Press Play to hear Ron Paul deliver his Weekly Update:
By Ron Paul
Following the recent clashes between the alt-right and the group antifa, some libertarians have debated which group they should support. The answer is simple: neither. The alt-right and its leftist opponents are two sides of the same authoritarian coin.
The alt-right elevates racial identity over individual identity. The obsession with race leads them to support massive government interference in the economy in order to benefit members of the favored race. They also favor massive welfare and entitlement spending, as long as it functions as a racial spoils system. Some prominent alt-right leaders even support abortion as a way of limiting the minority population. No one who sincerely supports individual liberty, property rights, or the right to life can have any sympathy for this type of racial collectivism.
Antifa, like all Marxists, elevates class identity over individual identity. Antifa supporters believe government must run the economy because otherwise workers will be exploited by greedy capitalists. This faith in central planning ignores economic reality, as well as the reality that in a free market employers and workers voluntarily work together for their mutual benefit. It is only when government intervenes in the economy that crony capitalists have the opportunity to exploit workers, consumers, and taxpayers. Sadly, many on the left confuse the results of the “mixed economy” with free markets.
Ironically, the failure of the Keynesian model of economic authoritarianism, promoted by establishment economists like Paul Krugman, is responsible for the rise of the alt-right and antifa. Despite a recent (and likely short-lived) upturn in some sectors of the economy, many Americans continue to struggle with unemployment and a Federal Reserve-caused eroding standard of living. History shows that economic hardship causes many to follow demagogues offering easy solutions and convenient scapegoats.
Left-wing demagogues scapegoat businesses and the “one percent,” ignoring the distinction between those who made their fortunes serving consumers and those who enriched themselves by manipulating the political process. Right-wing demagogues scapegoat immigrants and minorities, ignoring how these groups suffer under the current system and how they are disproportionally impacted by policies like the war on drugs and police militarization.
As the Keynesian-Krugman empire of big government and fiat currency collapses, more people will be attracted to authoritarianism, leading to an increase in violence. The only way to ensure the current system is not replaced with something even worse is for those of us who know the truth to work harder to spread the ideas of liberty.
While we should be willing to form coalitions with individuals of good will across the political spectrum, we must never align with anyone promoting violence as a solution to social and economic problems. We must also oppose any attempts to use the violence committed by extremists as a justification for expanding the police state or infringing on free speech. Laws against hate speech set a dangerous precedent for censorship of speech unpopular with the ruling elite and the deep state.
Libertarians have several advantages in the ideological battle over what we will replace the Keynesian welfare model with. First, we do not need to resort to scapegoating and demagoguing, as we have the truth about the welfare-warfare state and the Federal Reserve on our side. We also offer a realistic way to restore prosperity. But our greatest advantage is that, while authoritarianism divides people by race, class, religion, or other differences, the cause of liberty unites all who seek peace and prosperity.
Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger joins the Liberty Report to preview President Trump's Afghanistan strategy that will be unveiled tonight. Should we expect a radical departure from the last 16 unsuccessful years? Get your tickets to the RPI Conference discussed in this video! RonPaulInstitute.org/conference
By Liberty Report Staff
While campaigning for president, candidate Trump warned about the stock market bubble.
As president, Trump has curiously tried to take credit for it. Of course, he had nothing to do with it, as economic bubbles are a creation of The Federal Reserve.
Every bubble has a bust built into it, and this one will produce a very severe financial crisis. There is no avoiding it.
Ron Paul on CNBC below:
It's been almost a decade since the last Federal Reserve financial crisis. They thought that unprecedented money printing (by the trillions) would fix things. It only made things much worse, promising an even bigger financial crisis to come. Ron Paul keeps the focus on the Fed on today's edition of Myth-Busters.
By Chris Rossini
So President Trump closed down his "Manufacturing Council" and no one cheered?
What a shame.
Why was there a "Manufacturing Council" to begin with? It's not the job of the president to meddle with our economy. His job description says nothing about benefitting "manufactures" or "scientists" or "Silicon Valley" or anyone else.
These "Councils" are breeding grounds for the cronyism that has virtually destroyed the American Dream.
If a CEO has the ear of the president, do you think he's going to "advise" the president to do anything that will hurt his own business?
On the other hand, would the CEO be tempted to advise the president to hurt his competitors, both foreign and domestic? Would the CEO advise the president to make it hard for start-ups and entrepreneurs to compete? Would he advise for subsidies? Strict licensing laws?
The president doesn't need Advisory Councils, Czars, or any other destroyer of our economic liberties.
Let the CEO's be "counciled" themselves by free market prices. Let them deal with economic reality as it is, not massage the president for unconstitutional interventions. Let them stand on their own.
Either satisfy consumers profitably, or fold up so that other people can.
The president, at the same time, should stop pretending that he can push buttons and pull levers to make the economy run. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Government intervention only stifles the economy.
The economy continues to function despite the political intrusions that exist. Fortunately, entrepreneurs are creative enough to always find ways around so-called government "regulations". There's always a loophole somewhere. But why make it hard on entrepreneurs to begin with? Just get the heck out of the way!
But alas, the government and multi-national corporations are attached at the hip. One scratches the back of the other.
Mr. President, close down all the "Advisory Councils," and keep your hands off the economy.
More than two years after a Saudi-led coalition began attacking Yemen, the country is a wasteland. Thousands of airstrikes, scores of children killed, epidemics, misery. Who's really responsible and what can be done?
By Mark Spitznagel
Every further new high in the price of Bitcoin brings ever more claims that it is destined to become the preeminent safe haven investment of the modern age — the new gold.
But there’s no getting around the fact that Bitcoin is essentially a speculative investment in a new technology, specifically the blockchain. Think of the blockchain, very basically, as layers of independent electronic security that encapsulate a cryptocurrency and keep it frozen in time and space — like layers of amber around a fly. This is what makes a cryptocurrency “crypto.”
That’s not to say that the price of Bitcoin cannot make further (and further…) new highs. After all, that is what speculative bubbles do (until they don’t).
Bitcoin and each new initial coin offering (ICO) should be thought of as software infrastructure innovation tools, not competing currencies. It’s the amber that determines their value, not the flies. Cryptocurrencies are a very significant value-added technological innovation that calls directly into question the government monopoly over money. This insurrection against government-manipulated fiat money will only grow more pronounced as cryptocurrencies catch on as transactional fiduciary media; at that point, who will need government money? The blockchain, though still in its infancy, is a really big deal.
While governments can’t control cryptocurrencies directly, why shouldn’t we expect cryptocurrencies to face the same fate as what started happening to numbered Swiss bank accounts (whose secrecy remain legally enforced by Swiss law)? All local governments had to do was make it illegal to hide, and thus force law-abiding citizens to become criminals if they fail to disclose such accounts. We should expect similar anti-money laundering hygiene and taxation among the cryptocurrencies. The more electronic security layers inherent in a cryptocurrency’s perceived value, the more vulnerable its price is to such an eventual decree.
Bitcoins should be regarded as assets, or really equities, not as currencies. They are each little business plans — each perceived to create future value. They are not stores-of-value, but rather volatile expectations on the future success of these business plans. But most ICOs probably don’t have viable business plans; they are truly castles in the sky, relying only on momentum effects among the growing herd of crypto-investors. (The Securities and Exchange Commission is correct in looking at them as equities.) Thus, we should expect their current value to be derived by the same razor-thin equity risk premiums and bubbly growth expectations that we see throughout markets today. And we should expect that value to suffer the same fate as occurs at the end of every speculative bubble.
If you wanted to create your own private country with your own currency, no matter how safe you were from outside invaders, you’d be wise to start with some pre-existing store-of-value, such as a foreign currency, gold, or land. Otherwise, why would anyone trade for your new currency? Arbitrarily assigning a store-of-value component to a cryptocurrency, no matter how secure it is, is trying to do the same thing (except much easier than starting a new country). And somehow it’s been working.
Moreover, as competing cryptocurrencies are created, whether for specific applications (such as automating contracts, for instance), these ICOs seem to have the effect of driving up all cryptocurrencies. Clearly, there is the potential for additional cryptocurrencies to bolster the transactional value of each other—perhaps even adding to the fungibility of all cryptocurrencies. But as various cryptocurrencies start competing with each other, they will not be additive in value. The technology, like new innovations, can, in fact, create some value from thin air. But not so any underlying store-of-value component in the cryptocurrencies. As a new cryptocurrency is assigned units of a store-of-value, those units must, by necessity, leave other stores-of-value, whether gold or another cryptocurrency. New depositories of value must siphon off the existing depositories of value. On a global scale, it is very much a zero sum game.
Or, as we might say, we can improve the layers of amber, but we can’t create more flies.
This competition, both in the technology and the underlying store-of-value, must, by definition, constrain each specific cryptocurrency’s price appreciation. Put simply, cryptocurrencies have an enormous scarcity problem. The constraints on any one cryptocurrency’s supply are an enormous improvement over the lack of any constraint whatsoever on governments when it comes to printing currencies. However, unlike physical assets such as gold and silver that have unique physical attributes endowing them with monetary importance for millennia, the problem is that there is no barrier to entry for cryptocurrencies; as each new competing cryptocurrency finds success, it dilutes or inflates the universe of the others.
The store-of-value component of cryptocurrencies — which is, at a bare-minimum, a fundamental requirement for safe haven status — is a minuscule part of its value and appreciation. After all, stores of value are just that: stable and reliable holding places of value. They do not create new value, but are finite in supply and are merely intended to hold value that has already been created through savings and productive investment. To miss this point is to perpetuate the very same fallacy that global central banks blindly follow today. You simply cannot create money, or capital, from thin air (whether it be credit or a new cool cryptocurrency). Rather, it represents resources that have been created and saved for future consumption. There is simply no way around this fundamental truth.
Viewing cryptocurrencies as having safe haven status opens investors to layering more risk on their portfolios. Holding Bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies likely constitutes a bigger bet on the same central bank-driven bubble that some hope to protect themselves against. The great irony is that both the libertarian supporters of cryptocurrencies and the interventionist supporters of central bank-manipulated fiat money both fall for this very same fallacy.
Cryptocurrencies are a very important development, and an enormous step in the direction toward the decentralization of monetary power. This has enormously positive potential, and I am a big cheerleader for their success. But caveat emptor—thinking that we are magically creating new stores-of-value and thus a new safe haven is a profound mistake.
Republished from The Mises Institute.
By Liberty Report Staff
We have an "injustice" system now where the rich and political connected can easily get away with lots of felonies. Central Banking plays a starring role in making this possible.
Ron Paul discusses this and much more below:
How to solve the issue of free speech and hate speech? Some use violence to silence speech they do not like. Others use intimidation or shouting down. Many Republicans and Democrats take sides based on political preference rather than principle. What's the libertarian view on speech?
By Liberty Report Staff
Have you ever noticed how many experts there are on "American values"? These characters are everywhere. They're always telling us about their laundry list of "American values."
One value that never happens to make the list is the unique American idea that set this country apart from all others --- Liberty.
Instead, the term "American values" has been turned into a partisan grab bag of everything that is un-American.
Paul Krugman of the New York Times has a funny one for us in his latest screed about "American values". Check out Krugman's definition of America:
More fundamentally, what makes America America is that it is built around an idea: the idea that all men are created equal, and are entitled to basic human rights.
That's a total contradiction.
First let's start with "All men are created equal."
That statement was a revolutionary statement at the time that it was written in 1776.
Kings were presumed and believed to be divine. The King and his progeny were privileged by birth. To be thought of as divine is quite a special privilege, no?
The King would also grant privileges to his cronies. He'd create monopolies, and grant subsidies to his buddies.
If you weren't born into the right family, your life was fixed from the moment you took your first breath. Men were certainly not equal under the law.
America, on the other hand, was founded on the idea that all men were created equal in the sense that no one is born with special privileges and is not entitled simply by being alive.
This was revolutionary thinking.
It was (at the time) considered treasonous, and extremist.
Sadly, people are still having a hard time with accepting this very basic fact of life.
Which brings us back to Paul Krugman...
Krugman pays lip service to the fact that "all men are created equal" but then goes off the rails by saying we "are entitled to basic human rights."
No we're not!
The word "entitled" means "believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment."
How can men be both "equal" and "entitled"?
Unfortunately, America has morphed from a land of liberty and no special privileges to one of infinite entitlements.
Everyone has their pet entitlement that they believe they have a "right" to.
The American government is now (by far) the biggest and most violent government on the face of the earth. Remember, government doesn't create or produce anything. Everything that it "gives," it must first steal from someone else.
In order to sustain the gimme...gimme...gimme's that are always pouring, it has to go on a global rampage in an attempt to put everyone under its thumb.
Ultimately, this house of cards will collapse on itself. The promises will not be kept, and there will be a lot of disappointed people who believe their "entitled" to what they were promised.
At that point, will enough Americans choose a philosophy of all men are equal with no special privileges and entitlements?
We better hope so (and must help to make it so).
Otherwise, it's not going to be pretty.