High-Risk Credit

Timshel

New member
High-Risk Credit

by Ron Paul


As markets went on a rollercoaster ride last week, our economy is coming close to a day of reckoning for loose credit policies being followed by the Federal Reserve Bank. Simply, foreign banks we have been relying on to buy our debt are waking up to the reality of much higher default rates than predicted, and many mortgage-backed securities have been reduced to “junk” ratings. Wall Street fears the possibility of tightening credit and the tightening of America’s belts. Why, they say, “if Americans spend only what they can afford, think of the ripple effects throughout the economy!” This is the cry, as the call comes for the fed to cut rates and bail out companies in trouble.

More inflation is, however, never the answer to inflation.

The truth is that business involves risk, and businesses that miscalculate risk should be liquidated, so their assets can be reallocated to businesses that correctly judge risk and make profits. Instead, the Fed has injected $64 billion into the jittery markets, effectively amounting to a bailout that keeps these malinvestments afloat, but eventually they will become the undoing of our economy.

In addition to the negative reactions in financial markets, many Americans have taken on too much personal debt owing to exotic mortgage products and artificially low interest rates. Unfortunately, these families are now in the position of losing their homes in unprecedented numbers as the teaser rates expire and the real bills are coming due.

The real answers are, and always have been, found in the principles of the free market. Let the market set the interest rates. If we had been functioning under a true and transparent free market system, we would not be in the mess we are in today. Government, like the American household, needs to live within its means to get back on stable fiscal ground.

We’ve been headed in the wrong direction since 1971. This week marks the 36th anniversary of Nixon’s decision to close the gold window, which convinced me to seek public office to call attention to the runaway money train that would come in the aftermath of that decision. The temptation to print and spend money with impunity, like the temptation to max out lines of credit, is too strong for government to resist. While Nixon brokered exclusivity deals with OPEC to prop up demand for the tidal wave of green pieces of paper the Fed pumped into the markets, the world is tiring of marching to the beat of our drum in order to secure their energy needs. The house of cards Nixon built is now on the verge of collapsing on our heads, and on our children’s heads.

As the dollar weakens, it becomes ever clearer that we need a return to sound, commodity-based money for a secure future. Money based on real value, not empty promises and secretive backroom machinations, is the way to get out of the current calamity without causing even bigger problems.
 
Yeah, why bother with a candidate that is honest and has an intellect when there is one with good hair.
Well, you know, if they 'look' Presidential then they will garner more respect and stuff from all those people out there who think GWB look like a buffoon. We need to fix our Foreign Relations and it is important how their hair looks for that....

Um, I think...

/sarcasm
 
Yeah I sort of switched off at the same line...

Good thing you caught that man, that was close. You might have actually read something that challenged your thinking. You might have been forced to think. Phew, narrow escape.
 
Good thing you caught that man, that was close. You might have actually read something that challenged your thinking. You might have been forced to think. Phew, narrow escape.

Yeah saved by the name associated with BS.
Was a close thing though.
I have made up my mind on Paul, why waste time ?
I did some research and am not wild about the attitudes of his most devout supporters either....
 
Yeah saved by the name associated with BS.
Was a close thing though.
I have made up my mind on Paul, why waste time ?
I did some research and am not wild about the attitudes of his most devout supporters either....

I don't agree with Democrats or liberal positions as a whole, does that mean I should never listen to a Democrat or that they have nothing constructive to say?

What a nice little world we create when we only listen to people who tell us what we want to hear. No wonder we wind up with the candidates we do and people have the attitudes they do.
 
I don't agree with Democrats or liberal positions as a whole, does that mean I should never listen to a Democrat or that they have nothing constructive to say?

What a nice little world we create when we only listen to people who tell us what we want to hear. No wonder we wind up with the candidates we do and people have the attitudes they do.

Umm imho my opinion is just as valid as pauls. He is just a blip.
 
I agree that anyone who take high risk credit deserves what they get either on the borrowing or lending end.

On Ron Paul, no comment.

He is 75% Neo.
 
I am not sure why he says this. We started in the wrong direction well before that.

I agree with most of what he wrote. He wrote since 1971 because of the removal of the gold standard. But you are correct, it was 1961 that the spend happy politicians began destroying us year by year. Ike was the last President to lower the nations debt fiscal year over year. That is pathetic. But it shows that even with the gold standard in place, we still had a decade of over-spending by our government.
 
What is 75% Neo?
Well, if they vote with the R party at all they are called "neo", see how that works?

It is easier to dismiss ideas, even if you agree with them, if you find some sort of "objective" measure, like an R to associate with the name.
 
Well, if they vote with the R party at all they are called "neo", see how that works?

It is easier to dismiss ideas, even if you agree with them, if you find some sort of "objective" measure, like an R to associate with the name.

Yes, that now makes sense. I thought "neo-con" was an attempt to label those who supported the war in Iraq. Seeing that Ron Paul did not support the war in Iraq I (erroniously) thought he did not fall under the category of "neo-con".

However if Republican or conservative positions that have been held for up to a hundred years are now considered "neo-con" positions then as you say I guess that makes it easier to dismiss them.
 
Back
Top