Predicting Recession: Negative GDP, Business Cycles, and Money

Congressman Ron Paul gave a compelling speech before Congress on May 15, 2000 that predicted much of what has happened in global financial circles, and very likely much of what will come. It's not difficult to see, one hardly needs to extrapolate the data to see the writing on the wall. However, it is important that we have reliable sources of information.

Many in financial circles believe that economic statistics provided by the U.S. government are reliable and accurately portray GDP, for example. According to these statistics, the economy has not shown two consequtive quarters of negative GDP. However, this is only because the official reported numbers are false. If one tracks the statistics according to how they were tracked a couple of decades ago, using (more) real measures, then the truth will out. In fact, we have had at least 12 consecutive quarters of negative GDP. For example, have a look at John Williams' Shadow Government Statistics site.

In actuality, we're in a massive stagflation. And the full force of this tsunami has yet to hit home. Give it a couple more years, and when it does—look out! The efforts on the part of the U.S. government's media machine are almost exclusively for perception management and controlling public opinion, invariably with false information in an ultimately futile attempt to keep the masses pacified thinking everything is just fine.

Further, counter to conventional wisdom, business cycles are not a part of true capitalism. True capitalism has rarely been seen, except perhaps to some degree prior to the institution of the Federal Reserve in 1913, or it's various attempts in the 19th century to obtain a monopoly on money creation in the United States. True captitalism leaves the government to perform only one task as far as economics is concered: protect the free market—keeping it truly free. Laissez-faire Capitalism = True Capitalism.

And what about the argument that business cycles have also occured prior to the establishment of the Federal Reserve? Although this may be true to some degree, it is largely due to the same interests involved influencing economic policy that sought to create the Fed in the first place. Prior to the Fed these interest groups did not have the official sanction of government; afterwards they did. For more information read, "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin as one reputable source; there are several others, including works by Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and even Ron Paul.

Ron Paul almost prophetically spoke of a massive economic "pullback" in the years to come. However, quite contrary to what many think, he was not referring to the collapse of the technology bubble but something far more comprehensive and pervasive: he was referrring to a global economic crisis. One in which our entire global economic system would be in a shambles—due largely to the fact that a fiat debt-based U.S. currency has been the world's reserve currency for the better part of a century, coupled to the realization that there isn't enough liquidity to finance this massive "credit card bill." If one reads the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) with any degree of regularity, one will see that over the last 2-3 years many central banks all over the world have been trying very quietly to divest themselves of US dollars, and then downplaying this divestiture in public circles so that they don't overly affect the markets, whilst at the same time ensuring they don't shoot themselves in the foot for the next round of divestiture.

The only way to have real, solid, non-superficial growth is to change the way our money is fashioned. We must divest ourselves of a debt-based Keynsian system in favour of an asset-based Misesian system. And gold-backed, silver-backed or any other difficult to obtain commodity backing is ideal for this purpose.

Ron Paul's insights into the nature of coin, currency and economics, are frighteningly accurate. Much of the economics we learn in college and university is largely a scam to perpetuate the existing power structures, groom us into a deluded self-assured malaise to occupy various positions in these instutitions, with the dangling promise that we too might be powerful, important, and wildly successful. And who knows? If we play our cards right, perhaps one day we might even become the keepers of these houses of cards.

Turn on, tune in, drop out.

Congressman Ron Paul's "We the People" Act

"Any association that's voluntary should be permissible in a free society." — Ron Paul

"The federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue." — Ron Paul

As usual, there is a lot of confusion surrounding Ron Paul's political position, and specifically around his We the People Act. It's no wonder, as mainstream media and journalist hacks lacking in even the slightest analytical competency, regularly distort statements and positions beyond even the slightest recognition. For example, there are a number of people on Digg, who maintain that this Act is a removal of the rights and freedoms of individuals from certain segments of society.

This could not be further from the truth. It's easy to be misinformed about Ron Paul's position on civil rights, because so many individuals are putting words into his mouth. The interesting thing with Ron Paul is that his positions are always rooted in the Constitution. But it's not always obvious to the average person continuously barraged by mainstream media spin—often times careful thought and consideration is necessary to see precisely how. Instead of taking his position on issues based on hearsay or what others with little understanding have written, let's take it straight from the man himself.

Here is a good Q&A session that describes how Ron Paul stands on various civil rights issues. There are a couple of inaccuracies lower down (based on incorrect information on the contents of certain legislation)—but they don't affect the accuracy of the Q&A transcripts themselves. For more comprehensive information see this Wikipedia article on Ron Paul's political positions.

For example, take the gay rights / same sex marriage issues. Even though Ron Paul may not personally morally agree with these positions, he will not legislate for or against them, because that would be unconstitutional. The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to legislate on moral issues, and Ron Paul understands and respects that. He leaves these issues for the individual states to decide.

It is a similar case with the abortion issue and specifically, Roe vs. Wade. Yes, Ron Paul is pro-life and personally believes that life begins at conception, but he will not legislate anti-abortion federal law based on his personal moral views. But neither will he tolerate pro-abortion legislation for the same reasons—which is why he wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade: he wants to repeal legislation that unnecessarily involves the government in moral issues. Again, a Ron Paul administration would leave the individual states to adjuducate on these matters on a state by state basis.

In this mistitled video Ron Paul speaks on the bill; however, detractors often try to use the video to show that his position will result in loss of freedom and liberty. The following is a brief transcript from the video in which Ron Paul speaks:

"My approach is [...] accepting the priniciple that we can, as a legislative body and as a president, [...] remove the jurisdiction of this issue [prayer in schools, same-sex marriage, abortion, etc.] from the federal courts.

I have a bill called We the People's Act [...] which literally just takes it [the issues] away from the federal courts. Which means any state could pass a law, pass a prohibition, and it could not be heard in federal court."

Any state, under this proposal, has the right to pass any prohibition legislating, for example, in the case of abortion, either in the pro-life camp, or the pro-choice camp, and whatever they legislate cannot be heard in a federal court. Ron is appealing to all sides on these issues. The point is, even though he is personally pro-life, he doesn't want the federal government involved in legislating one way or another on moral issues. Leave the decision to the individual states based on the will of the people in those states.

Ron Paul is the friend of Christian, and non-Christian, pro-life, and pro-choice, gay rights and Christian values, simply by refusing to involve the federal government in any of these issues, and allowing local groups to decide the outcomes. That is an increase in freedom and liberty, not a decrease. Remember, freedom and liberty doesn't mean "getting my way and enforcing it on everyone" it means allowing for a diversity of "different ways to be gotten"—if they are in fact the will of the majority in a given community. So, convince your local constituency that "your way" is best and "your way" can become locally mandated, provided it is not unconstitutional.

From the Wikipedia summary for the We the People Act:

"If made law, the Act would forbid federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, unless those cases were a challenge to the constitutionality of federal law. It would also make federal court decisions on those subjects non-binding as precedent in state courts, and would prohibit federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments.

Because the bill forbids federal courts from hearing "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion," a practical effect of this bill might be that atheists could be banned from holding public office in Texas, as its state constitution requires the acknowledgment of a supreme being.[4] However, historically this technicality has not been enforced."

This is accurate and also supports my contention. However, the second last sentence is misleading. Yes, one theoretical effect of this bill might be that athiests could be banned from holding public office in Texas because of funky Texas state laws. However, the Constitution specifically states in Article 6, end of the third clause:

"[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Now, if state legislators wish to contravene the Constitution on this point, (Texas, Tennessee, and probably several other states do) then it will be up to the people to take this contravening legislation as high up the state court system as possible and get it struck down for what it is—unconstitutional. But notice that the last sentence states that historically this technicality in Texas (and other states) has not been enforced. Why? Because state law makers know they would not be able to get away with it, as the federal government would be forced to intervene. And the people would surely rise up in revolution.