3/3/11

"It will end when this country goes bankrupt, and we're fast approaching that point."

Wow. Ron Paul (R-TX) goes off on Ben Bernanke, the Fed's monkey math, and America's imperial meddling. It's always refreshing to hear straight talk from a politician, probably because it happens so rarely. Why isn't this guy President?

Comments (67)

  • Mr. Cheese
  •  3/3/11

Repping the 14th Congressional District!

He also authored "The Revolution: A Manifesto"
http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Pau...

Ron Paul is a common sense guy that uses simple logic. This is what will never propel him to the role of President. While you have politicians that run on an emotional ticket that appeals to the masses, a guy like Ron Paul just can't compete, because the masses cannot be swayed with simple logical approaches to solving problems.

3/3/11
Mr. Cheese:

Ron Paul is a common sense guy that uses simple logic.

Yeah, like going back to the gold standard. I like where his heart is, and he gets an A for effort, but part of this is him using fear mongering to try and get power.

The US isn't going bankrupt, plain and simple.

Get busy living

3/3/11
UFOinsider:

The US isn't going bankrupt, plain and simple.

Greece probably thought the same thing too. I know we can print money so technically we won' t ever go bankrupt but the dollar won't be worth shit.

3/3/11
chitownanalyst:
UFOinsider:

The US isn't going bankrupt, plain and simple.

Greece probably thought the same thing too. I know we can print money so technically we won' t ever go bankrupt but the dollar won't be worth shit.

silly rhetorice aside, do you seriously think this is a threat at this moment in time? I'm not talking about projected abstractions, I mean right now.

Get busy living

3/3/11
UFOinsider:

silly rhetorice aside, do you seriously think this is a threat at this moment in time? I'm not talking about projected abstractions, I mean right now.

Right now, no. However, I do think if we don't make meaningful (i.e., SS, Medicare, Military) spending cuts the rest of the world will one day realize that we aren't paying back shit.

3/5/11
chitownanalyst:
UFOinsider:

The US isn't going bankrupt, plain and simple.

Greece probably thought the same thing too. I know we can print money so technically we won' t ever go bankrupt but the dollar won't be worth shit.

Greece does not have the same GDP growth rate as the US, an economy as large as the US and it doesn't have the reserve currency. If your thinking about throwing China at me, ask your self this, if China wants their currency to be the reserve currency, why have they fixed it to the US dollar?

3/8/11
saads1987:

Greece does not have the same GDP growth rate as the US, an economy as large as the US and it doesn't have the reserve currency. If your thinking about throwing China at me, ask your self this, if China wants their currency to be the reserve currency, why have they fixed it to the US dollar?

What would the US GDP be without the Fed printing money though?

3/9/11
chitownanalyst:
saads1987:

Greece does not have the same GDP growth rate as the US, an economy as large as the US and it doesn't have the reserve currency. If your thinking about throwing China at me, ask your self this, if China wants their currency to be the reserve currency, why have they fixed it to the US dollar?

What would the US GDP be without the Fed printing money though?

GDP would still be the highest given that the US produces the most amount of goods and services per capita. Take any country that you may think has their monetary act together, look at their GDP per capita in US dollars, if they have their act together this would reflect the devaluation of the dollar caused by the Fed. You'll see from this that no country comes close to the US in terms of production power per person and that the US is has the highest GDP.

3/3/11
3/3/11

RP is probably the only politician I actually trust. I will definitely vote for him in 2012 if he runs for President.

3/3/11

Agree with you Eddie. I can never understand how anyone with any intelligence can listen to this man and not want to vote for him.

3/3/11

He kind of seems like Irwin Schiff to me. Has anyone read How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes?

3/3/11

Malakari:
He kind of seems like Irwin Schiff to me. Has anyone read How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes?

LMAO. I think you mean Peter Schiff. Don't feel bad, though. I'm a big fan of Irwin's work too.

3/3/11

Ron Paul is the shit, point blank....

3/3/11

I'd vote for him if he ran, the problem is that the majority of voters are made to think he is a little looney for actually having common sense.

"One should recognize reality even when one doesn't like it, indeed, especially when one doesn't like it." - Charlie Munger

3/3/11

I agree with the above. He's from a district really close to me.

3/3/11

absolutely agree with cplpayne. guys like rp never make it to the top because people don't believe he has what it takes to run the country. he'd have scruples pulling the trigger, you see

3/3/11

I read some excerpts of Bernanke's testimony and I feel like he (Bernanke) also has a point. If we are looking at inflation as a measure of recovery, does it make sense to include food and oil which are driven by other macro factors unrelated to the US recovery? Also, it seems like all the money printing via waves of QE is related to supporting the recovery, and not for the purpose of devaluing the dollar and inflating the debt away. Am I way off base here?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/02/us-usa-f...

3/3/11

Plus, you know Ron Paul is a genuinely intelligent guy. He attended Duke Med school and was a US Air Force Flight Surgeon. His son also was a doctor and went to Duke med. I read his book End the Fed which was pretty interesting.

3/3/11

Ron Paul is the physical manifestation of the psychological (perhaps better yet, psychotic) phenomenon that is people's preference for subjugation over having a hand in their own governance.

If you like Ron Paul, better hope his son Rand continues in his footsteps and maybe in thirty years or so... he will have a shot at the White House.

3/3/11

Ron Paul makes a good point but he's too idealistic. We need a politician that can get shit done, not someone who's gonna be so unrealistic that everyone will think he's crazy. He's too far in his own corner, we need someone more in the middle.

Also, you can't blame food prices and gas prices on Bernanke. That's ridiculous. Floods and droughts all over the world, especially Russia and Canada, speculation, uprising in the middle east, price of oil worldwide, etc etc are all factors affecting those things.

A deflating dollar DOES make it easier for foreign countries to stockpile American food, which they have been doing since they're scared due to the rising food prices. But there are a lot of other factors much more fundamental than this.

Not that I don't think this path we are on is a completely destructive one...

Wall Street leaders now understand that they made a mistake, one born of their innocent and trusting nature. They trusted ordinary Americans to behave more responsibly than they themselves ever would, and these ordinary Americans betrayed their trust.

3/3/11
Beef:

Ron Paul makes a good point but he's too idealistic. We need a politician that can get shit done

Chris Cristie = human wrecking ball

sic 'em boy

Get busy living

  • Mr. Cheese
  •  3/3/11
UFOinsider:
Beef:

Ron Paul makes a good point but he's too idealistic. We need a politician that can get shit done

Chris Cristie = human wrecking ball

sic 'em boy

+1. Ya I'm overweight. So what?

3/3/11
Mr. Cheese:
UFOinsider:
Beef:

Ron Paul makes a good point but he's too idealistic. We need a politician that can get shit done

Chris Cristie = human wrecking ball

sic 'em boy

+1. Ya I'm overweight. So what?

I'm looking through my posts and don't see where I called anyone fat: apologies just the same if I did and/or offended....

Get busy living

3/3/11
UFOinsider:
Mr. Cheese:
UFOinsider:
Beef:

Ron Paul makes a good point but he's too idealistic. We need a politician that can get shit done

Chris Cristie = human wrecking ball

sic 'em boy

+1. Ya I'm overweight. So what?

I'm looking through my posts and don't see where I called anyone fat: apologies just the same if I did and/or offended....

Chris Christie is fat you dork, that's the fat comment.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

3/3/11
happypantsmcgee:
UFOinsider:
Mr. Cheese:
UFOinsider:
Beef:

Ron Paul makes a good point but he's too idealistic. We need a politician that can get shit done

Chris Cristie = human wrecking ball

sic 'em boy

+1. Ya I'm overweight. So what?

I'm looking through my posts and don't see where I called anyone fat: apologies just the same if I did and/or offended....

Chris Christie is fat you dork, that's the fat comment.

Hahaha, man, I'm dense, and yeah, he's not a looker. I'm thinking we should get Eddie B to whip him into shape and help the guy look more presentable. It sucks, but that's politics

Get busy living

  • Mr. Cheese
  •  3/3/11

Hahhaa that's funny. YouTube chrs Christie I'm overweight, so what. John Corzine had a smear campaign going on in the race that depicted Christie as "throwing his weight around". Christie is a no-nonsense politician. Jersey lucked out with him.

3/3/11

Yes we did, and I'm looking on Youtube for that....

Get busy living

3/3/11

I noticed a lot of people saying that I WOULD vote for him if he ran for President, but he did!!!

He was trying to win the Republican candidacy in 2008. Maybe you guys aren't Republicans and didn't know.

I voted for him though. RP speaks the truth!

Yours truly,
The Young Investor

3/4/11

I was at CPAC 2010 in February 2010. It was an amazing event. But the Ron Paul supporters were there and SOOO annoying. However, in the last year or so, I've come to like Ron Paul a great deal. HOWEVER, Ron Paul and his ardent supporters' main problem is that they are SOOOO extreme on almost EVERYTHING. They not only think we should balance the budget (good thing) but we ought to go back to the gold standard (extreme thing). They not only think we should not police the world (good thing) but we ought also not take any measures at home to defend against domestic terrorism, such as wiretapping suspected terrorists, TSA screenings at airports, or even general monitoring (extreme thing). They not only support the 2nd Amendment (good thing), they oppose ALL firearm and weapons regulations (extreme thing). They not only support American ending its foreign aid (eh, one could argue both ways), but they support de-funding and abandoning our 65-year-old ally, Israel, to the wolves of genocide (extreme thing).

It's just issue after issue where he and his supporters are no where even close to mainstream even though they have a lot of good ideas.

3/4/11
Virginia Tech 4ever:

I was at CPAC 2010 in February 2010. It was an amazing event. But the Ron Paul supporters were there and SOOO annoying. However, in the last year or so, I've come to like Ron Paul a great deal. HOWEVER, Ron Paul and his ardent supporters' main problem is that they are SOOOO extreme on almost EVERYTHING. They not only think we should balance the budget (good thing) but we ought to go back to the gold standard (extreme thing). They not only think we should not police the world (good thing) but we ought also not take any measures at home to defend against domestic terrorism, such as wiretapping suspected terrorists, TSA screenings at airports, or even general monitoring (extreme thing). They not only support the 2nd Amendment (good thing), they oppose ALL firearm and weapons regulations (extreme thing). They not only support American ending its foreign aid (eh, one could argue both ways), but they support de-funding and abandoning our 65-year-old ally, Israel, to the wolves of genocide (extreme thing).

It's just issue after issue where he and his supporters are no where even close to mainstream even though they have a lot of good ideas.

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

Conservatives are the real radicals.

*********************************
"The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher." - Oscar Wilde

3/4/11

VT,

You make some very good points. I've been a Ron Paul supporter since long before his last run for the presidency, and he continues to have my support. I just wish he'd walk away from the GOP. For some reason he has higher hopes for that decrepit apparatus than I do.

Over the years, especially the past few years, I've come to believe that extreme is what this country needs. I don't even care which side it's on - Left or Right - I think the next President should be an extremist. Voting the mainstream has produced candidates largely responsible for the various messes we're in as a nation. While I think Ron Paul would make a great President, I think Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich wouldn't be half bad either. At least it would give us an opportunity as a country to vet the undiluted versions of left and right ideology.

Let the monkey shit commence.

3/4/11

^ BERNIE SANDERS! I'm thinking if he and RP ran, they would clean house. It's highly unlikely, but I would work for their campaign

Get busy living

3/4/11

UFO,

It's amazing to me how liberal I've become since the neocons have been in ascendance. The Bush family ruined the GOP for me, and I find myself fiscally conservative but socially liberal on most things.

3/4/11
Edmundo Braverman:

UFO,

It's amazing to me how liberal I've become since the neocons have been in ascendance. The Bush family ruined the GOP for me, and I find myself fiscally conservative but socially liberal on most things.

I'm in the same category, and I came from a

* military
* conservative
* Irish
* Catholic
* Republican

family, so I know how weird it feels. I think it was a necessary step, and learned a lot from the other side of the isle, but I would NOT recommend going over to their camp completely because a lot of the negative stereotypes are very real. I've become a centrist, which doesn't mean much at this point, but I think over the next decade all the hysterics will fall by the wayside provided the economy continues to pick up and we don't see any more major terrorist attacks. Right now, America is cleaning house on many levels.

Personally, I see the ENORMOUS amount of time and energey poured into public debates as largely fruitless waste, and treading very worn out ideologies, and at this point is mostly obsolete. It's being driven by opportunists and fanatics, who want to WIN and BE RIGHT more than contribute and do the right thing.

There is currently no voice for people who agree, or want to agree, and I'm guessing that there's quite a few. No, all government isn't bad. Yes, taxes could be lower. A good idea is a good idea. etc and on and ond.

The other thing is this: the last president did a lot of things that the current president continued [the war, guantanamo, the bailout, living in the whitehouse, etc]. History repeats itself, and there is a learning curve. The best thing to do is to learn from history and then get ahead of it.

Get busy living

3/4/11

That's not even fair to say.

That fucking moron George W. Bush cost the GOP my vote for the rest of my life. His dad was a shady bastard that had plenty going on behind the scenes, but my vote for W. in the 2000 election is the most shameful vote of my life. It hurts to even admit that I ever pulled the lever for that fuckwit.

  • Mr. Cheese
  •  3/4/11

Eddie..read "Decision Points"?

3/4/11
Mr. Cheese:

Eddie..read "Decision Points"?

A volume of excuses penned by one of his daughter's classmates? I think I'll pass. There's far more enjoyable bullshit to choose from.

3/4/11
Edmundo Braverman:
Mr. Cheese:

Eddie..read "Decision Points"?

A volume of excuses penned by one of his daughter's classmates? I think I'll pass. There's far more enjoyable bullshit to choose from.

Do yourself a favor: read it. Read everything. The primary problem in America is that people have been drinking partisan cool aid since sometime around the end of Eisenhower's administration and it's just not prductive anymore. Now, everyone is waking up. Conservatives are rethinking some things. Liberals are calming down. Hell, even the militias in Colorado are showing up on TV to answer questions on taxes. Read a former president's book: you will learn something about the world's formerly most powerful man.

Personally, I've gone from lifelong GOP to extreme liberal and everything in between, settling on conservative centrist, and honestly, I can say this: there's a lot of useful information in there, even if you don't like parts of it.

Get busy living

3/4/11

Maybe we need extremes (I don't necessarily concede that point), but the reason Ron Paul can't get mainstream support from the Republican party is because he disagrees with the GOP on the few issues where the GOP and Democrats actually have general agreement, like on Israel, like on moneterism, like on fighting domestic terrorism. For example, the FIRST thing his son, Rand Paul, did when he got into office in January was propose cutting foreign aid to Israel...both the Democrats and Republicans eviscerated the guy. Talk of Rand Paul in my Republican community for president one day in the future pretty much was silenced in the matter of an hour--pretty much forever. One can debate whether or not we should support Israel, for example, much like one can debate the merit of social welfare, but lack of support of Israel is as toxic to Ron and Rand Paul as saying Social Security and Medicare ought to be abolished entirely.

Even Thomas Jefferson was forced to abandon his ideological purity when he saw the opportunity to expand the U.S. into the Louisiana territory. Unless the Pauls and their supporters are willing to do the same, they will remain the proverbial 13 colonies.

3/4/11

I would rather burn in hell than abandon my ideological purity and then become what the pussy Republicans are today. Why do you think the Tea Party had the success they had/are having? The problem is a majority politicians abondon their beliefs or move to the "middle" to stay in office, period.

3/4/11
txjustin:

I would rather burn in hell than abandon my ideological purity and then become what the pussy Republicans are today. Why do you think the Tea Party had the success they had/are having? The problem is a majority politicians abondon their beliefs or move to the "middle" to stay in office, period.

I think you're perpetuating a myth that ideological purity is somehow moral or ideal. As mentioned, Thomas Jefferson diverged from his beliefs about federal power when he saw the opportunity to make an amazing acquisition of territory and resources for the United States. I like Ron Paul but some of his policies are just bad policy. His "ideological purity" won't allow him to support wiretapping of suspected Islamic radicals. His "ideological purity" won't allow him to help the Jews keep themselves from extermination by 1.5 billion Muslims who would exterminate theJews if given the opportunity. His "ideological purity" means he is radically opposed to maintaining a secure southern border. His "ideological purity" means that he has a Constitutional problem with killing American citizens "without a trial" who have renounced their citizenship and taken up arms against their own nation. I don't support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but 80% of citizenry would have little problem killing someone without a trial who is SHOOTING at (or whose intention is to murder) American military personnel or American citizens.

Ron Paul is gaining traction in the GOP because the greatest issue of our day is America's race toward bankruptcy and national collapse, but Paul and his supporters subscribe to a form of "ideologically purity" that is NOT consistent with Republican conservatism. As a Republican, I feel no shame in being "ideologically impure" compared to Ron Paul.

3/6/11
Virginia Tech 4ever:

His "ideological purity" means he is radically opposed to maintaining a secure southern border.

Now, unless RP has changed his view recently, you're mistaken on this one:
http://taxservice24.com/ron-paul-on-illegal-immigr...

And in most cases, what you refer to as "ideological purity", I refer to as common sense.

3/4/11

I'm not comparing my personal beliefs with those of RP. I agree with RP on a lot of things, but I believe he is lacking in a lot as well. I simply mean that I won't as a person bend on what i believe in to keep power as politicians are doing.

  • Mr. Cheese
  •  3/4/11

Eddie it's nice to have a profound opposition against a political party/ individual, but I urge you to read and not disregard based on presuppositions. I'm right there with you on the GOP and Bush, but reading something contrary to your beliefs/views only strengthens your arguments and knowledge as to why you believe what you do

3/4/11

Obama is going to win in 2012. Sorry--I don't like it either, but it is going to happen.

3/8/11
Military_MBA_Banker:

Obama is going to win in 2012. Sorry--I don't like it either, but it is going to happen.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2645/1/?red...

Get busy living

3/4/11

Guys, I'm generally considered a well-read person, and I read stuff from all sides of the spectrum.

The fact that I hold George W. Bush's ghostwritten memoirs in the same esteem as those of say, Alfred E. Neuman's, should be a reflection of my intelligence, not my ignorance.

No single person has done more to damage the American brand in my lifetime (including Nixon), and that encompasses 95% of your lifetimes as well. (assuming 5% of our readers are older than me, which is probably not likely)

3/7/11
Edmundo Braverman:

The fact that I hold George W. Bush's ghostwritten memoirs in the same esteem as those of say, Alfred E. Neuman's, should be a reflection of my intelligence, not my ignorance.

Wow, I take it all back, I tried reading it over the weekend and threw it across the room after about 20 pages. It's bullshit.

Get busy living

3/4/11

Extremism in the pursuit of bad public policy IS a vice. A quote from anyone other than Jesus Christ himself has no real bearing on me.

EDIT: the real irony in it all is that the U.S. Constitution is a case study in moderation in long-term attainment of a more just society.

3/5/11

Wow, reading all this posts astound me especially given the amount of bankers and traders that are reading this. Let me ask the people that like Ron Paul this question; if the US interest rate was allowed to go up based on the market, what is that going to do to the US corporate debt market? If you agree interest rates are going to go even higher, how will companies do deals or generate earnings? For the people that argue that taxes should be lowered, the cost of debt will negate any savings corporations will have from savings from interest and then some. What do you think that affect will have on the unemployment rate?

3/10/11
saads1987:

Wow, reading all this posts astound me especially given the amount of bankers and traders that are reading this. Let me ask the people that like Ron Paul this question; if the US interest rate was allowed to go up based on the market, what is that going to do to the US corporate debt market? If you agree interest rates are going to go even higher, how will companies do deals or generate earnings? For the people that argue that taxes should be lowered, the cost of debt will negate any savings corporations will have from savings from interest and then some. What do you think that affect will have on the unemployment rate?

The result of a bad policy will be painful adjustment. Making money artificially cheap isn't exactly the right way to run the economy. My guess the landscape for financing will even out between debt and equity when debt becomes more expensive. Interest rates have been high and unemployment was never a problem.

Do what you want not what you can!

3/10/11
bossman:
saads1987:

Wow, reading all this posts astound me especially given the amount of bankers and traders that are reading this. Let me ask the people that like Ron Paul this question; if the US interest rate was allowed to go up based on the market, what is that going to do to the US corporate debt market? If you agree interest rates are going to go even higher, how will companies do deals or generate earnings? For the people that argue that taxes should be lowered, the cost of debt will negate any savings corporations will have from savings from interest and then some. What do you think that affect will have on the unemployment rate?

The result of a bad policy will be painful adjustment. Making money artificially cheap isn't exactly the right way to run the economy. My guess the landscape for financing will even out between debt and equity when debt becomes more expensive. Interest rates have been high and unemployment was never a problem.

Come on man, are you telling me that to make a theoretical point you are willing to make such a drastic change in an environment that had 10% unemployment and as interest rates rise given the market risk that would have not done anything to further increase unemployment, pro-long the recession and destroy confidence? Isn't that what happened in the great depression?

I would argue that the theoretical money one losses due to inflation will be offset by the money you would lose as cost of capital increases without it having a deeper recession.

On your second point about financing landscape evening out, all you need to do is look at the equity capital markets in late 2008 and 2009. Imagine spreads being even higher at that point. Even strong companies like GE had a hard time rolling their paper overnight and you think they would have been able to issue equity to offset this?

3/10/11
saads1987:
bossman:
saads1987:

Wow, reading all this posts astound me especially given the amount of bankers and traders that are reading this. Let me ask the people that like Ron Paul this question; if the US interest rate was allowed to go up based on the market, what is that going to do to the US corporate debt market? If you agree interest rates are going to go even higher, how will companies do deals or generate earnings? For the people that argue that taxes should be lowered, the cost of debt will negate any savings corporations will have from savings from interest and then some. What do you think that affect will have on the unemployment rate?

The result of a bad policy will be painful adjustment. Making money artificially cheap isn't exactly the right way to run the economy. My guess the landscape for financing will even out between debt and equity when debt becomes more expensive. Interest rates have been high and unemployment was never a problem.

Come on man, are you telling me that to make a theoretical point you are willing to make such a drastic change in an environment that had 10% unemployment and as interest rates rise given the market risk that would have not done anything to further increase unemployment, pro-long the recession and destroy confidence? Isn't that what happened in the great depression?

I would argue that the theoretical money one losses due to inflation will be offset by the money you would lose as cost of capital increases without it having a deeper recession.

On your second point about financing landscape evening out, all you need to do is look at the equity capital markets in late 2008 and 2009. Imagine spreads being even higher at that point. Even strong companies like GE had a hard time rolling their paper overnight and you think they would have been able to issue equity to offset this?

Prices are information. The market depends on accurate pricing for efficient allocation of capital. Interest rates are PRICES (the cost of money). If these prices are not allowed to float with true market dynamics, then we get the last 50 years = frequent bubbles, misallocated capital, political manipulation of the economy.

*********************************
"The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher." - Oscar Wilde

3/10/11
veritas14:
saads1987:
bossman:
saads1987:

Wow, reading all this posts astound me especially given the amount of bankers and traders that are reading this. Let me ask the people that like Ron Paul this question; if the US interest rate was allowed to go up based on the market, what is that going to do to the US corporate debt market? If you agree interest rates are going to go even higher, how will companies do deals or generate earnings? For the people that argue that taxes should be lowered, the cost of debt will negate any savings corporations will have from savings from interest and then some. What do you think that affect will have on the unemployment rate?

The result of a bad policy will be painful adjustment. Making money artificially cheap isn't exactly the right way to run the economy. My guess the landscape for financing will even out between debt and equity when debt becomes more expensive. Interest rates have been high and unemployment was never a problem.

Come on man, are you telling me that to make a theoretical point you are willing to make such a drastic change in an environment that had 10% unemployment and as interest rates rise given the market risk that would have not done anything to further increase unemployment, pro-long the recession and destroy confidence? Isn't that what happened in the great depression?

I would argue that the theoretical money one losses due to inflation will be offset by the money you would lose as cost of capital increases without it having a deeper recession.

On your second point about financing landscape evening out, all you need to do is look at the equity capital markets in late 2008 and 2009. Imagine spreads being even higher at that point. Even strong companies like GE had a hard time rolling their paper overnight and you think they would have been able to issue equity to offset this?

Prices are information. The market depends on accurate pricing for efficient allocation of capital. Interest rates are PRICES (the cost of money). If these prices are not allowed to float with true market dynamics, then we get the last 50 years = frequent bubbles, misallocated capital, political manipulation of the economy.

Veritas, if you think markets are efficient I encourage you to read "the superinvestors of Graham and Doddsville" by Buffett. Throughout the market history markets have been known to over-react, and get more excited then appropriate i.e. any bubble in US history. It wasn't the federal reserve that created the tech bubble, it was a plain old mania.

Also, I would argue every bubble has been productive longer term. From the time the massive amounts of railroads that were built in the late 1800 early 1900s to towns that did not exist yet to the massive electrical infrastructure build out done during the tech boom, that was not useful till now. I dont know what the positive impact of the housing crisis is but we may find out soon. When bubbles pop its painful, but that is the side affect of progress in a free market society.

3/10/11
saads1987:
veritas14:
saads1987:
bossman:
saads1987:

Wow, reading all this posts astound me especially given the amount of bankers and traders that are reading this. Let me ask the people that like Ron Paul this question; if the US interest rate was allowed to go up based on the market, what is that going to do to the US corporate debt market? If you agree interest rates are going to go even higher, how will companies do deals or generate earnings? For the people that argue that taxes should be lowered, the cost of debt will negate any savings corporations will have from savings from interest and then some. What do you think that affect will have on the unemployment rate?

The result of a bad policy will be painful adjustment. Making money artificially cheap isn't exactly the right way to run the economy. My guess the landscape for financing will even out between debt and equity when debt becomes more expensive. Interest rates have been high and unemployment was never a problem.

Come on man, are you telling me that to make a theoretical point you are willing to make such a drastic change in an environment that had 10% unemployment and as interest rates rise given the market risk that would have not done anything to further increase unemployment, pro-long the recession and destroy confidence? Isn't that what happened in the great depression?

I would argue that the theoretical money one losses due to inflation will be offset by the money you would lose as cost of capital increases without it having a deeper recession.

On your second point about financing landscape evening out, all you need to do is look at the equity capital markets in late 2008 and 2009. Imagine spreads being even higher at that point. Even strong companies like GE had a hard time rolling their paper overnight and you think they would have been able to issue equity to offset this?

Prices are information. The market depends on accurate pricing for efficient allocation of capital. Interest rates are PRICES (the cost of money). If these prices are not allowed to float with true market dynamics, then we get the last 50 years = frequent bubbles, misallocated capital, political manipulation of the economy.

Veritas, if you think markets are efficient I encourage you to read "the superinvestors of Graham and Doddsville" by Buffett. Throughout the market history markets have been known to over-react, and get more excited then appropriate i.e. any bubble in US history. It wasn't the federal reserve that created the tech bubble, it was a plain old mania.

Also, I would argue every bubble has been productive longer term. From the time the massive amounts of railroads that were built in the late 1800 early 1900s to towns that did not exist yet to the massive electrical infrastructure build out done during the tech boom, that was not useful till now. I dont know what the positive impact of the housing crisis is but we may find out soon. When bubbles pop its painful, but that is the side affect of progress in a free market society.

I think this is your logic sir: A patient is diagnosed with deadly cancer, but the doctor refuses to try to cure him because to cure cancer the patient might be hurt in other ways. In the end, the patient (u.s economy) dies of cancer.

Yes we are in deep shit and to get out of it will take some pain, but we shouldn't wait and close our eyes until it's too late.

Do what you want not what you can!

3/10/11
bossman:
saads1987:
veritas14:
saads1987:
bossman:
saads1987:

Wow, reading all this posts astound me especially given the amount of bankers and traders that are reading this. Let me ask the people that like Ron Paul this question; if the US interest rate was allowed to go up based on the market, what is that going to do to the US corporate debt market? If you agree interest rates are going to go even higher, how will companies do deals or generate earnings? For the people that argue that taxes should be lowered, the cost of debt will negate any savings corporations will have from savings from interest and then some. What do you think that affect will have on the unemployment rate?

The result of a bad policy will be painful adjustment. Making money artificially cheap isn't exactly the right way to run the economy. My guess the landscape for financing will even out between debt and equity when debt becomes more expensive. Interest rates have been high and unemployment was never a problem.

Come on man, are you telling me that to make a theoretical point you are willing to make such a drastic change in an environment that had 10% unemployment and as interest rates rise given the market risk that would have not done anything to further increase unemployment, pro-long the recession and destroy confidence? Isn't that what happened in the great depression?

I would argue that the theoretical money one losses due to inflation will be offset by the money you would lose as cost of capital increases without it having a deeper recession.

On your second point about financing landscape evening out, all you need to do is look at the equity capital markets in late 2008 and 2009. Imagine spreads being even higher at that point. Even strong companies like GE had a hard time rolling their paper overnight and you think they would have been able to issue equity to offset this?

Prices are information. The market depends on accurate pricing for efficient allocation of capital. Interest rates are PRICES (the cost of money). If these prices are not allowed to float with true market dynamics, then we get the last 50 years = frequent bubbles, misallocated capital, political manipulation of the economy.

Veritas, if you think markets are efficient I encourage you to read "the superinvestors of Graham and Doddsville" by Buffett. Throughout the market history markets have been known to over-react, and get more excited then appropriate i.e. any bubble in US history. It wasn't the federal reserve that created the tech bubble, it was a plain old mania.

Also, I would argue every bubble has been productive longer term. From the time the massive amounts of railroads that were built in the late 1800 early 1900s to towns that did not exist yet to the massive electrical infrastructure build out done during the tech boom, that was not useful till now. I dont know what the positive impact of the housing crisis is but we may find out soon. When bubbles pop its painful, but that is the side affect of progress in a free market society.

I think this is your logic sir: A patient is diagnosed with deadly cancer, but the doctor refuses to try to cure him because to cure cancer the patient might be hurt in other ways. In the end, the patient (u.s economy) dies of cancer.

Yes we are in deep shit and to get out of it will take some pain, but we shouldn't wait and close our eyes until it's too late.

I respectfully disagree. There is one thing to try to cure the patient even if it hurts, there is a completely different if there is a tumor in the brain and a solution is to cut out the head. What I mean is you can not end the Fed in the middle of a financial crisis, the affect of the uncertainty of the future alone would cripple the economy.

In my opinion, the only way the US economy will work its way out is through innovation, like we have always done. When the US developed the car, Germany copied it and made it better, than the US developed the computer Chip and than Japan came along and made it better than the US invented the internet someone sooner or later will come along and make that better. The reason why the US economy is as good as it is is because of its ability to be flexible and have different industries shine when it is their time. There are busts that deflate the innovations of the past to make room and give access to capital to the new innovations which has historically been a painful process. You are giving the Fed a lot of credit if your saying that they are causing the end of American economy.

I agree, the national debt level is a huge issue and needs to be addressed. People need to sit down and address entitlements and that will be a huge road block in the US's progress. But what I do is, completely stay away from predicting things like what the national debt will be if the debt kept on growing on the pace it is 10 years from now because thats just silly. When investing, Bruce Greenwald (famous value investor who runs the value investing program at Columbia) says you never ever pay for growth as that is the most uncertain thing about an investment (i.e. base your investment on forward p/e or in this case base the US as an investment on forward interest on debt). I have yet to come across a relatively followed economist that predicted things like these 10 years out and were right.

3/6/11

Well, his views have DEFINITELY changed on amnesty and immigration. Like I said, I was at CPAC 2010 in February 2010 and the Ron Paul people, including Judge Andrew Napolitano, were quite adamant that security measures at the border, strong immigration laws, I.D. cards, etc. were violations of the constitution.

As far as what you consider common sense, I would simply disagree as would most people, which is why the Ron Paul people will never gain enough traction to be a real national force.

3/8/11

I can't believe 49% of Americans would vote to re-elect Obama. I can see Bush in 2004 because of the wars going on at the time. I can see Clinton in 1996 because of the steadiness of the GOP in Congress and Dems in the Senate. I get Reagan in 1984 because of the booming economy of the past year. But it would sicken me to see such an intellectually unqualified dunce like Obama win re-election given that he is a transparent failure as a leader and a horrible steward of America's finances.

3/9/11
Virginia Tech 4ever:

I can't believe 49% of Americans would vote to re-elect Obama. I can see Bush in 2004 because of the wars going on at the time. I can see Clinton in 1996 because of the steadiness of the GOP in Congress and Dems in the Senate. I get Reagan in 1984 because of the booming economy of the past year. But it would sicken me to see such an intellectually unqualified dunce like Obama win re-election given that he is a transparent failure as a leader and a horrible steward of America's finances.

Elections are a matter of relativity rather than being absolute. The fact is there is no major Republican candidate that can hold a candle to the kind of support Obama has on the democratic side. Also, the republican party seems to be getting more and more divided, accelerated by the tea party movement. Now many (R) officials are not republican enough.

I think the primary driver for Obama's ratings in the polls are the fact that unemployment is coming down. I said in 2008 to a group of friends that it doesn't matter what kind of President Obama is, the economic cycle is on his side and as time goes on unemployment will decrease and he will get a second term.

3/9/11
saads1987:

I think the primary driver for Obama's ratings in the polls are the fact that unemployment is coming down. I said in 2008 to a group of friends that it doesn't matter what kind of President Obama is, the economic cycle is on his side and as time goes on unemployment will decrease and he will get a second term.

^ basic election statistics. All an incumbent president typically has to do is make the case the Reagan did: Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Given Obama's first year was during the recession, this is a very easy case to make now. The perception that the public has is that they are.

Personally, I see the Tea Party as causing the same type of damage to the Republicans as the Greens and Socialists did to the Democratic party for so long. It doesn't matter if you agree with them or not: they are no viable at the federal level.

Get busy living

3/8/11

It is byond me to attempt to explain anything....I just go by the numbers at this point

Get busy living

3/9/11

To win: The GOP simply needs to put up one of their stud sitting Governors: Daniels, Pawlenty, Perry or Christie.

Team them up with Paul Ryan as VP.

Romney, Palin, Gingrich, Huckabee are pretenders. Ignore.

Obama has exhausted the energy that swept him into office. The GOP will have an eye on more Congressional seats and will bring out the vote.

*********************************
"The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher." - Oscar Wilde

3/9/11

Get busy living

3/9/11
3/9/11

*********************************
"The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher." - Oscar Wilde

3/9/11

Get busy living

Add a Comment
WallStreet Prep Master Financial Modeling