By Ron Paul
Yes, there is a lot of hype in this year's presidential election. That's the case with every election. Yes, we're told that this is a "pivotal" election. Every election is supposedly "pivotal". Yet decade after decade, neither Republican nor Democrat "pivots" government in the direction of smaller budgets, less bureaucracy, less militarism and increased liberty. That "pivot" never comes, despite all the promises. Unfortunately, as the election is shaping up right now, it looks like we have a longer wait ahead of us. I discuss on Newsmax below:
With the granting of immunity of a senior Hillary Clinton staffer in exchange for his testimony in the ongoing scandal of Clinton's private server, it looks like the issue is not going away at all. Will this spell the end of Clinton's presidential run, or is it just a witch hunt?
By Lew Rockwell
Super Tuesday may have been the beginning of the end for the Bernie Sanders campaign, but the ideas that propelled it are likely to linger for quite some time. With some writers comparing Bernie to Ron Paul (not in terms of economics and philosophy, of course, but as insurgent candidates), now seemed like an opportune moment to examine the Sanders message and legacy, and compare it to Ron’s.
Like Ron, Bernie surprised all the pundits with his fundraising, polling, and electoral success. In fact, so successful has Sanders been that Hillary Clinton has been reduced to a pathetic and unconvincing “me, too” campaign – I can be just like Bernie, if that’s what you rubes want!
Bernie has gained a lot of traction from his complaints that Hillary is in the tank for Wall Street and the big banks. He’s likewise pointed to the six-figure honoraria Hillary has earned from speeches given to the big banks.
The best the now-hapless Bill Clinton could do in reply was to note that Bernie, too, had been paid to give speeches. Technically, Bill was right. Bernie had earned money from public speaking: a whopping $1800 over the course of a year. The year before that, Bernie had earned $1300 from public speaking. All of this money was donated to charity, as is the requirement for U.S. senators.
It’s true that Bernie is better than Hillary on foreign policy, but in keeping with Rothbard’s Law – everyone concentrates in the area in which he is worst – Bernie speaks very little about issues of war and peace. And even there, consistency and principle are elusive: he supported Bill Clinton’s bombing of Serbia over Kosovo, an act of terror based on propaganda that rivaled anything George W. Bush ever peddled. Sanders favors the ongoing drone campaigns, too, and even supported the F-35, one of the biggest boondoggles in the Pentagon’s long and sorry history.
Bernie’s primary legacy will be to have resuscitated the idea of socialism in the minds of many Americans. It is a very confused socialism, to be sure. The young people who follow Bernie can’t even seem to define socialism, according to recent surveys. And in fact Bernie’s economics is really just a hyper-Keynesianism rather than out-and-out socialism. But by suggesting that the Scandinavian countries constitute a model that the United States should emulate, he has encouraged the idea that only large-scale, systemic change in the direction of vastly increased government power can produce the kind of society Americans want.
Capitalism ought to be our default position, since it conforms to the basic moral insights we acquired in our youth: keep your word, live up to your agreements, don’t take what doesn’t belong to you, and do not cause anyone physical harm.
But thanks to years of propaganda to the contrary, socialism has come to appear to many people as not simply a morally plausible position but clearly and obviously desirable and superior to the capitalist alternative. The free market, they are convinced from what they recall from their elementary school textbooks, leads to “monopoly” and oppression.
Bernie speaks as if the system is rigged against the people because of business influence in government – a fair enough point, as far as it goes – but it’s hard to take this criticism seriously when his proposed solution is to extend the influence of politics over more and more areas of life and increase the powers and scope of the very government he is supposed to be criticizing.
The Sanders narrative is rooted in two major historical claims, both of them dead wrong.
First, Sanders believes “capitalism” was to blame for the 2008 crash. But as LRC readers know, that downturn, like the Great Depression before it, was preceded by years of Federal Reserve credit expansion. According to the Austrian theory of the business cycle, the artificial lowering of interest rates below free-market levels sets in motion an unsustainable economic boom.
The economy is set on a path that could be sustained only if real resource availability were greater than it really is. Eventually, when real savings and resources turn out not to exist in the abundance that the Fed’s interventions misled people into expecting, projects have to be abandoned and the phony prosperity becomes real recession.
Sanders supporters will no doubt point to the great number of bad mortgages originated by private lenders. But would these mortgage loans have been extended in the first place if institutions like Countrywide couldn’t sell them to the government-privileged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Fannie and Freddie enjoyed special tax and regulatory advantages and had a special line of credit from the US Treasury – a line of credit everyone knew would be essentially limitless if push ever came to shove.It was the perfect storm: the Fed’s crazed monetary policy injected huge quantities of additional credit circulating throughout the economy, and the federal government’s various mandates and regulations made real estate an artificially attractive outlet for all that new money. When this ramshackle edifice came crashing down, capitalism – which, in the midst of all this money creation and regulatory lunacy, had never been tried – took the blame.
It was the perfect storm: the Fed’s crazed monetary policy injected huge quantities of additional credit circulating throughout the economy, and the federal government’s various mandates and regulations made real estate an artificially attractive outlet for all that new money. When this ramshackle edifice came crashing down, capitalism – which, in the midst of all this money creation and regulatory lunacy, had never been tried – took the blame.
Indeed, what could be intellectually easier than blaming the “free market” for a phenomenon a critic doesn’t understand? Ron Paul, on the other hand, never tired in his own presidential campaigns of going beyond surface explanations to account for what really happened in the disaster of ’08, and identify who the real culprits were.
The other part of the Sanders story – Scandinavia – is shallow and misleading, too.
In fact, Denmark’s own prime minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, finally had to correct the Vermont senator’s references to his country as “socialist.” “I would like to make one thing clear,” Rasmussen said. “Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”
Still, there’s no question Denmark has a large public sector. And it’s starting to suck the life out of the place. Denmark’s various benefits subsidize idleness to an absurd and unmanageable degree. In the country’s 98 municipalities, guess how many have a majority of residents working. If you answered three, you know far more about Denmark than Bernie and his supporters do.
It’s a similar story in the rest of Scandinavia. For instance, Sweden’s welfare state was able to develop only because of the wealth created by decades and decades of a prosperous market economy. Private-sector job creation was anemic to nonexistent in the decades following the radical expansion of the Swedish welfare state. And as for Norway, there are lots of “free” things there, it’s true – if you’re prepared to pay a 75 percent effective tax rate.
The comparison of Bernie to Ron goes like this: both launched insurgent, anti-establishment presidential campaigns while in their 70s, shook up their respective party establishments, and attracted large youth followings. But Bernie is no Ron.
Just on the surface: Bernie is a grump and difficult to work with; Ron is a kindhearted gentleman who always showed his appreciation for the people in his office.
More importantly, Ron urged his followers to read and learn. Countless high school and college students began reading dense and difficult treatises in economics and political philosophy because Ron encouraged them to. Bernie’s followers receive no such encouragement. And why should they? Bernie’s platform merely regurgitates the fallacies and prejudices his young followers already imbibed in school. What more is there to read?
Ron’s followers, meanwhile, were curious enough to dig beneath the surface. Is the state really a benign institution that can costlessly provide us whatever we might demand? Or might there be moral, economic, and political factors standing in the way of these utopian dreams?
Bernie’s supporters demand material things for themselves, to be handed to them at the expense of strangers they have been taught to despise. But like Ron himself – who as an OB/GYN opposed restrictions on midwives even though doing so was not in his material interest – the young Paulians embraced the message of liberty without a thought for material advantage.
It’s not hard to cultivate a raving band of people demanding other people’s things. Such appeals arouse the basest aspects of our nature, and will always attract a crowd. It’s very hard, on the other hand, to build up an army of young people intellectually curious enough to read serious books and consider ideas that go beyond the conventional wisdom they learned in school about government and market. It’s hard to build up a movement of people whose moral sense is developed enough to recognize that barking demands and enforcing them with the state’s gun is the behavior of a thug, not a civilized person. And it’s hard to persuade people of the counter-intuitive idea that society runs better and individuals are more prosperous when no one is “in charge” at all.
Yet Ron accomplished all these things. And that is why, when we position the Vermont senator against the Texas congressman, Ron’s achievement is so much greater and more historic.
This article originally appeared on LewRockwell.com
By Chris Rossini
Neocons are one-half of the neocon/Keynesian duopoly that intellectually rules the U.S. government. We didn't get into this mess by accident. It's rather a direct result of horrendous ideas.
Both sides of the duopoly need each other in order to keep fulfilling their delusions of grandeur. Neocons need the money-printing Keynesians to finance their wars. They can then pretend to run the world militarily.
Likewise, Keynesians need neocon wars in order to keep the printing presses running full speed ahead. Then they can pretend to run the U.S. economy (and world economy). Yes, the egos on both sides of the duopoly are off the charts! Those egos have produced nothing a long streak of spectacular failures both at home and abroad. Yet, because they can get away with it, they both keep sowing the seeds for more chaos in the future.
Since it's election season, neocons are looking for a new candidate to sink their fangs into. Loyalty to a political party is not necessary. As long as the new president can be used as a vehicle for more military adventurism around the world, that's all that really matters.
As of this writing, Donald Trump seems too uncontrollable for the neocons. That's not to say that they can't "strike a deal" with Trump at some point in the future, but right now, they see a better bet in Hillary Clinton. After all, Hillary has consistently proved her militarist colors.
If neocons have to "deal" with Donald "the negotiator" later, you can bet that they'll do so. Donald has in no way shown that he's a non-interventionist, so there's a good chance he could be massaged later if need be.
At this time though, neocons appear to be slithering over to Hillary. Robert Kagan, one of the co-founders of the despicable "Project For A New American Century (PNAC)" came out in the Washington Post recently with an endorsement for Hillary:
For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be.
The country will be "saved" when neoconservative and Keynesian ideas are thoroughly rejected in favor of sound money and non-interventionism overseas. Kagan merely wants his version of the country (i.e., as a military empire) to be saved.
Kagan's Clinton calculation most definitely factors in that Hillary gave Kagan's wife, Victoria Nuland, a top job in her State Department. Prior to Nuland's promotion, she was a top aide to neocon Dick Cheney.
Kagan's infamous co-founder of PNAC Bill Kristol is also sidling up to the former Secretary of State who helped to ruin Libya and much of the Middle East. Kristol is ready for Hillary to take the American crown.
It makes sense. Go with the sure bet first. Then, if need be, negotiate with "the negotiator".
Unfortunately for Kagan and Kristol, American financial bankruptcy is galloping closer and closer with each passing day. There are only so many financial crises that the duopoly will ultimately be able to handle. With each passing crisis, they both come out with more bumps and more bumps and bruises. Their ideas are dying.
By their actions, neocons and Keynesians are hastening their demise.
By Ron Paul
Edward Snowden heroically alerted the American public to the spying ways of the U.S. federal government. In a very rational reaction, the American public expressed a strong desire to have encryption technologies on their phones. Entrepreneurs, always looking to satisfy the most urgent wants of consumers, built the encryption technologies into phones. Now the government is looking to strike back. They have their pretense and they're looking to capitalize. I discuss this great danger to our privacy and Constitution with Liz Claman here:
The battle between the FBI and Apple over encryption took a turn in Apple's favor this week, with a similar court ruling coming down on the side of privacy. Congress is eager to get in the game. What might we expect if they do?
By Ron Paul
Virtually everyone in the presidential race is an authoritarian to some degree. But most are too inept to actually follow through and succeed in implementing their dictatorial promises. However, it's always very frightening when masses of individuals rally behind a "can do" politician. It often provides a faux "mandate" for that politician to run roughshod over our liberties. I join Sky News to discuss:
By Chris Rossini
Political elites in America are getting a good dose of democracy for once. The one-party state has been bamboozling U.S. citizens for the longest time with their two usual candidates. The main difference between the two could be narrowed down to the color of their ties. One would wear red, and the other blue. Philosophically the two would always be almost identical. Hence the non-stop growth of government over the last 100+ years.
The one-party state loved it! What's not to love from the perspective of power? It's been a lock-step march to serfdom, with all the serfs believing that they are free! Americans were "making their voices heard"....they were "rocking the vote"...they were doing their "civic duty"...and all the other claptrap that has been used to sell the idea of voting.
Democracy was so beneficial to America's political elites, that they decided to take their show on the road. Foreign nations would be obliterated and turned into sweltering wastelands, so that those people too could pretend to be free (if they survived of course).
U.S. managed democracy in foreign countries would come with one caveat: Foreign nations better elect a leader that the American government approves of, otherwise the U.S. would have to come in and fix it...and make it right.
The terrible repercussions of American managed democracies around the world are apparent for everyone to see. It's been a total failure (unless, of course, you're a member of the military-industrial-complex).
But the idea that the U.S. would and could "spread freedom" with fighter jets and tanks is now only accepted by the stubborn and pigheaded. Only the sands of time remain before monetary bankruptcy forces a change of direction.
While the wick of foreign adventurism proceeds to ultimate burnout, it now appears that the elites are unhappy with democracy at home too! With the candidacy of Donald Trump we hear of plans in the Huffington Post to "save democracy". The Washington Post tells us that Voters shouldn’t reward Trump’s assault on democracy.
What's the problem?
Trump is running for president, and a vast majority of Republicans are voting for him. People are "making their voices heard" and they're "rocking the vote". This is a good thing right? Isn't that what they teach in government's textbooks? Why does democracy, all of sudden, need to "be saved" in America?
Perhaps, just as with America's foreign democracy schemes, the domestic jig is up as well. The whole fraud has been exposed for what it is: just an excuse to increase government power. So-called democracy in America has produced one result: the biggest and most intrusive government in the history of the world.
America's elites are now choking on their democracy. Not because Trump is some kind of libertarian, but because Trump doesn't dangle from the puppet strings that the usual red tie and blue tie guys dangle from.
America's Founders warned against democracy. They knew that it was a disaster.
American citizens over the years decided to ignore them.
No matter who you vote for, the authoritarians win. The people who want to run the economy, want to run the world, and want to run your life. What is the pro-liberty solution? Should we vote?