This might be the first time I've seen him talk for 7 minutes straight without using the phrase "Gold standard".

He's getting better about packaging his ideas to appeal to liberals. I really hope he can reshape the Republican party, because while I probably still wouldn't vote for them, I probably wouldn't mind losing elections to them so much if they stuck to this philosophy and attitude.

He's probably right that the risky loans came from legislation aimed at helping lower income families get mortgages -- but when that passed, these derivative financial products were more strictly regulated. Take away that safety valve, and toss in a bit of capitalistic greed, and we wind up with a global catastrophe, instead of a limited financial downturn.

It's not a failure of capitalism, and while it is a failure of regulation, it's a failure of regulation brought on due to haphazardly saying "my lobbyists advisers say regulation is bad, so let's cut what we can", without respecting the importance of existing regulation, or an examination of the effects of lifting regulations partially.

I've heard this speech a thousand times already. I understand it, and it is 100% accurate. But it's the same exact speech.

Yet not enough people are listening or taking it seriously.....

CRA. very important acronym for the early 21st century.

The only guy speaking to the issues...

Still.

I've been watching the credit crisis unfold for the last year. I so incredibly curious as to what is going to happen next week.

LONDON (Reuters) - The Bank of Canada said on Thursday it had agreed on a US$10 billion swap facility with the U.S. Federal Reserve to provide U.S. dollar liquidity in Canada.

The facility is similar to those announced by other central banks, including the Fed, on Thursday as part of coordinated action to improve liquidity conditions in global financial markets, the bank said in a statement.

The BOC said it judged it was not necessary at this time to draw on the swap facility but said it was prudent to have it in place. The facility will provide it with "additional flexibility to address rapidly evolving developments in financial markets."

The central bank added that it continues to closely monitor developments in global markets and is committed to providing liquidity as required.

(Reporting by Jessica Mortimer)

There was some documentary last year that talked about this happening (zeitgeist?)... and I hate conspiracy theories, but this whole economic meltdown seems to lead to a global currency or at least in the short term something similar to the euro for Canada, US and Mexico. I'm not well versed enough in economics to actually go through the details with support but maybe someone who is could tell me I'm full of shit or on to something.

Ok I admit... i'm from Texas and i'm not sure i could have told you who Dr. Paul was a year ago...

Having said that I have come to respect him if not always agree with him...

I was curious though, do any of you... (people who really believe in him) feel he can really produce any lasting change in the time he has left in the public light... Please don't get me wrong i'm wishing him many more long and health years... but just being realistic... he seems very much on his own politically... and I wonder/worry if the message he brings fades with him?

Do you understand, what the situation would be without any government intervention? If the stock market wasn't halted after 911, and a plan put through to boost the economy, the entire system would have collapsed. Everyone looking out for themselves, without control, would have stopped buying. NO one looking over the entire situation. You need CONTROL in times of crisis. A free market can not stand everyone to just stop buying at once, which is exactly would have happen the days after 911.

Even Al Greenspan, the hardcore Randian bastard, admits that the regulation of the federal reserve is necessary for stabilization. Most economists also agree with this, and yet still hold Laissez Fair viewpoints. Ron Paul on the other hand, is basically a fundamentalist libertarian. He will never get past his viewpoint, and always view this as the only solution, and will argue anything at all against it. It is very respectable to have a politician like this, but would also be horrible to have someone so closed minded in office.

The great depression was allowed to ruin the economy because the government did nothing. And it was solved, by CONTROL, by having a organization to look over the economy and move it to the right direction. When it works well, let it go, let it be free, but it requires direction for stabilization.

Edit: I just want to make the disclaimer, that I do agree with Ron Paul's main platform, and do believe in small government and limiting government as much as possible. But I have to argue against taking this sort of viewpoint to far.

>> ^vermeulen:


Everyone looking out for themselves, without control, would have stopped buying.
What could statement possibly be based upon, aside from omniscience? How can you claim to understand or predict the habits of 300 million people?

A free market can not stand everyone to just stop buying at once, which is exactly would have happen the days after 911.
Really, 300 million people would all stop buying goods and starve to death? My understandng is that in a free market, when people stop buying a product the price drops until they start buying it again. Are you telling me that if the price of plasma tvs dropped to $100 each you wouldn't be out buying a dozen--just because a plane crashed into a building, probably not even anywhere near you?

Even Al Greenspan, the hardcore Randian bastard, admits that the regulation of the federal reserve is necessary for stabilization.
A chairman of the Federal Reserve board thinks the Federal Reserve board is necessary for stabilization? Madness. Greenspan is a hypocrite. Whatever he preached about the free market, and whatever ties he had with objectivism are not compatible with his role at the Federal Reserve.

Most economists also agree with this, and yet still hold Laissez Fair viewpoints
Most people 1000 years ago believed the earth was flat. What does majority opinion have anything to do with reality?

Ron Paul on the other hand, is basically a fundamentalist libertarian. He will never get past his viewpoint, and always view this as the only solution, and will argue anything at all against it.
Get past his viewpoint....to what? To your viewpoint? Why would he do this? What evidence are you bringing to the table?

The great depression was allowed to ruin the economy because the government did nothing.
The "great depression" would have been the "moderate recession" had it not be for the governments ineptitude. Yes the government did nothing--but not the "nothing" you are talking about. The US increased its reserves of gold during this period, but failed to increase the supply of money as it was constitutionally sanctioned to do in adherence to the gold standard. It was not a problem of regulation, it was a problem of failing to execute constitutionally given powers.

Its great that the internet allows everyone to voice their opinion, but can you at least try to research a little deeper before you make assertions? Its tempting to watch tv, do a google search, and read the local paper and think you are an expert on an array of issues because you are listening to "experts" on an array of issues, but its just not true.

You really cannot criticize Ron Paul's ideas if you don't even know the basis for his positions. If all you've seen are youtube clips, you really only have a superficial knowledge of his positions--it takes more than 3 minutes to explain the rationality behind any given position--especially with ideas that are unconventional and foreign to most people.