Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts

Sunday, June 02, 2019

Headlines


Democrats roll out super PAC aimed at swing states

Trump may end up torpedoing the new NAFTA deal after threatening Mexico with costly tariffs

Ron Paul: US/UK trying to kill Assange?

Fact check: No, Trump did not admit that Russia helped get him elected

Construction of privately-funded border wall begins

North Korea’s Kim Jong Un reportedly executes official after failed Hanoi summit with US

[Nikki] Haley re-emerging on 2020 campaign trail ...

Nearly 9 in 10 illegals released into U.S. not showing up for court hearings

Third House Republican blocks massive disaster aid package

The yuan is creeping toward 7 against the dollar, and that could be a problem for Chinese firms

Disney threatens to boycott Georgia over abortion laws

Barr: I don’t think people who oversaw Russian probe committed treason

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

Headlines


Harris picks hotbed of anti-Trump movement for campaign launch

Americans blame Trump for shutdown chaos, as more believe US is 'on the wrong track' -- NBC/WSJ poll

Kamala kickoff draws 20,000, 'Bigger than Obama'

Ranchers invite Pelosi to border: Come see why your fence is trash

Marine Le Pen backs Britain's membership in 'reformed' EU

Trump White House reportedly pushes allies to back China's Huawei in race for 5G network

Treasury to borrow $1 trillion for second year to finance deficit ...

Brokaw: 'Hispanics should work harder at assimilation'

Jerome Corsi says he is 'happy' to testify against Stone

The Fed needs yo get 'out of the business of  monetary policy': Ron Paul

 Hillary not ruling out 2020 ...

At least 30,000 border crossings expected while government reopens

Saturday, April 08, 2017

Headlines


These headlines are real ... they have all been discovered on Internet news sites. Guess which ones came from Politico?

Duerte orders Philippine troops to South China Sea reefs ...

Tillerson: 'It would seem that Assad should no longer lead Syria'

Obama to launch big foundation speaking career

Ron Paul: 'Zero chance' Assad behind chemical attack

Mitt Romney exploring Senate run ...

U.S. woman stabbed to death by migrant who recently arrived in France

Breaking: Truck in Sweden reported ramming crowd, several reported dead

Civil war rages throughout the Trump administration

Trump kept up pageantry as Syrian strikes unfolded

Pentagon plans major missile intercept test ...

Trump's troll army isn't ready for war in Syria

Kremlin says support for Assad 'not unconditional' ...

Monday, January 09, 2012

The Granite State


Arnie Arnesen, a failed political hack from the Granite State, New Hampshire, (see: Wikipedia Entry) was just on talk radio here in Boston this morning ... and she said that, if students in New Hampshire weren't on their winter break, Ron Paul would do much better in tomorrow's Republican primary.  I found this a curious statement, so I went to Google and only found Colby-Sawyer to be a New Hampshire college that might still be on winter break.  There could be a few others, but the scheduling information on many of the other New Hampshire colleges is a little sparse on the Internet.

But this brings me back to that old bone I like to chew on ... why do students, who don't really live where they go to college, get to cast their ballots there (see: Representation without Taxation)?  They don't pay taxes there ... even the colleges they attend do not pay taxes there.  (And, besides I strongly suspect that many of them also absentee-vote in their home-town elections.)  Doesn't this liberal push-through rule amount to representation without taxation?  I truly believe that it does.  If these students actually live year-round in or around their college town and pay taxes there, then I have no problem with their also voting there.  But, if not, then they should only be allowed to cast absentee ballots in their real home towns.  Or maybe we should hold national elections in mid-summer?

I realize that I am a hard-hearted martinet ... but big-D democracy does require a little big-D discipline.

Thursday, September 08, 2011

Kitchen Cabinet


Last night, while watching the Republican debate from the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, I was impressed with this lineup of Presidential hopefuls. I also felt it was a shame that only one of them could take the fight to The Barry next fall. I realize that this idea cuts across the grain of the current media narrative -- that the Republicans offer a weak slate of candidate hopefuls. But, to me, each of these potentials is better than what we got now … and each has significant strengths that he/she could bring to the next administration. Since only one could be our next President, the next fanciful step then was to imagine how each of them would fit into a Republican administration. I do realize that this would never happen, but I did have this chimera and let me here share it with you:

Mitt Romney – President
Newt Gingrich – Vice President (if I can’t have Marco Rubio)
Jon Huntsman – Secretary of State
Ron Paul – Surgeon General
Rick Perry – Secretary of Defense
Michele Bachmann – Attorney General
Rick Santorum – Secretary of  Treasury (if I can’t have Paul Ryan)
Herman Cain – Secretary of Commerce

I can dream can't I?

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Gold Bug

The price of gold hit $1,900 per ounce yesterday ... the highest in history.  And many ads on current cable TV and talk radio focus on selling this metal to gullible consumers.  I say "gullible" despite the fact that many who bought this yellow metal last year have cleaned up.  But those speculating on gold must note that the buyer's price and the seller's price can often differ by as much as 20% and the only possible gain from gold is a capital gain, no interest or dividends ... plus there are often selling and buying commissions and margin fees ... plus, if one buys in quantity, there are hefty shipping or storage fees.  And don't forget that old adage: "you can't eat gold."

This all aside, gold has had a remarkable run ... I bought some for my grandson when he was born five years ago at about $550 per ounce ... it is higher now by more than a triple ... quite a run.  The question then present themselves: Why such a run?  And, how high might gold go?

The answer to the first question has a lot to do with the decline of the U.S. dollar.  Obviously, the price of gold in euros or in yen has not had such incredible price inflation.  Also, worldwide political and economic uncertainty causes many to seek a safe haven for one's assets.  The U.S. dollar had been such a haven in the past, but this is rapidly changing due to irresponsible fiscal policies in the U.S. over the last ten years.  Thus, gold moves to the fore for nervous investors.  But some pundits believe that this may be a dangerous strategy currently ... see: Danger in Gold

The second question is a lot more difficult to answer.  It mostly depends if one believes that the U.S. will listen to Ron Paul (and others) and return to the gold standard ... and what one believes will happen to world inflation rates over time.   To see if a U.S. return to the gold standard is viable, one has to inspect the level of its gold holdings relative to its supply of currency in circulation, see:  World's Gold Reserves and Money Supply Statistics A number of years ago I remember hearing that the total amount of gold in the world would only fill a small barn.  I suspect that, today, it would fill a big barn (with a very strong floor).  The slide show referenced says that there are currently 30,160 tons of gold in the world ... of which the United States owns 8,965.6 tons (29.7%). At $1,900 per ounce, these U.S. holdings would be worth about $598 billion while the amount of U.S. currency in circulation is $974.8 billion.  This suggests that, to justify a return to the gold standard at parity would require that the price of gold to rise by at least 79% ... to about $3,400 per ounce ... just to back the existing currency in circulation.  Backing the entire M1 money supply (including demand deposits), but probably not needed, would require our gold to price-inflate to about $6,375.

Do I think that this is going to happen?  No.  First, I don't think Ron Paul will be elected President and I don't think that we will return to the gold standard ... Fort Know would be emptied in a trice.  And I am always skeptical of listening to and acting on sleezy TV and radio ads.  But it sure seems that the current rate of inflation in the price of gold seems to be trying to get us there.

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Finger on the Scale


I have earlier written on how the accounting profession bears much of the blame for our many financial crisis's (see: Off Balance)  Now our august Federal Reserve Bank is sneaking a finger on the scale by changing an accounting methodology so that its balance sheet will no longer be truly reflective of its financial condition (see: Accounting Tweak)  This change is, to me, not just a "tweak."  It is a very dangerous action on the part of this trusted institution.  It is not just moving potential liabilities off its balance sheet.  It is moving them to the income statements of its regional banks (if, in fact, they even show up there) where they will not be so obvious.

I know that Ron Paul is now the incoming Chairman of the House's Domestic Monetary Policy Subcommittee (see: Here) and has sworn to hold hearings on many of the Fed's actions of late.  I would hope that he makes this accounting "tweak" his first order of business.