Ron Paul called out by Bill Black...

[TheeJoeGlass]

This was a harsh rebuke of Ron from someone I respect.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/congress-threatens-to-sow_b_799016.html

[Agorism]

When Paul talks about no regulations he's not talking about the current form of banking. He's talking about open banking, which goes right over everyone's head.

Talking past each other here.

I don't think Paul is for "no regulations" on the central bank and leverage.

[BamaAla]

When Paul talks about no regulations he's not talking about the current form of banking. He's talking about open banking, which goes right over everyone's head.

Talking past each other here.

I don't think Paul is for "no regulations" on the central bank and leverage.

lol. How many times have you heard "Ron Paul is crazy; he wants to go back to unregulated free markets like we had in 2007...the ones that caused the crisis?"

[akforme]

The whole deregulation argument is not argued well because it's too complex and there is too much fear ingrained into people about it. Plus it can't be covered in sound bites. It was the one issue I had a hard time with when I started listening to the liberty message.

[TheeJoeGlass]

Listening to Friedman helped me with that.

[BuddyRey]

A contributing writer to the Huffington Post doesn't agree with Ron Paul on monetary policy?

I don't get it. Shouldn't this be cause for celebration?

[jtstellar]

just wondering if anyone still listens to peter schiff.. it's like he's nonexistent now after his senate bid. he always gives great quick summaries of the economy and this "everything bad is due to deregulation" nonsense

[sailingaway]

Ron voted AGAINST repealing the glass-steagel act. In that context, the regulation was needed because other intrusions in the free market would otherwise make it a terrible hit to taxpayers.

Ron was speaking philosophically in a throw away line and they are trying to turn it into something it is not.

[specsaregood]

just wondering if anyone still listens to peter schiff.. it's like he's nonexistent now after his senate bid. he always gives great quick summaries of the economy and this "everything bad is due to deregulation" nonsense

Who?

[LadyBastiat]

Ron Paul (R. Tex.), asked to comment on Bachus' statement, said: "I don't think we need regulators. We need law and order. We need people to fulfill their contracts. The market is a great regulator, and we've lost understanding and confidence that the market is probably a much stricter regulator."

Krugman was smited for attempting to pull the same trick... attributing something false to Dr. Paul.

Bill Anderson (http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson304.html) points out the significant difference.

[newbitech]

Is anyone surprised that the bedrock of law and order in the United States was completely ignored? The illegitimate authority granted to a quasi-government private and secretly run central bank is the first order of business that needs to be dealt with. Remove that illegitimate authority and the ability for a private organization to monopolize the coining of our money with no accountability and the alphabet soup of regulators will not be required to perform the task of investigating and/or covering up fraud.

If we cannot follow the ultimate regulation that founded this country, are we surprised that the various other illegitimate authorities built up around the central bank are also incapable of following their own laws that seem to be as malleable as a child's can of play dough?

Ron Paul is all for regulation, its called the US Constitution. So if anyone is criticizing Ron Paul for wanting to get rid of corrupt and fraudulent regulators in favor of following the law and order of the land, what they are really doing is presenting a false dichotomy as a mis-characterization of Ron Paul. You can't on the one hand say that Ron Paul is wrong to call for de-regulation on the lower levels and then completely ignore his call for regulation on the highest level.

Ron Paul correctly points out that the core problem is a lack of maintaining law and order on the highest level. He correctly points out that the regulation we see at the lower levels is a byproduct of failure to follow the most basic and fundamental of laws at the highest level. It is clear that the only regulations that will matter when it comes to money is the regulation that only elected officials have been granted the authority to make and create money policy. Since that power has been unconstitutionally delegated to private quasi-government entity, all other regulations that follow are inherently corrupt and do not have the ability to regulate in the best interest of those people who gave the authority and sent representatives to create the money policies in the first place. In fact, it is quite obvious that since the lower regulations are based on illegitimate authority, these regulations and the agencies that are spawned from them are inherently corrupt and will in fact act against those people who did grant the authority.

Bill Black must not understand that to eliminate the weeds, you have to pull it out from the root. Otherwise, I don't really see where he is disagreeing with Ron Paul. He just needs to raise his sights up a few levels and drop the chic bashing of Ron Paul.

[cswake]

This is a failure of definitions.

Both Bill Black, Krugman, the Left, and the Right think that deregulation = removing laws so that everyone can be defrauded, cheated, scammed, etc. (As referenced to Black's constant reference to fraud) Meanwhile, when Paul talks about regulations, it is along the lines of "a principle or condition that customarily governs behavior". More specifically, deregulating means that the government does not introduce anything that will modify behavior, unless it is criminal.

For example, Ron Paul spoke of it when they were repealing Glass-Steagall. They were removing one set of regulations, which were intended on addressing the unintended consequences of another set of regulations, deposit insurance. Despite the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the industry was never deregulated here because the deposit insurance still existed, creating that moral hazard, as well as other regulations such as the "Greenspan put".

We are *for* law and order, but *against* regulation of behavior.

[georgiaboy]

This is a failure of definitions.

Both Bill Black, Krugman, the Left, and the Right think that deregulation = removing laws so that everyone can be defrauded, cheated, scammed, etc. (As referenced to Black's constant reference to fraud) Meanwhile, when Paul talks about regulations, it is along the lines of "a principle or condition that customarily governs behavior". More specifically, deregulating means that the government does not introduce anything that will modify behavior, unless it is criminal.

For example, Ron Paul spoke of it when they were repealing Glass-Steagall. They were removing one set of regulations, which were intended on addressing the unintended consequences of another set of regulations, deposit insurance. Despite the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the industry was never deregulated here because the deposit insurance still existed, creating that moral hazard, as well as other regulations such as the "Greenspan put".

We are *for* law and order, but *against* regulation of behavior.

+rep

[Nate-ForLiberty]

just wondering if anyone still listens to peter schiff.. it's like he's nonexistent now after his senate bid. he always gives great quick summaries of the economy and this "everything bad is due to deregulation" nonsense

He's going through the same thing Adam Kokesh is. They've just started doing their radio shows and are building their audience. Schiff doesn't do the daily updates anymore because he's on the air for 2 hours 5 days a week. You can listen to his entire show with ads for free, or without ads for a $7 subscription. www.schiffradio.com The work that is happening right now, even though it seems quiet or nonexistent, will pay off in dividends in 2 years.

[specsaregood]

When douches like this take things out of context....in this era of the internet it only ends up reflecting poorly on them and discredits their own positions.

[StilesBC]

Ed Harrison at Credit Writedowns has a piece on the comments as well: http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2010/12/banking-self-regulation.html

See my comment down below.

[yatez112]

A contributing writer to the Huffington Post doesn't agree with Ron Paul on monetary policy?

I don't get it. Shouldn't this be cause for celebration?

Well, Bill Black is a very good ally for removing fraud in the banking system and financial sector...Smart man.

[TheeJoeGlass]

Thats what bugs me about this. Anyone that knows Black knows he is honest and very smart. The work he is doing on BoA right now is excellent. This is the guy who brought down the Savings and Loans scandal in the 80's. I would really love to know if Black knows anything about Ron. Or is this just a liberal economist bashing Ron.

[StilesBC]

Thats what bugs me about this. Anyone that knows Black knows he is honest and very smart. The work he is doing on BoA right now is excellent. This is the guy who brought down the Savings and Loans scandal in the 80's. I would really love to know if Black knows anything about Ron. Or is this just a liberal economist bashing Ron.

I've heard him openly dismissing Austrian economics.

He's among a group of social democrats that have a good grasp of some of the reasons for the GFC. But they dismiss others, like lack of sound money, morally hazardous institutions or taxes. So he's an ally in the sense that he understands "control fraud" and the pitfalls of regulation. Yet he is a mortal enemy in that he believes this can be overcome by "better regulators." Same kind of logic that Keynesians use to justify why their "stimulus" spending doesn't work: it wasn't enough - or it went to the wrong place.

Circular arguments cannot be defeated. And he can be dangerous in the sense that those in power, who are forced to acknowledge the satus quo's failure, may be solicited two separate solutions: Ron's Austrian solution, and his solution - which would be mostly more of the same. If you want the political benefit of appearing to do something, while not actually doing anything - a guy like Bill Black is far more likely to capture your attention.

[Epic]

They are talking past each other.

When RP says regulation, he means government provision of "positive liberty" through violation of "negative liberty" private property rights.

When the left hears regulation, they think it means government not sanctioning other individuals to violate "negative liberty". (this is wrong, this function is already included in libertarianism and is not called "regulation")

As usual, the left is careless and clueless in defining terms.

[Cowlesy]

Never heard of him.

[TheeJoeGlass]

Well considering that Black is a regulator, and Ron is against them. It makes sense that Black would not be a fan of Ron Paul. This really does show the division of of happened. This will take decades to figure out.

[StilesBC]

Black was a regulator. In the 80's. Now he's a prof at the University of Missouri.

[emazur]

Never heard of him.

Anyone who's never heard of him needs to watch this (I should rewatch it myself):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz1b__MdtHY

Schiff also interviewed Black last week, but first you should watch the Bill Moyers interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtoOiuolwvo