DISSING THE FED AND RON PAUL By Paul Rye

[Demeter]

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_paul_rye_071122_dissing_the_fed_and_.htm



In a recent article, Army Improperly Awarded $150 Billion KBR Contract, a writer concluded, “Travesties such as this are only compounded by the immense debt created by this war, and the fact that our children will be paying it off for decades.” The second link was to an article intensely critical of the Federal Reserve, “Who’s Responsible for the National Debt?” A few weeks later, the same writer went overboard trying to ridicule Ron Paul and his followers for, among other things, wanting to get rid of the Federal Reserve.

“Who’s Responsible for the National Debt” explains how the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 provided the means for government to sell generations of Americans into slavery to the national debt. And yet, the writer went bonkers anyway, calling Ron Paul an extremist and a kook, for wanting to abolish the Federal Reserve, and horrors, because an alternative currency coin dealer, Liberty Dollar, put the presidential candidate’s face on some of its coins. What are we to make of people who rail against the very things that Ron Paul does but call him a kook for proposing to do something about it?

The way I understand people who take these positions is to assume they believe the solution is to vote better people into office: not to reform the laws, not to reform or eliminate government agencies, not to allow private competition with the government, not to reduce the size of government, and not to adhere to the Constitution. There’s nothing wrong with the system; it’s all about choosing the “right” people.

What is difficult for me to understand is how otherwise well-informed people fail to see it is not just the people they elect that matters. Political institutions themselves cause much of people’s bad behavior. To some it’s fine to say the Founding Fathers understood that, and that is why they established checks and balances in the Constitution. Modern people, however, are pretty blasé about that old “piece of paper”. So, let me tell you about the Stanford University Prison Experiment of 1971. It is quite famous in the history of psychology. The results of the experiment are said to support situational attributions of behavior rather than dispositional attribution. That’s fancy talk meaning situations cause participants' behavior, rather than anything inherent in their individual personality. Put ordinary people in a situation where the rules mimic a traditional prison environment and with breathtaking speed you get people who would normally treat their neighbors quite nicely become sadistic guards and abuse prisoners.

Politically, the implications of the principle are obvious. Maybe that is why politicians, patriots, and pundits generally avoid mentioning it. Kind of puts a damper on election coverage to say, “None of these eight candidates are going to make a difference.”

ARTICLE CONTINUES AT LINK==LENGTHY BUT THOUGHT PROVOKING!



Authors Bio: Skin diver, spear fisher, trash collector, roughneck, scuba diver, football player, tennis player, mechanical engineer, aerospace engineer, husband, father, math teacher, fisherman.

[PDJane]

1. I do think Ron Paul is a bit unworthy....

But it's not because of his views on the Federal Reserve, which was the first experiment in "privatization." It should never have been privatized, not ever, because that allows the very, very, wealthy, those of inherited wealth, to own the production of a country and to control a money supply which is based, in a very real sense, on nothing more tangible than debt.

I do think he's more than a bit of a cook for poliicies that would, in essence, leave a lot of Americans to a shortened life span and more ignorance than is current.

[Demeter]

2. I'm Interested In Some of His Ideas, But not the Candidate

I think he's a kook even beyond those we have in office today. But that doesn't mean he's talking complete lies, as Bush and Cheney do constantly.

[PDJane]

3. No. I admit that.

However, at this juncture, his economic policies would mean a world-wide depression. The free market, in the sense of the Chicago Boys or the Washington concensus, is a recipe for war, debt, and a very polluted world.

[razors edge]

4. So do you think

we can print our way out of all the bad things you mentioned?

[PDJane]

5. No. I don't.

I do think, however, that there does need to be government, and that the function of a well-run government includes, but is not limited to, education, social justice, environmental policies that will ensure there remains a world to give to our children, control of the money supply, and a bunch of "socialist" policies that will reign in the worst excesses of the private sector.

In fact, it was the privatization of the Federal Reserve that gave away the control of the money supply that allows the financial elite to determine our collective financial future.

However, throwing out the good functions of government is not the answer either.

[razors edge]

6. Total agreement here.

I just don't see us getting there with the preselected leaders we are being fed.

To bad we don't have any choices in the upcoming that allow us to achieve the priorities we all hold dear.

Maybe next time.

[Bravo Zulu]

7. Ronnie taking a rest!