Home > Is the Perfect Storm Forming for Ron Paul?
Trade-Exchange Rates Economy-budget USA
Is the Perfect Storm Forming for Ron Paul?
by Murray Sabrin
What a week! The stock market took a dive to just over 13,000 on the Dow Jones Industrial Average from an all-time high of 14,000 less than a month ago. The world’s major central banks flooded the financial system with tens of billions of dollars to prop up the banks and the mortgage market.
Meanwhile, the unending wars in Afghanistan and Iraq continue to drain the U.S. military; the bills for the Bush-Cheney invasion of two nations that did not attack us or threaten to attack us are rocketing to the one trillion dollar mark.
In other words, we are witnessing the unfolding of the collapse of the welfare–warfare–fiat-money complex that has ruled America since 1913, the year the Federal Reserve was created and the Sixteenth Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution allowing the federal government to impose an income tax on the American people.
Of all the GOP and Democrat presidential candidates, only Representative Ron Paul of Texas has been diagnosing correctly the shortcomings of the welfare–warfare–fiat-money state. In fact, last Friday on Larry Kudlow’s CNBC show Dr. Paul demonstrated once again why he is the only presidential candidate who understands how the Federal Reserve creates financial bubbles that always end in pain and suffering, especially for low and middle income Americans.
Economist Murray Rothbard identified the losers in the inflation race:
Inflation…redistributes the wealth in favor of the first-comers and at the expense of the laggards in the race. And inflation is, in effect, a race – to see who can get the new money earliest. The latecomers – the ones stuck with the loss – are often called the "fixed income groups." Ministers, teachers, people on salaries, lag notoriously behind other groups in acquiring the new money. Particular sufferers will be those depending on fixed money contracts – contracts made in the days before the inflationary rise in prices. Life insurance beneficiaries and annuitants, retired persons living off pensions, landlords with long term leases, bondholders and other creditors, those holding cash, all will bear the brunt of the inflation. They will be the ones who are "taxed."
And who are the winners? Wall Street banks, real estate speculators and others who are the initial recipients of easy money.
So, if we want to end the boom and bust cycle we need to restore sound money – gold and silver as the foundation of our monetary system, as prescribed the U.S. Constitution. At the very least, the FED should stop creating money out of thin air. But stopping the inflating of the nation’s currency would not sit well with the Wall Street crowd, because they are the prime beneficiaries of easy money. In other words, halting inflation would drop real estate prices in the Hamptons, Aspen and other locations where the beneficiaries of inflation have bid up the price of houses and condos. And forget about those end-of-year bonuses. Under a sound monetary system, speculating in currency and other markets would be greatly diminished.
As a student of the Austrian School of Economics, Dr. Paul is familiar with the contributions of Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt and dozens of others who advocated free markets and sound money. Professor Mises spent his long academic career warning about the dangers of inflation, the printing of money by central bankers.
Professor Mises long ago showed the relationship between war and inflation, a point Rep. Paul has reiterated throughout his campaign for the GOP presidential nomination.
“Inflationism, however, is not an isolated phenomenon. It is only one piece in the total framework of politico-economic and socio-philosophical ideas of our time. Just as the sound money policy of gold standard advocates went hand in hand with liberalism, free trade, capitalism and peace, so is inflationism part and parcel of imperialism, militarism, protectionism, statism and socialism.”
Mises used liberalism in its original meaning: limited government, low taxes, and free trade. The term has been hijacked in the 20th century by the proponents of big government.
War, credit bubbles, runaway government spending, a bankrupt entitlement system, are the result of big government liberalism and neo-conservatism.
Last Saturday, Rep. Paul clearly and passionately spoke the truth about these issues at the Iowa Straw poll conference center. Coming in fifth place with just under 10 percent of the vote is a great achievement in his long-shot campaign for the GOP presidential nomination.
Once GOP voters realize where inflation and war are taking the country, they will rally around Ron Paul, the only candidate for peace, freedom and prosperity.
August 14, 2007
Murray Sabrin, Ph.D. [send him mail], is professor of finance in the Anisfield School of Business, Ramapo College of New Jersey, where he is executive director of the Center for Business and Public Policy. He is the author of Tax Free 2000: The Rebirth of American Liberty. Sabrin’s weekly column appears Monday on USADaily.com, and he blogs on NJVoices.com and ShapTalk.com.
Forum posts
15 August 2007, 11:50
Who is Murray Sabrin, Really?
Steve Adubato
"If I weren’t in the debate, the debate would boil down to who is the most irresponsible." That was the one-liner from Libertarian candidate Murray Sabrin that got a nice response during the second "debate" of this terribly uninspiring gubernatorial race. Sabrin delivers a lot of catchy lines that seem to have appeal to a growing number of turned-off voters.
Even some normally jaded journalists are saying Sabrin has at least added a little excitement to what would have been an even duller race between the highly programmed, seemingly robotic Christie Whitman, and the eager to please Jim McGreevey. I never expected to be writing a column on Murray Sabrin. Not only is he a total unknown who is the standard bearer of a party with some off-the-wall positions (Libertarians believe public education and Social Security are part of a Marxist plot), but this is a guy who didn’t even vote in two recent statewide elections.
Okay, Murray Sabrin is a "legitimate candidate" who has become so because Whitman and McGreevey have left an opening a mile wide. But being legitimate also means commentators like me are going to take a closer look at you and what you say you believe. So who is Murray Sabrin, really?
First, Sabrin says he is for "less government" and advocates a "free market" system where the strongest succeed. He is an unabashed advocate of the private sector. How then does Sabrin justify the fact that he received $322,000 of TAXPAYER MONEY to run for governor? He raised a little over $200,000 in "private money" and took over one and a half times that in the form of a government "subsidy." (Aren’t you against welfare, Murray?) If he believes so much in the "free marketplace" then why didn’t he raise ALL of his money privately?
Sabrinites say Murray is only taking advantage of the system. Many have compared Sabrin’s accepting of taxpayer funds to Bill Clinton’s White House fundraising tactics. It is all LEGAL. Sure, but Murray Sabrin isn’t supposed to be like other politicians. He is supposed to be different - the OUTSIDER who doesn’t accept the status quo. Hey Murray, at least have the honesty to admit that while you say you are against public welfare, the rules are different when you are the beneficiary of it.
Want more hypocrisy? Let’s talk health care. Sabrin doesn’t believe government should be involved in health insurance. Specifically, he would eliminate Medicaid and Medicare. He is against government providing health insurance to those who can’t afford it or who work in jobs that don’t provide health coverage. We’re talking one million people here.
Listen to Sabrin: "The least expensive health care delivery system has been known for years. Eat your vegetables, drink plenty of water, reduce saturated fat and cholesterol intake, don’t smoke…"
But when it comes to Sabrin’s own health insurance coverage, it is only the best. Sabrin is a professor at Ramapo University (funded with taxpayer money) and has one of the best, most comprehensive insurance plans which is funded by the state of New Jersey. I know, I’m with Rutgers and I have the same plan. Virtually everything is covered and the taxpayer picks up the lion’s share of the tab. Isn’t that right Murray?
I am not saying Sabrin shouldn’t be entitled to first-rate publicly funded health insurance. But at least be honest about it. By the way Murray, do you have TENURE? You know, a lifetime job at a publicly funded University? If so, do you really think tenure promotes the idea of a "free marketplace" where the best and most productive teachers succeed? What’s the deal Murray?
Speaking of education, Sabrin says the Supreme Court should have no say in how much local communities spend on public education. He says "local schools should be funded by local sources." That may be fine in Spring Lake or Short Hills, but what about in Asbury Park or Atlantic City? What happens if a community doesn’t have the property tax base to support first rate schools? What then Murray?
I know you don’t believe we should increase the income tax (and send more state money to poorer districts) because I heard you say you would ABOLISH the income tax. Sabrin says communities must "decide what’s best for them." What happens if a town with virtually no money "decides" they want to give every student a computer? What should they do Murray, run a bake sale?
On auto insurance Murray Sabrin says, "We need a free, open and competitive market. It is called free enterprise. It is called getting government out of an area they have no business in." Sabrin says he will reduce auto insurance by 50 percent or more by deregulating the industry. Popular stuff. But ask yourself, do you trust the insurance industry (who won’t even open their books) to do the right thing and offer lower prices. In Murray Sabrin’s world there is no corporate collusion. No arrangements to keep prices high. There are no tobacco companies who lie for decades about what they put in cigarettes and how they manipulate nicotine levels to keep smokers hooked. In Sabrin’s world there is just an "open and competive market" and a big bad government that just gets in the way. If you want to live in Murray’s world, knock yourself out and vote for him next Tuesday. After all, he is a "legitimate" candidate.
– http://www.caucusnj.org/adubato/199...
16 August 2007, 02:46
Ron Paul is NOT o.k. !
18 August 2007, 17:57
I do not know what the Libertarian party stands for, but then I do know what the other parties SAY they stand for. Does anyone see any evidence that any of the politcal parties actually act on the stated belief systems? If you recall, in 1999 a certain individual claimed he would go to Washington and "clean house", restore the integrty of the US in the world, and MOST of...restore "dignity" to the office of president of the united states......then in 2006 another bunch of liars were elected based on "ending this ILLEGAL WAR" (They actually called it that!) The WHO (musicians) have a song "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss". When will the voting public DEMAND that these people act in our behalf....or throw them out of office? The last political removal (in CA) was bankrolled by the opposing party to get Swartzamuffin installed. System really works for the people, EH?