There are cerebral strategists and balls-to-the-wall activists in the tent of Ron Paul. Both were evident at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) today. Prior to Rand Paul’s stellar speech the surprise speaker was Donald Trump. Many of us in the audience had come to get our seats to see The Rand instead of The Donald, and things got a bit ugly.
During Trump’s speech there were some vocal activists shouting out Ron Paul’s name, among other things. At one point when Trump mentioned there were no good GOP candidates the shouts of Ron Paul became too much for him. The video below shows what happened:
Yes, the out-of-touch celebrity with lots of money reacts by telling the crowd that Ron Paul has zero chance of winning. I immediately said something that was later echoed by Rand Paul, “Trump has an even less of a chance of winning than Ron Paul”. That was only the beginning.
by Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, and host of The Peter Schiff Show, broadcasting live from WSTC Norwalk CT from 10am to noon Eastern time every weekday, and streaming at www.schiffradio.com
Based on his recent public comments, Fed Chairman Bernanke seems determined to give the U.S. dollar the reputation of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak: an unwanted relic of the past that everyone agrees must go, but stubbornly clings to a privileged position. The dollar is currently the world’s ruling currency, but, as with Mubarak, I believe that growing public discontent will spur regime change quicker than most pundits expect.
Clearly, the most significant problem facing central bankers around the world is the recent eruption of inflation, which is sparking unrest in Asia and the Middle East. With respect to this issue, Bernanke is alternating his responses through two different personas.
Sometimes he chooses to act like Baghdad Bob, the Iraqi Information Minister who, in the opening days of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, continued to deny the presence of American troops even as U.S. tanks rumbled behind him. The parallel to Bernanke’s testimony to Congress today is striking.
Speaking to the House Budget Committee, Baghdad Ben not only claimed that there is no evidence of overall inflation in the U.S., but that even food and energy prices are rising less than 1% annually. This is simply not true. He then claimed that the Fed’s massive QE purchases of U.S. Treasuries do not distort the yield curve, despite the fact that he has stated repeatedly that the program was specifically designed to lower long-term rates.
The reason behind these lies should be evident. Acknowledging inflationary threats would force him to raise rates. But Baghdad Ben knows that the current economic “expansion” is a lie built on a weak foundation of ultra-low interest rates. He knows that even marginally higher rates will trigger a savage return to recession. In his view, the only choice is to sell us an elaborate fiction – even when it obviously conflicts with the facts.
How is it possible that omitting Ron Paul’s name from this Reuter’s article about CPAC was not done on purpose? CPAC begins today with several presidential hopefuls attending and making speeches. One of those speeches is from last years run away CPAC straw poll winner, Ron Paul, yet the article excerpted below ignores him. I had to re-check the agenda for CPAC to see if they had somehow erased Paul’s name, but no, it was still there.
“It’s one of the first times that they get to showcase their actual credentials among key constituencies and generate publicity for themselves early on in the cycle,” said Republican strategist Ron Bonjean.
Among the speakers are two former governors, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota; former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich and sitting governors Haley Barbour of Mississippi and Mitch Daniels of Indiana.
Gingrich and two other possibles, Representative Michelle Bachmann and former Senator Rick Santorum speak on Thursday.
Romney, Pawlenty, South Dakota Senator John Thune, Texas Governor Rick Perry and Daniels speak on Friday and Barbour speaks on Saturday. Attendees will decide their favorites in a Saturday straw poll.
Ron Paul hasn’t even announced he’s running in 2012 yet and the media is already trying to ignore him. I ask again, how can this not be on purpose?
There were some Ron Paul supporters who worried that Rand Paul’s actions would not follow his words once he entered office. Thus far, they were all wrong. Rand Paul, once again, demonstrates that his campaign promises were far from empty.
During his campaign he opposed renewing the Patriot Act and sure enough he promises to oppose it while in office. Watch the video below for Paul’s statement on the Patriot Act renewal.
Ron Paul held his first hearing as Chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy earlier today. The committee explored employment and if monetary policy can really create jobs? The hearing video below lasts a bit over 2 hours and features testimony from Tom DiLorenzo, Richard Vedder, and Josh Bivens.
The Atlantic’s Joshua Green observes that Haley Barbour isn’t the only potential 2012 GOP candidate to be once endorsed by Ronald Reagan.
Ben Smith of Politico has identified what he predicts will be the “best campaign ad of 2012.” It will be a Haley Barbour spot featuring something any GOP hopeful would kill for: Ronald Reagan’s endorsement, which he bestowed during Barbour’s 1982 Senate campaign. Here’s Reagan:
I’d like to take a moment to talk with you about our country’s future and a very special leader – Haley Barbour. The problems of the 1980′s are rapidly changing and demanding new solutions and fresh vigorous ideas. I’ve learned first hand that Haley Barbour has the intelligence, courage and experience to make a great United States Senator. These are difficult times but slowly and surely we are making America prosperous again. With leaders like Haley Barbour we can look to the future with confidence and hope.
I agree that will make a compelling ad. But I wouldn’t award the Oscar just yet. That’s because the 2012 GOP primary will quite possibly feature two Reagan-endorsed candidates, and just as many Reagan endorsement ads.
by Michael Pento, Senior Economist at Euro Pacific Capital (www.europac.net)
In a heated debate on the February 1st episode of CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report”, financial commentator Donald Luskin offered his “textbook” definition of inflation as “an overall rise in the general price level.” I countered with the “dictionary” definition. My 1988 edition of Webster’s Dictionary defines inflation as follows: “An increase in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods, resulting in a substantial and continuing rise in the general price level.” [Emphasis added.] These differences are not academic and go a long way toward explaining why economists argue so vociferously.
In an inflationary environment, general prices tend to rise, although particular market segments tend to do so at uneven rates. This is hardly controversial. The more disputed question is why prices rise in the first place. As Luskin is well aware, the US Dollar is backed by nothing but confidence and perception. Its value depends upon our collective belief in its current and future purchasing power, and the hope that its supply will be restricted. When its supply is increased, users of the currency lose faith in its buying power and prices rise.
As a corollary, if dollar-holders believe that the US will have no choice but to monetize trillions of dollars of Treasury debt in the near future, the currency will falter. In this manner, currencies that are backed by nothing but confidence tend to behave like stock prices. The share value of a corporation represents the strength of the company. Likewise, the value of a currency represents the strength of a sovereign state.
Looked at through this prism, the fate of the US dollar in the future may not be all that different from the fate of Enron shares in 2001. In the 1990s, Enron was one of the most respected corporations in America, and the share price soared. But once the accounting scandal broke, and Enron’s profits were proven to be illusory, the purchasing power of its shares plummeted. Eventually, the shares became worthless.
The bill, S.193, WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT. But it’s NOT what we want. If we call for outright repeal of the Patriot Act . . .
* Congress may be awakened to its abuses and start investigations
* Even if we don’t get an outright repeal, more members might start calling for reform and endorse measures like S.193
On the other hand, if we ask for something like S.193 as our starting point . . .
* We’ll have no chance of repealing the Patriot Act, which is what we want (as illustrated in the letter below)
* Even a compromise like S.193 will end up being more watered-down than it would have been if we had asked for repeal directly.
That’s why we, at DownsizeDC.org, are calling for REPEAL of the Patriot Act, even while others are calling for mere reform.
If you agree with our analysis, then please ask Congress for what you want. Read More »
by John Browne, Senior Market Strategist at Euro Pacific Capital
This week, the financial media celebrated as the Dow closed above the 12,000 mark for the first time since June 19th, 2008. For many, this milestone is another sign that the financial nightmare of the past three years will soon fade in the rearview mirror.
The euphoria over share prices has been bolstered by recently released data which catalogs rising consumer confidence and spending, and corporate earnings reports that have beaten estimates. In the meantime, the bond markets have remained resilient, despite evidence of massive public debt problems that bubble beneath the surface. But is this optimism based upon enough sound evidence to support long-term investment?
The recovery in the Dow, to within some 15 percent of its all-time high, should not be much of a surprise to our readers at Euro Pacific, nor should it count as a mark of confidence to anyone. We have always held that ultra-low interest rates distort the investment landscape by forcing yield-starved investors from bonds into equities. Driven by this massive government subsidy, along with a high real rate of inflation, the stock market cannot help but rally. Indeed, the only surprise is that our current rally took so long to develop.
The rally even appears to be immune to the uncertainties created by the unrest in Egypt, which is arguably the largest global political crisis we have seen since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The big question is: can this rally be trusted for the longer-term? Three factors highlight the risks.
Liberty Maven
by John Browne, Senior Market Strategist at Euro Pacific Capital
Loading ...
