Liberty MavenRon Paul debates Mishkin and Gregg on Fed Audit on CNBC
December 15th, 2009 10:21 am | by Marc Gallagher | Published in Bailouts, Banking, Commentary, Constitution, Debt, Economics, Federal Reserve, Free Market, Liberty, Maven Commentary, Money, Ron Paul, congress, gold standard, inflation | 25 Responses
Ron Paul was the guest host on CNBC’s Squawk Box this morning where he was met head on by two of his fiercest critics against his Federal Reserve audit efforts. Both Frederic Mishkin and Senator Judd Gregg attempted to argue for maintaining Fed “independence” to the wonderment of 79% of the American people. Ron Paul defended his view by charging them with distorting the facts of the audit to meet the desires of their big bank puppeteers.
Here’s the opening clip where Ron Paul begins his “lesson”:
Next, Mishkin gives it a go.
Finally, Judd Gregg gets a bit more heated.
Ron Paul does okay here, but it’s difficult to argue on the side of logic when his detractors refuse to use logic. The Federal Reserve is and never was independent. When those like Mishkin and Gregg begin their argument from this lie how can we trust anything else they say?
December 15th, 2009 at 4:12 pm (#)
Miskin is nuts. How much lower than zero percent interest can you go, through politicalization….
What is 'elsewhere' is hardly how WE want to do things. We can see what happens there, as well.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:12 pm (#)
Miskin is nuts. How much lower than zero percent interest can you go, through politicalization….
What is 'elsewhere' is hardly how WE want to do things. We can see what happens there, as well.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:12 pm (#)
Miskin is nuts. How much lower than zero percent interest can you go, through politicalization….
What is 'elsewhere' is hardly how WE want to do things. We can see what happens there, as well.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:17 pm (#)
Gregg is right that our fiscal house is a disaster. And could NEVER have gotten to this state without the Fed monetizing debt. At OUR expense.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:28 pm (#)
Gregg obviously has no argument against the bill. His repeated attacks are against OTHER preferences Ron Paul has in policy which are nowhere in this bill, or it wouldn't have 316 cosponsors. RP's other bill, to end the fed, has ZERO cosponsors. There is considerable difference between the two bills.
Ron Paul has other bills on health care and freedom of expression etc. They don't lead to ending the fed either. He isn't a one trick pony.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:28 pm (#)
Gregg obviously has no argument against the bill. His repeated attacks are against OTHER preferences Ron Paul has in policy which are nowhere in this bill, or it wouldn't have 316 cosponsors. RP's other bill, to end the fed, has ZERO cosponsors. There is considerable difference between the two bills.
Ron Paul has other bills on health care and freedom of expression etc. They don't lead to ending the fed either. He isn't a one trick pony.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:03 pm (#)
The FED is a private entity with a private interest.
They want it to be intdependent of what ? of the Democracy ? Independent of the Constitution??? It is a monster that creates trillions of dollar out of thin air.
And now he have a big crisis, created by years os easy credit, easy bubles….
And the solution for this excess of paper….MORE PAPER !!!!!! Out from thin Air !!!!
December 15th, 2009 at 5:25 pm (#)
This issue is really not so hard. We've had a Federal Reserve (which is neither federal nor a reserve) since 1913. It hasn't gone so well and lately it's gotten worse with them at the helm. They had their chance; they screwed it up (intentionally, in my mind). Now it's time to try something else…something constitutional. What's that old definition of insanity?
December 15th, 2009 at 5:25 pm (#)
This issue is really not so hard. We've had a Federal Reserve (which is neither federal nor a reserve) since 1913. It hasn't gone so well and lately it's gotten worse with them at the helm. They had their chance; they screwed it up (intentionally, in my mind). Now it's time to try something else…something constitutional. What's that old definition of insanity?
December 15th, 2009 at 5:44 pm (#)
As was the case with General Motors, Mishkin and Gregg are delusional to argue that more of the same (let's call it "Stay the Course") is what we need to get us out of the mess that the Federal Reserve's secrecy has gotten us into.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:44 pm (#)
As was the case with General Motors, Mishkin and Gregg are delusional to argue that more of the same (let's call it "Stay the Course") is what we need to get us out of the mess that the Federal Reserve's secrecy has gotten us into.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:03 pm (#)
I was curious how the hour would go, so they rapid fire run critics of Dr. Paul against him.
Notice Gregg did not have much to say about the proposition of letting people choose between a Fed-currency and private currencies backed by a commodity.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:38 pm (#)
If these guys continue to blast his bill with the argument that the language opens it up to politicization, then simply ask them how the F they suggest to find out what's in the fed's books. They will back themselves into a corner. Why is the Fed the only institution in the country that is not subject to audits?
I love Ron Paul and everything he stands for, but sometimes I think he has difficulty arguing his points live rather than writing stuff down. Too bad Schiff wasn't brought on the show to grill these guys.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:38 pm (#)
If these guys continue to blast his bill with the argument that the language opens it up to politicization, then simply ask them how the F they suggest to find out what's in the fed's books. They will back themselves into a corner. Why is the Fed the only institution in the country that is not subject to audits?
I love Ron Paul and everything he stands for, but sometimes I think he has difficulty arguing his points live rather than writing stuff down. Too bad Schiff wasn't brought on the show to grill these guys.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:06 pm (#)
Marc, thanks for posting this! Dr. Paul is great to watch. He is very composed under an obvious distortion of facts.
Keep in mind that Mishkin was on the Fed Board of Governors 06-08.
While, Benedict Gregg has become a product of DC. His misrepresentation (lies) about the bill and zealous irrational argument, raise questions of what he has to gain. Of course we know he has an unblemished record…right? joe
December 15th, 2009 at 7:26 pm (#)
I believe it was Karl Marx predicted that the capitalist would debauch their currency,
It looks like Marx has his minions helping protect the FED debauching the currency.
When I was a child quarters were solid silver. The parents could buy a gallon of gas and a candy bar for me with a silver quarter. At today's silver spot price ($17.46) that is $4.36 cents – I can buy a gallon of premium gas and a couple of candy bars for my kid.
However If I had a paper dollar from then – I could not get 4 gallons of gas and 8 candy bars – I could only get 1/3 of a single gallon of gas…inflation is robbery by the government.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:26 pm (#)
I believe it was Karl Marx predicted that the capitalist would debauch their currency,
It looks like Marx has his minions helping protect the FED debauching the currency.
When I was a child quarters were solid silver. The parents could buy a gallon of gas and a candy bar for me with a silver quarter. At today's silver spot price ($17.46) that is $4.36 cents – I can buy a gallon of premium gas and a couple of candy bars for my kid.
However If I had a paper dollar from then – I could not get 4 gallons of gas and 8 candy bars – I could only get 1/3 of a single gallon of gas…inflation is robbery by the government.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:05 pm (#)
Mishkin has some very valid points within his argument, and he is quite an interesting character. His discussion is quite pointedly insightful for the subject at hand which really is the bill not the existence of the Federal Reserve. Although I must say that I personally agree that the Fed needs to see it's end, I think Mishkin agrees as well. I would like to find out more about his background this says he was a "governor" probably of one of the branches other than new york, he probably knows first hand how corrupt the Fed actually is. Because of course we all know how much professors make.
This man appears to me to dislike the Fed and their practices but ultimately sees them as a beast that needs collared and not simply put down, why? As he states, "no one wants the kind of old inflation like we had in the 1970's" he assumes that we believe that "some" kind of inflation is acceptable and necessary and that the Fed is the one worthy to inflict this on the american people.
I would much rather have no inflation. It is only a backward tax on our lives and livelihoods when we have to get a raise of so much percent each year just to keep up.
But I do have to say that Mishkin is on point and quite harsh on Ron Paul's bill as reckless and "being" ad hoc. I would have to say that congressman Paul sees this and takes the information seriously. I think as much as Ron Paul truly wants to see the end of the Fed, he wants it done with the least harm to the american people.
As citizens we need to understand that this bill will be a very important piece of legislation, and we cannot allow big business and the fed itself to spend money to buy this situation. They can do this by purchasing time with media to further their image of keepers of the peoples interest when their hands are all over the economy and it's present issues which they are already doing. Another route they may take is to alter the bill by watering it down or twist it to actually give them much more power, you have to be careful when they are the ones usually running the shell game.
When Mishkin says "but to audit the federal reserve at this particular time, that could be disastrous" This is where he doesn't understand who we think caused this tremendously costly financial disaster.
I want to send him a T-shirt.
I don't think Mishkin was bought off, but the next guy? You tell me.
His best point is when he talks about how if we get rid of the federal reserve note, we may have a bit of a calamity. This is true. Which is why Congressman Paul's reply was important about taking away the legal tender from the dollar and allowing other currencies to flourish. Unless of course we want to base it on a commodity as Paul explains with his "basket" idea.
/Coolhand
December 15th, 2009 at 8:05 pm (#)
Mishkin has some very valid points within his argument, and he is quite an interesting character. His discussion is quite pointedly insightful for the subject at hand which really is the bill not the existence of the Federal Reserve. Although I must say that I personally agree that the Fed needs to see it's end, I think Mishkin agrees as well. I would like to find out more about his background this says he was a "governor" probably of one of the branches other than new york, he probably knows first hand how corrupt the Fed actually is. Because of course we all know how much professors make.
This man appears to me to dislike the Fed and their practices but ultimately sees them as a beast that needs collared and not simply put down, why? As he states, "no one wants the kind of old inflation like we had in the 1970's" he assumes that we believe that "some" kind of inflation is acceptable and necessary and that the Fed is the one worthy to inflict this on the american people.
I would much rather have no inflation. It is only a backward tax on our lives and livelihoods when we have to get a raise of so much percent each year just to keep up.
But I do have to say that Mishkin is on point and quite harsh on Ron Paul's bill as reckless and "being" ad hoc. I would have to say that congressman Paul sees this and takes the information seriously. I think as much as Ron Paul truly wants to see the end of the Fed, he wants it done with the least harm to the american people.
As citizens we need to understand that this bill will be a very important piece of legislation, and we cannot allow big business and the fed itself to spend money to buy this situation. They can do this by purchasing time with media to further their image of keepers of the peoples interest when their hands are all over the economy and it's present issues which they are already doing. Another route they may take is to alter the bill by watering it down or twist it to actually give them much more power, you have to be careful when they are the ones usually running the shell game.
When Mishkin says "but to audit the federal reserve at this particular time, that could be disastrous" This is where he doesn't understand who we think caused this tremendously costly financial disaster.
I want to send him a T-shirt.
I don't think Mishkin was bought off, but the next guy? You tell me.
His best point is when he talks about how if we get rid of the federal reserve note, we may have a bit of a calamity. This is true. Which is why Congressman Paul's reply was important about taking away the legal tender from the dollar and allowing other currencies to flourish. Unless of course we want to base it on a commodity as Paul explains with his "basket" idea.
/Coolhand
December 15th, 2009 at 9:17 pm (#)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c9/Dol...
December 15th, 2009 at 9:17 pm (#)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c9/Dol...
December 15th, 2009 at 9:18 pm (#)
I found the exchange with Senator Gregg very interesting as he controlled much of the discussion, made a lot of valid points and put Ron Paul on the defensive. He contends that auditing the Fed would politicize monetary policy and he is right in a sense. Sure, it's already politicized to an extent as the Prez appoints the Chairman. But even with the 180-day delay, Gregg is right that an ambitious Congressman like Grayson will shine a critical light on the newly revealed Fed actions. This will politically influence the Fed's actions for better or worse. Gregg made other valid points that Paul disputed, such as his original bill didn't have the 180-day waiting period and that Audit the Fed is a legitimate step toward ending the fed.
It was interesting to see Paul thrown onto the defensive and get steered into making statements that were not quite true. He was clearly flustered in the Gregg debate. But he still made many valid points of his own and I still believe his ideology is correct. He could do better in those situations though.
December 15th, 2009 at 9:18 pm (#)
I found the exchange with Senator Gregg very interesting as he controlled much of the discussion, made a lot of valid points and put Ron Paul on the defensive. He contends that auditing the Fed would politicize monetary policy and he is right in a sense. Sure, it's already politicized to an extent as the Prez appoints the Chairman. But even with the 180-day delay, Gregg is right that an ambitious Congressman like Grayson will shine a critical light on the newly revealed Fed actions. This will politically influence the Fed's actions for better or worse. Gregg made other valid points that Paul disputed, such as his original bill didn't have the 180-day waiting period and that Audit the Fed is a legitimate step toward ending the fed.
It was interesting to see Paul thrown onto the defensive and get steered into making statements that were not quite true. He was clearly flustered in the Gregg debate. But he still made many valid points of his own and I still believe his ideology is correct. He could do better in those situations though.
December 19th, 2009 at 9:38 pm (#)
let's just have the audit and see what's really going on??? I for one want to see what's behind the veil………..
December 19th, 2009 at 9:38 pm (#)
let's just have the audit and see what's really going on??? I for one want to see what's behind the veil………..