|
Transcript Part 5
Dr. Paul: Well, it’s hard to say because you’d have to read his mind. Did he really believe it before? Was he just talking off the cuff? Did he not understand? Or the other thing is, is did he, once he became president did he realize or all of a sudden be confronted by the deep state? The people who really pull the strings and have a lot to say about the monetary system and the government system? The average politician, the average Congressman, has very little say about what’s going on, and you mentioned at the beginning that there’s a lot of bipartisanship and that is the real case. So when you have – I remember so clearly when I was there Boehner and Pelosi were pretty good friends, and the Congress lumbered along and they never passed their budgets just as they're doing now. Then at the end there’s an emergency and the leaders put together and spend the money and then there’s no time to even study it. That’s where the real problem is. But why Trump did it – it was so disappointing.
But the one thing is, is he – from my viewpoint – there’s no way to know – he lacks a consistent policy. How can he be so wrong on Iran and early on he was so right on Russia? Then all of the sudden he flips. But in my programming, you know Daniel McAdam’s and I, we keep having to say, well, it looks like the neocons won again. Exactly why, somebody else will have to figure it out because I won’t want to try to prove to you he was a secret neocon all along. I think he probably did believe a lot of what he was saying in the campaign, but then realism set in, and he didn’t have a core principle.
Most libertarians have a core principle. It’s protection of liberty and the absence of aggression in all areas that we have to conform to. And I don’t think he had that position. I think he’s – he comes across as a utilitarian, a pragmatism, whatever fits the moment you have to do that and not looking at the ramifications. But if that is the case, he fits in well because that’s what the whole philosophy of Keynesian Interventionism is. They think they can be pragmatic and just look at one issue without looking at the philosophy. But it’s a little more blatant with President Trump.
Chris: Well, I wanted to bring all that up because, of course, I consider the militarization of the United States to be one of the key causes for loss of liberty, loss of freedom, and in talking about that liberty and freedom, to the people listening, especially the younger people, how do you advise people to go about creating more – is it ever going to be possible to recreate the sort of freedoms we once enjoyed? What’s the path here that you talk about?
Dr. Paul: Well, it has to be educational. It can’t be political. Even though I was in politics all those years, I never set out a goal that I was going to become banking chairman and get rid of the Federal Reserve. I was much more realistic. But I spoke out in the 70s mainly to have a podium because I was so annoyed with the Federal Reserve and the breakdown of Bretton Woods and that sort of thing. So I spoke out and I guess I was surprised as anything that I actually went to Congress. But some people a lot of time ask me, weren’t you really frustrated? What happened? What did you really do? You didn’t change anything. I said, no, I was never frustrated at all - I was just very realistic about what happened. I never deceived myself. Actually, I was pleased with the attention we got because we’ve certainly called a lot of attention to the Federal Reserve.
But I think it’s totally educational. Everybody has a role to play. If you believe in this philosophy you can be creative and find out something you can do. People can write books. They can get on television. They can get on the internet. They can become teachers. They can be – maybe someday we’ll get rid of the influence of Hollywood and the scandals of Hollywood and have people do more decent movies and more driven by the principles of liberty. Ideas are the most important. Ideas have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences. And if you have an idea whose time has come and it’s a good principle, nobody can stop it. The military and the government can’t stop it, and that’s why I’m leaning in the direction of believing that the time has come, out of necessity, that we have to restore this whole love of liberty and the principles of liberty. And that’s where I do think that we’re winning the ballgame.
Chris: All right. And those ideas can be found in the book, The Revolution At Ten Years. It’s in Amazon. IT’s on bookshelves right now. Our guest is Dr. Ron Paul. So get the book, read it, learn because an idea can defeat an army, or if said the other way, an army can’t defeat an idea. Dr. Paul, how can people contribute to your fine efforts if they want to or even just follow your movement and writing more closely?
Dr. Paul: Well, we do a daily program, TheLibertyReport.com and go there. But the one organization right now is the Ron Paul Organization for Liberty, Peace and Prosperity. So that’s the place to go. But go to my Ron Paul Liberty report and that’s what we do something every day on.
Chris: All right. Well, the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. Great site. I visit there all the time. Dr. Paul, thank you so much for what you do in the world and for your time today.
Dr. Paul: Very good. Nice to be with you. Bye-bye. 
Gold is $1,581/oz today. When it hits $2,000, it will be up 26.5%. Let's see how long that takes. - De 3/11/2013 - ANSWER: 7 Years, 5 Months
» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Ron Paul: We Are Reaching A Point Of No Return
By: Decomposed
in
POPE IV
Thu, 09 Nov 17 8:09 AM
|
Msg. 38253 of
47202
|
|
Transcript Part 4
But their whole goal in monetary policy is they're hoping that they can report the CPI going a little higher. But the truth is prices are going up a lot faster than they will admit, and it’s only a gimmick to distract us from the Federal Reserve. They think that it’s some people that aren’t at a point of getting the prices to go higher that would only happen. But that is hardly the solution. So all they do is they push on a string. They keep pushing. They push all that money out, and the people aren’t doing with the money that they think that they should. They keep buying more debt and monetizing debt, and what we need is a productive society and that won’t come until you have the liquidation of the mal-investment of excessive debt and too much regulation. And confidence restored. Companies now have a hard time finding money. You can borrow it pretty cheaply, but there’s no confidence that if I start a new business and I’m going to manufacture steel once again and be competitive – nobody’s doing that like we did in the Industrial Revolution.
Chris: Now, the Federal Reserve, I blame a lot and use the word blame carefully. I don’t like to cast blame around. But they had some blame coming, and I’m a big critic of Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, now Yellen, and I’m almost becoming infuriated – if I could use that word carefully – because of the learning curve; seems to be so flat for that organization. It seems completely obviously to me that if you take all the savings of the country and you give it zero percent return and then people don’t get the interest return on that you end up with – it seems capably obviously that you would end up with a system that we currently have where you have low spending, low borrowing, low investment, all these things they say that want, but essentially what the Fed did was they didn’t give money to Main Street. They actually took it away. Where did it go? Well, because of how the yield curve is built, they gave that money, took it away from savers and gave it to the big banks.
Would it be unfair of an observer like myself to say the Feds not – they talk a good game about helping the middle class and helping economy, but if you follow their actions not their words, what they’ve really done is taken a bunch of purchasing power from one group and handed it another group. And that other group, by the way, has created lots of inflation in gulfstream jets, trophy properties, high-end art, good jewels, and all of that.
Dr. Paul: That’s exactly what happened because the person that had a house and couldn’t pay the mortgage, which was a problem coming from the system that we had, the mal-investment, low interest rate and the over building. They weren’t bailed out. They generally lost their job and lost their houses so often. But there was some bailing out and exactly the people you're talking about – the very wealthy people and the people who were making all these mortgages – oh, they're too big to fail. So they got the bailouts. And they weren’t just domestic. This was an international event, and because the dollar is the reserve currency it was used to bail out other central banks and other governments and international corporations. And in the sense of pasting it together for a while longer, they did that, but now whether it’s the bond bubble or the dollar bubble, it’s bigger than ever.
The eventual event will be driven by the marketplace, and that means it will come undone, and they won’t be able to stop it just printing more money. It’s actually the opposite. Instead of, like they did, they print money and they prop up. There will be a time when, if we have a sharp downturn and they decide, well, QE didn’t work because it wasn’t enough and they double QE, there’ll be a point of no return and the confidence will be lost. We’ll dump the dollar. Interest rates will go up instead of down, and that will make all the difference in the world because it will be unsustainable, and then there will be the real challenge to the dollar being at reserve currency is when the dollar no longer serves as the international money, as the key currency. That’s when the ballgame is over.
Chris: Absolutely. So I want to talk to you about politics now. Recently you wrote on your national blog on the Campaign for Liberty website you said, “President Trump has been notoriously inconsistent in his foreign policy. He campaigned on it and won the presidency with promises to repair relations with Russia, pull out of no win wars like Afghanistan, and end the failed US policy of nation building overseas. Once in office he pursued policies exactly the opposite of what he campaigned on. Unfortunately, Iran is one of the few areas where the president has been very consistent, and consistently wrong.” First, why did Trump do such a turnabout from his campaign rhetoric and then your thoughts on Iran?
|
|
|
|
|
| 
