul continues to bring this national security issue to light, seeking a serious economic debate as to whether the Fed should stay or go.

Arguing that a central bank is not necessary, and in fact is "dishonest, immoral, and unconstitutional." Paul recommends a more diversified system without a single government backed entity that unwisely interferes with the free market and removes much of the responsibility and risk from the individual investor and redistributes the mistakes to everyone, all the while increasing inflation and devaluing the currency. Frequently descibing their frequent "printing money out of thin air," he advocates a monetary policy based on real commodities (such as gold) rather than the amount of ink that happens to be in the printing press or digital transaction records, which by the way, is money that doesn't ever need to be printed!

The more money the Federal Reserve prints, all of which isn't backed by gold, silver, or anything real, the less each dollar is worth. I could print money on my printer at home, but good luck buying bread with it as the government has not granted "legal tender" status on my pretty printed pictures, even if I did find someone who was willing to accept it. Both pieces of paper are otherwise worth the same.

The Fed doesn't seem to have plans to slow down the devaluation of our currency anytime soon, as the larger the machine gets the more fuel it needs to burn. But Ron Paul hopes to put the brakes on the Fed as a central issue in his bid for the white house in 2012 as it has been throughout his long political career. Unfortunately, rather than advocating change for a policy that doesn't work, most Americans are content to hope it works better tomorrow than it has for the last 99 years.

For more information: Ron Paul 2012

Currency Wars

The Making of the Next Global Crisis


(2011)
James Rickards

Finished Reading: 03.2012

While not as well known as the World Wars, James Rickards sheds light on the very real and very serious Currency Wars - the third of which is underway. For a long time the dollar has been the supreme uncontested leader of the economic markets. Other lesser currencies were subject to its whims. Now lead by the euro, the yuan and possibly the ruble, a slow siege is underway against the mighty dollar. Though the outcome is unknown, Rickards gives a few plausible expectations.

He begins by recounting a war games exercise he participated in a few years ago with high level government and military officials at the Pentagon. The object of the game, as always, was to play out possible war scenarios in one form or another, and learn something useful that can be implemented in real future combat. This particular war games exercise was different for its use of economic warfare which includes the potential destruction of financial markets and currencies by foreign powers.

Rickards, an investor / banker, tried to open the eyes of the government brains and military muscles to show that what could really happen is far beyond what anyone in Washington imagines, let alone has made plans for, and he came away from the exercise convinced that they still don't get it. American overconfidence in its great strength, cunning, and exceptionalism could leave it in a vulnerable position when a different kind of bomb is dropped in this or another currency war.

Explaining the weapons of devaluation, quantitative easing, exchange rates, and others arrows in the economic quiver, Rickards takes a look at the previous currency wars this past century and the more peaceful times before. He forms a reasonable explanation of what we face today as countries battle to establish the lowest exchange rate for their currency, some fighting with gold while most battle with paper. In the age globalization, this is a war fought in every country, in every city, in every wallet. Money is now fully global, despite the remaining distinct currencies, and should it suffer a lethal blow few will stand unscathed.

The Case For Gold

A Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission

(1982)
Ron Paul
Lewis Lehrman

Finished Reading: 02.2012

Written only a decade after the U.S. went completely off the gold standard in the early 1970's, the plunge into the deep end of full bodied fiat money was fresh in the minds of the authors. The hard money crowd was still dripping wet and pissed. Interestingly, thirty subsequent years have passed and our economic picture has not improved on the whole.

The authors describe in great detail the history of the economic system of  the United States, including various high and low moments, and warn against the present spin away from a gold standard and the imminent economic destruction we might come to expect. Simply stated, money backed by gold has real value because gold has real value. Money not backed by gold is only worth what the people in charge say it's worth, and that's not very comforting.

There have been various dark moments in history when a sovereign nation, such as our own, neglects to back its currency with gold for one reason or another. This was once the exception rather than the rule, though its occurrence has been maddeningly reoccurring. The point of view taken by the authors is only the minority opinion, then as it is now, but history will play out and opinions will no longer matter.

Economic destruction follows the debasement of currency after a short period of popular improvement, as has happened to the dollar and other currencies before. The Civil War and the Great Depression are two notable nodes in our national timeline which may not have been such sticks in the mud if policy decisions had been made differently in regards to the currency. Following that war and then that depression, there were periods in which gold shown a little brighter than they had before or after, and our nation was better for it. The authors warn that we are yet again in an economic tailspin that is in part caused by official disinterest in gold which could be cured, at least in part, by a new gold standard in one form or another.

We've seen many changes since this book was first published, but Ron Paul, who has run for president three times, has the same message because our problem are the same. Sadly no one seemed to be listening then as they are not listening now. Today, only gold is "good as gold."

Liberty Defined

50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom

(2011)
Ron Paul

Finished Reading: 12.2011

Ron Paul is the cure for apathetic non-partisan Independents. I appreciate that this collection of issues identifies many different topics which are now served on the table of American politics. Unfortunately, some of these topics had been swept under the table only to be rediscovered here. Listed in alphabetical order, Ron Paul succinctly states his opinion on each and moves on to the next in a sort of primer for fidgety open minds.

A few of these issues are the standard talking points that were boring in the last election cycle, and are still boring this time around because the Democrats and Republicans never really come to any new conclusions: Abortion, education, gun control, and taxes. And more! Other topics are specifically Ron Paulisms, those topics that no one else dares talk about but which Congressman Paul likes to frequently remind us about as issues that need to be discussed rather than blindly accepted: Austrian Economics, Empire, Foreign Aid, and Monetary Policy.

Maintaining Libertarian principles throughout, Ron Paul defends Liberty from the point of view that the rights of the individual are foremost and the government, whatever its form, has no right to take away those individual rights. Since governments should stay out of most issues, they should also leave their opinions and their money out of most issues.  "...Governments have nothing to pass out, since they produce nothing. Anytime government provides a benefit, it must first steal it from someone else who is producing it, thus violating the rights of the individual."

Essentially, denying the rights of one person to help another person is decreasing the freedom of both. The first person has lost his freedom to choose who to help, and the second person has possibly lost his freedom to rise above the monopoly provided by a certain type of help. "Foreign aid can best be described as taking money from the poor in a rich country and giving it to the rich and powerful in a poor country."

Progressives would of course disagree because they, "hold that any law or regulation that is created in the name of something like civil rights is in itself the very essence of those rights," according to Paul Krugman in this article by William L. Anderson. Whereas Libertarians desire fewer laws so that individuals can make their own choices, including poor choices, progressives desire more laws so that no one is allowed to make a poor choice - which could bring us all down. Ron Paul and other Libertarians offer that our national inclination towards legislating everything needs  reconsideration. Anderson quotes Frederic Bastiat as saying, "Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all."

My agreement with Ron Paul's ideas is fairly universal, but of course we can't agree on everything so I enjoyed this book. There are a few of these issues that I find to be secondary at best and are not worth an argument over whether or not they are true, but provide food for thought. Mainstream Republicans should consider whether their undying party allegiance should entertain some healthy deviations and give Congressman Paul another look. He draws support from Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and a wide range of preconceived notions that make for strange bedfellows.

The Revolution

A Manifesto

(2008)
Ron Paul

Finished Reading: 11.2011

Though a Libertarian hiding in a divergent Republican party, Ron Paul isn't out to fool anyone. The Texas Representative boldly lays out his policy in this Manifesto, published during his second presidential run in 2008. If Ron Paul is nothing else, he is consistent and he is clear. He advocates colorful sweeping change in a political landscape where politicians are only looking to pick out a new shade of beige for the upcoming 2012 elections.

One of Paul's primary platforms is a significant change to U.S. foreign policy.  He calls for a non-interventionist strategy where we just leave other countries alone, allowing them to carry out their own business. Our military would stay home and protect America while we save money, lives, and avoid unwanted blowback and the increasing international hatred that boils across the seas. Paul compares today's politicians with those in the past, concluding that our nation is headed into unnecessary interventionism and away from the original intent of our Founding Fathers. He ties our recent foreign policy actions to our other national problems, particularly the economic catastrophe that he predicted and we now find ourselves wallowing in.

Additionally, Ron Paul touches on the Constitution, economics, personal freedom, and money. These are all important talking points in the election season and each brings fodder for further discussion as I now move away from reviewing the content of the book itself, and delve into broader thoughts...

Most political followers see a big asterisk next to anything Ron Paul says, indicating that he is so far outside the box of American ideals that no one on the left or right takes his strategy ideas seriously. This is amazing that someone could be so ignored. I wonder how the radical agenda of a potential President Ron Paul would pan out? Could he accomplish his stated agenda with a typical Congress of regular partisan Democrats and Republicans?

If the government were to get it's big grubby hands out of the cookie jars, what would happen to the neglected crumbs? Would private enterprise, charity organizations and small local governments, as Paul proposes, pick up and run with the programs that the Federal Government leaves behind? Entirely idealistic, I know, but I'd like to see less forced taxation and more voluntary charitable contribution. But I do believe that the depravity of man is real and we will selfishly hoard for our own. The old question was, "Should this or that be done?" But my new question is, "Should government be the one to do it?"

Libertarianism, which I am just beginning to research, is an interesting blend of conservative and liberal thought, with a focus on liberty. Freedom is the catchy word floating around these days, but liberty seems to be similar and not as well understood. I like one definition that liberty is "not...the absence of interference in one's actions, but as non-dependence... (which) means being in a state of non-dependence from another's arbitrary will."

Extreme policy proposals seem like a waste of time on the surface, when every day the general disagreement is about minuscule details or trivial differences. But radical thoughts can bring about moderate change at a time when a new shade of beige is the only color proposed. If nothing else, a potential President Ron Paul would be like nothing we've ever seen.