Ron Paul (1)Reseñas

Интересный и информативный взгляд на деятельность ФРС и её влияние на экономику США. Важно учесть, что книга написана под сильным влиянием либертарианских взглядов Рон Пола.

I can't say that this was a poorly written book, I just don't see the recommendations as being the practical answer to our broken educational system.

Paul strongly supports home schooling, which really isn't practical for many people. I think further on-line courses will find the way into school use, but part of his book is a suggestion that we obtain the upcoming curriculum he's developing. Some of his points are interesting, but I don't see anything coming from his suggestions.

If you can trust the pre-election polls, Ron Paul doesn't have the support to become the nominee for President in the 2012 election. Nonetheless, this is a good book to read to gain an understanding of the policies and beliefs of one of the declared candidates. You can make up your own mind about supporting him or not, but at least you'll have a good basis for your decision after reading this book. To me, that was one of the main aspects of the book. The sections are short and to the point, not necessarily in enough depth to swing you over to his perspective, but detailed enough to get to know the candidate and his beliefs. In that respect, the book serves its purpose, and is good from that perspective.

Congressman Paul is very critical of current monetary policy under the Fed, and makes many powerful points to support his views. He makes it hard to find fault with many of these views, and offers reasons why the Fed should be abolished. However while he made convincing points as to why the current system hurts us, I felt the book lacked compensating detail as to what the alternative financial system would look like, and how it would operate.

AWESOME...Ron Paul is right on about so many things!!

Abandoning for now. I've read a lot by and about Dr. Paul, so I have a good idea of his beliefs already. May pick this back up at some point. Just too much to read for the time being.

Ron Paul is awesome. I have yet to find any point that he makes that I disagree with. I was not necessarily surprised by anything in The Revolution, as I was a pretty ardent follower of Dr. Paul's since before he was a presidential contender for the second time (in the 2008 election cycle). Nevertheless, it was refreshing to read all of his views in a single text that is clear and well-written.

Dr. Paul starts out in a fashion that some might consider ironical given that he wrote the book during his bid for the office of POTUS. He basically describes the situation that anyone who has ever seriously investigated a "third-party" candidate already knows about: Namely, that the "choices" offered by the two major parties are effectively not really choices. There are a whole lot of assumptions built into the political race process that Dr. Paul says we are never allowed to question: Like, why do we assume that the government has the right to take any taxes from us, rather than arguing what the appropriate amount of taxation (which would theft if anybody else tried it) should be?

I won't go through the book chapter by chapter, but he basically works his way through various issues that most candidates simply aren't willing to question fundamentally. He tackles foreign policy (why do we still need 64,000 troops in Germany?), trade (why do "free trade" agreements need 3,000 pages of legislation?), economics (what is the purpose of the Fed and do we even need it?), civil liberties (why do some people get so uptight about rights affirmed by the first amendment but willingly give up rights affirmed by other amendments?) and many other topics.

The only qualm I have with the book is an inconsistency in the citation of sources for various data, but considering it is written for a popular audience and not a scholarly one, it might be forgiven. Dr. Paul does give a bibliography at the end for anyone who wants to know more about the various topics he discusses. I am sure to tackle many of the books on the list in the near future (some of them I already own...).

I found it interesting, but I disagree on a lot of Paul's proposed solutions. I agree that the Fed is poorly run and not necessary, but I disagree that fractional reserve banking or fiat currency are necessarily bad. He does a good job at diagnosing the problem (lobbyists interfering in monetary policy, secrecy and artificial cycles), but I don't think the solutions are as well thought through.

All in all, I found it to be a worthwhile read, though I admit I skimmed most of the second half of the book.

I agree with most of the underlying political philosophy, but I thought the presentation was sub-par and I thought some of the statistics were misleading (like the number about 70% of welfare money goes to administration, which is misconstrued). Overall, I enjoyed the book and thought he made good points.

Whether or not one agrees with Ron Paul's positions in politics, this book is an important read. His arguments are sound and the text is less of a campaign promoting siren song than it is an entreaty to restore common sense to the American people. I found it informative as well as full of hope for a future that would not involve the doomsday predictions so often lauded in the fear mongering news.

This is virtually a manifesto for libertarianism. Very thought-provoking. Reading this, one realizes how progressives in the republican party and the democrat party have mismanaged the country.

I can't really say I enjoyed reading (listening to) it, but End the Fed is a good primer on what the Federal Reserve is and why it is a bad thing. It was a little hard to follow at times, and I almost gave it 2 stars as a result, but the importance of the overall message caused me to bump the rating up to 3 stars. As much as it was eye-opening, I came away with many questions too. In discussions of economics I often hear things like "Austrian economics" or "Keynesian economics" - both of these economics systems were spoken of in this book, but Paul doesn't take the time to explain these things to the reader.

I'm a huge fan of Ron Paul. I'm not a huge fan of this book. [b:The Revolution: A Manifesto|2732513|The Revolution A Manifesto|Ron Paul|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1255926714s/2732513.jpg|2758149] was a much better book to campaign with. This book is uneven, unfocused, and often unconvincing. Not only was the quality of each chapter highly variable, but the urgency each topic (alluded to in the subtitle) was often questionable. A competent editor would have been a fantastic addition to this book's publishing process.

Ron Paul's philosophy/politics has always interested me, in that I side somewhat.... SOMEWHAT.... with the libertarian movement. There is a air amount I disagree with, or just know is downright wrong (some of the economics) or implausible for our new current climate.

We will never get back to 1780 and have a government that has nothing to go off of but the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Despite how much Ron Paul WANTS that; that'll never happen. No matter what. So it's not feasible or plausible to really assume it could happen (though Paul does).

I think he has a lot of RIGHT things going for his ideology, despite some of the flaws in it. This should still be a read for many people looking into getting into the various political views ("flavors") that we currently have in our climate.

This book is poorly sourced and I disagree with nearly everything Ron Paul says, but I am interested in knowing what this man thinks so I will continue reading.

This was the best non-theology book I read in 2009.

Finally! Someone who makes sense about politics, our economy and the role of the United States in the world. But I fear that we will only do something when reality comes crashing in on us.

This helped me understand the difference between fiat money and what Paul refers to as "sound" money. No doubt he's right that the Fed, like all powerful institutions, exists to concentrate its power further. The most interesting idea to me is that when the Fed creates money (i.e. inflates the dollar) the first receivers of the new money (banks, government agencies, corporations) can use it before it loses its value. By the time it reaches the last receivers (the average consumers) its value has been lost because the market has realized inflation has occured. Sound money in contrast requires no central bank because the money supply remains constant. (Virtually the only example of this kind of currency used consistently for the last 6,000 years is gold.)

I'm no economist, but it seems like all the money from all the economic recovery programs of the last year is still being played with by the first receivers as the Dow has surged and unemployment has climbed to 10%. If those last receivers ever see the money and unemployment goes down, the dollar will lose value, and probably quite a bit of it. People will find their paychecks don't buy very much, and their savings, as Paul would put it, have essentially been stolen by the banks, government agencies and biggest corporations.

But this information can be found elsewhere, and I wouldn't recommend reading this for a concise explanation of such things. Paul uses scare-words like communism and totalitarianism and platitudes like freedom and self-reliance to make his points. He is clearly playing to a certain demographic of which I'm not a member. I obtained this book illegally, though, so I can't complain. Libertarians only go halfway with their advocacy of "freedom." The state is only part of the system of oppression. Private wealth has been concentrated in the hands of a few since it came to exist along with the state. The two are inseparable and have become the hosts for unchecked technological progress that together threaten to do much worse than further disposses the majority. The solution has nothing to do with the movement to end the Fed.

Pee Wee Herman used to have a word of the day, and whenever it came up in conversation, everybody had to SCREAM REAL LOUD! My word for today is "fiat", which means "by royal decree"... something is so, merely because the King says it is so. Printed paper money is called "fiat currency" because its value comes from the say-so of the government (as opposed to something being inherently valuable, like food, or a tool). A dollar is fiat currency. It is legal tender because the government says it is.
Q: Why would the government want to bless pieces of paper with such power?
A: Because carrying around dollars is easier than carrying around bags of gold, or items to barter with. Fiat currency is convenient.
Good system, right?

Going off the rails
Well, maybe not. Fiat currency has a spotty track record. Germany got into trouble in the 1930's by printing too many Reichsmarks, so they didn't seem valuable any more- regardless what the government said. The same thing happened to Argentina in the 1990's. And in Zimbabwe in 2007. And in Yugoslavia in 1994. And in Greece in 1944. And in Taiwan in 1949.



...So there are a bunch of examples where countries printed too much money. And when that happens, the currency looses its ability to buy goods and services, which devistates the economy. What happened to all those countries? Were they just stupid? Why would it be so common that countries just suddenly print too much money?

Q:Who even decides how much money to print?
A:The Treasury Department used to, but now the Federal Reserve does. That in itself is a very long and important story, but not the focus of this book, so I'll leave it alone for now.

To print or not to print
How does the Fed decide how much money to print? Since it is a private corporation, they don't have to tell us how they make those kinds of decisions. To keep the economy perfectly stable, they would have to balance the circulating dollars with the goods and services for sale. As the economy and population grow, more money would be required. The trick is that neither the economy or the population grow evenly, so its hard to get the balance right. And that's if you want to keep everything perfectly stable. A much bigger trick is avoiding the temptations to print money:

1) Per the agreement the Federal Reserve Bank has with our government, taxpayers pay interest on the money the Fed prints, as a sort of fee for using it. Incidentally, when the Treasury Dept printed it, there was no such fee- money belonged to the people. The interest we pay the Federal Reserve corporation (for virually no real work) creates a very handsome profit for its owners. In fact, the Federal Reserve Bank is one of the most profitable private corporations of all time. All this results in a lot of temptation to print more money.



2) The other temptation has to do with timing. When the Federal Reserve prints a bunch of dollars, it releases them into circulation through banks that participate in the Federal Reserve system (basically all the banks you've every heard of operating in America). Like I said, if too many dollars are printed, their value goes down... eventually. But if you're lucky enough to be the very first person holding all those new dollars, the system hasn't had time to feel the effect of the new money. It has the same buying power as earlier. Taking advantage of that effect, the government (the Fed's only customer) likes to contract with the Fed to print more money, and then use it to pay off debts. Debtholders don't complain, because they are the second people to hold that new money, and the system still hasn't adjusted. It's only when the dollars have changed hands a bunch of times, and it gets down to poor schmucks like you and I that vendors start to realize "Hey, I can raise my prices, and customers are still willing to pay." That's called inflation, and it's why a candy bar that cost 35 cents in 1970 now costs $1.25. If you could pay your debts with money that is worth less than what you borrowed it for, wouldn't you be tempted to do so? That's a lot of temptation for the government. And since the Fed makes interest off every dollar they are asked to print, they are more than willing to indulge.

What choice do we have?
Okay.. so there may be problems with our currency system... but what other options do we have? Even if we throw the parasitic Federal Reserve off our backs, won't we still face the temptation to inflate our money to pay off debts? (...and in a wicked cycle, won't the perception that we are paying our debts off with "easy money" encourage us to accrue additional debt?) What can we do?

It so happens that the temptations to overprint fiat currency have been well known for at nearly three hundred years. Britain and the United States both used to have a mechanism built into their currencies to avoid overprinting: the gold standard. Under this system, a dollar could only be printed if the government held a corresponding amount of gold in reserve. To show that the system was being properly accounted, dollars could be exchanged for the appointed amount of gold on request. Most people did not request the equivalent amount in gold, since the paper money was more convenient. If the government wanted to print more money, it would have to obtain more gold. This inhibited reckless printing.

Britain abandoned the gold standard in the 1931, as they were unable or unwilling to pay back their debts from World War I without inflating the currency (i.e. reducing its value). The U.S., under pressure from ballooning defense spending, followed suit in 1971.

The result has been a steady decline in the purchasing power of the dollar. The cost of goods and services increases rapidly, and wages follow much more slowly. The effects of this are hardest on the working poor, and retirees living on their savings. Retirees, in effect, worked hard to earn dollars, saved them away, and spent them when they were worth less... bad deal. These are the ravages of inflation, which discourages saving. Why save your money in a savings account that yields 2% annually, when the dollar loses more than that in purchasing power? Without a stable currency that retains its value over long periods, it becomes impossible to make long-term plans, such as retirement. Ron Paul puts forth a reasoned arguement that gold (or a gold-standard paper) is the best currency for retaining long-term value.



Why Gold?
I'll say right up front that an asset-linked currency doesn't have to be linked to gold. You could have an "oil standard", where dollars are linked to an amount of oil in reserve. You could have an "oatmeal standard", for that matter. Gold happens to be a good asset for this purpose because it seems to exist at a good balance between obtainability and value:

Obtainability There are more rare, and more valuable hard assets than gold. If something is too rare and too valuable, however, it becomes an impractical medium for exchange. Suppose the currency were linked to original Leonardo DaVinci paintings... if the government needed to print more money, but it couldn't get its hands on one of the very limited number of paintings (the market for these being relatively illiquid), the economy would stagnate. A currency needs to be based on something that is obtainable enough to allow for expansion of the money supply, if it is truly needed.

Store of value Gold has been used for art and jewelry for thousands of years, so it is fair to say that it is widely admired for its beauty. There seems to be an inherant value to it which is accepted across cultures. In addition, it is difficult to extract from the Earth. With a few historical exceptions (e.g. surface deposits along the Klondike River), hundreds of tons of rock must be displaced to yield a few ounces of gold. Thus, each ounce represents many man-hours of labor, as well as equipment and energy spent. In this sense, it is a store of value; you can't get it without expending these resources, or an equivalent amount in currency. A further nice benefit: since it is a natural element, it can't be counterfeited.

Keeping on this path
Without the discipline imposed by the gold standard, deficit spending has allowed our national leaders to spend us into massive debt.

As it gets more and more difficult to pay our debts (i.e. debt repayment becomes a larger fraction of our budget)

...it becomes more and more tempting to further inflate the currency. Obviously, there are limits to that strategy. To avert a hyperinflationary collapse, a nation must either:
(1) Put its financial house in order...this includes paying off debts, and reducing spending. That's politically unpopular, because it means cutting vote-winning entitlements and spending programs, so don't hold your breath waiting for that.
-or-
(2) Effectively "hit reset" by collapsing the currency and introducing a new currency. This might sound painless, and would no doubt be presented to the voting public as painless, but in the long term might be the worst thing you could do. Replacing a currency doesn't work if the new currency does't have legitimacy. That means you couldn't just have the same old gang who ran the old currency into the ground (i.e. the Federal Reserve) standing behind the new currency saying "Trust us, it's good this time." To make a new currency work, it would have to have the assurances of a "higher authority". With other currencies that have failed in the past, this has meant the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Once a nation is in the clutches of the IMF, they have essentially lost their freedom- the IMF controls their money supply, and collateralizes it with the country's real estate and natural resources. John Perkins describes in his book [book:Confessions of an Economic Hitman|27559] how nations who go down this path frequently lose all their prized real estate, oil and mining rights, forestry rights, and water supply to offshore foreign banks when the IMF moves in. How are they supposed to climb out of endless debt servitude when that happens? They aren't. An IMF "occupation" only benefits the IMF, who directs victim nation trade polices (destroying protections for domestic industries) to benefit IMF-affiliated (i.e. crony-owned) institutions. Like the Federal Reserve, which appears public (i.e. affiliated with the United Nations and the World Bank), the IMF is controlled by the private Bank of International Settlements After we gave private bankers a $12 trillion bailout of taxpayer money in 2008-2009, there has been a lot of discussion about the weakening dollar, and a push by our financial leadership to collapse the dollar and replace it with something the IMF calls Special Drawing Rights (SDR's).

Obviously, I do not support this plan, and I hope you don't either.

You got the Power!
Of course you can call or write your elected representatives to discourage them from printing more money, or to plead with them not to replace the dollar with SDR's ...I hope you do that.

What you might not know is how independently you can function without the dollar. We are so conditioned against taking initiative and acting independently these days, but who says you have to use dollars when you do your shopping? Throughout the nation, many smaller communities have seen the advantages of printing their own locally-issued money. Some of these currencies enjoy wide acceptance from community-based vendors. Farmers' markets in particular seem to be places where local currencies enjoy acceptance. This local money tends to support small producers and sellers. Wal-Mart and their ilk hate local-issue currency, because they like taking dollars out of your community and sending it to their headquarters out of state. Community-issued money tends to keep circulating in small towns, supporting its businesses, and providing a fair medium of trade, free of the averice of Fed bankers and out-of-control Congressional spenders.

Isn't it true that local currencies could be inflated, or otherwise tampered with? Absolutely, but that has not been the general experience with local-issue money. It is created by a town's businesses, who have an interest in its success. If a local-issue currency were to go off track, you actually know and have access to the responsible parties. You could even take them to court, depending on the agreement of its issuance... try doing that with the Federal Reserve!

If local-print dollars aren't available where you live, maybe you'd like to consider joining the digital gold economy. By holding tradable ounces of gold in an account, you can spend digital gold with a small but growing number of vendors. Does that sound like a lot of hassle? It's less involved than getting a credit card. This is still a developing area in currencies, so due diligence is advised. I mention digital gold because its mere existance shows that the public has caught on to what a scam fiat currencies are. It seems clear there is a desire of the public to return to an honest money system represented by gold.

Good luck!

[Edit: This just in!]

The nominal vs. inflation-adjusted Dow Jones Industrial Average!

"…so when the money failed in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came to Joseph and said,
'Give us bread, for why should we die in your presence? For the money has failed.'"

-Genesis 47:15 (King James Version)

I got this book in January, after a snowstorm stranded my wife and I in Chicago for five days. Naturally, we did what any couple would do under the circumstances: we visited the Chicago branch of the Federal Reserve Bank.


Truly, it was every bit as sickening as you might imagine. They have a visitors’ center, which tries to make light of all the damage their fake money does. At one point, I thought I was going to be sick.

Believe me: there’s nothing I would have liked better than to have vomited all over that display, but I didn’t. We went on the tour, and Chizuru didn’t want me to make any scenes, so we agreed on one question I could ask the guide. I asked him:

"Is the Federal Reserve a private institution, or governmental?"

To avoid really answering, he said
"Well, it’s complex… a little of both, really… but the [U.S.] President appoints the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, so you tell me."

Nice try. I responded
"The President always throws the first pitch of the season in baseball, but that doesn’t make the NBL part of the Federal government."

Then Chizuru tugged on my arm, indicating that I was not to publicly humiliate him any further.

Here’s my souvenir picture at the gates of Hell visitor center.


Enough about that; let’s get to the review!

If I’m going to read another book about the Federal Reserve (and if you’re going to read another of my reviews on the topic), it had better bring something new to the table. Ron Paul’s End the Fed does just that, examining some of the lesser-considered consequences of fiat currencies. The Congressman explains in very simple terms how the elasticity of fiat removes one of the biggest impediments to war: limited resources. Historically, societies with barter economies or commodities-backed money had to carefully allocate resources before deciding to go to war. Kings of old used to deliberate carefully when effectively choosing "between butter or swords". With fiat money, we can print enough dollars that we don’t have to choose; we can have both (for a while)! Ancient Romans found they were able to escalate their military adventures when they debased their metal-based currencies with lead, and the same principle is true in current day. Ultimately, however, this will cause a currency to loose its value. Roman payments to mercenary forces became necessarily greater and greater, until eventually the empire was unable to afford to protect its borders. By removing the constraints of commodity-based currency creation, modern industrial states can expand their money supply several fold, to accommodate military spending which would be unthinkable under a gold standard. (Shameless self-promotion: I touch on this in my Twilight review.) To illustrate the point in detail, Dr Paul examines the case of World War I. If ever there was a war that should have been avoidable by peaceful diplomacy, this was it. The death of Archduke Ferdinand is hardly reason to sacrifice 16 million people. Of course, the reasons war erupted are complex, but one factor favoring conflict was the military buildup in the preceding decade. The extravagant defense budgets of Western nations between 1900-1914 could never have been sustained under commodity-backed currencies, but most of these countries had recently abandoned the gold standard around the turn of the century. With their new elastic fiat currencies, they became flush with easily-printed cash, and began building expensive armies and navies on a far grander scale than ever seen before. America, with her newly-established Federal Reserve (1913) jumped on the band wagon, and began inflating the dollar. By 1917, the American monitary base had more than doubled, and much of this new money was spent on miltary hardware. Like clockwork, we entered the war in 1917.

The rest of the 20th century followed this pattern, and saw an expansion of the money supply far greater than productivity could merit. Concurrently, America began to engage in more frequent and prolonged military adventures, projecting power around the globe. Don’t misunderstand the message here: fiat currencies don’t cause war, but they do remove an impediment to war, namely the financial constraints of less elastic monies.

Moving on, Ron Paul exposes some of the internal contradictions within U.S. monetary policy:

It has long been the belief of the Federal Reserve that money is worth whatever they say it is worth, but market forces haven’t always cooperated with this arrogant view. In the 1960’s, America began minting silver half-dollars. Even though millions of these were released into circulation, hardly anybody used them as money. The value of the silver content far exceeded the nominal 50 cents they were intended to represent. Consequently, the public hoarded them, preferring to use them as a long-term commodity-based store of value, rather than a short term fiat coin. Today, with silver valued at over $40 an ounce, you’d be an idiot to spend a silver half-dollar (whose silver content is 0.77 ounces) to buy 50 cents worth of goods!

The situation is even more extreme with U.S.-minted gold coins.
To expose the lie which is fiat money, a Las Vegas casino started paying its employees in U.S. mint gold coins in the 1980’s. An American "Gold Eagle" coin contains 1 oz of .999 pure gold, but its nominal value is only $50! Thus, the casino was able to convince its employees to work for minimum wage, provided they were partly paid in gold coin whose actual value far exceeded its nominal value (with gold at $1800/oz, I’d agree to work for $250 a week, provided you paid me with five $50 gold coins [actual value $9000]!) The benefit to the employees in this deal is that they could truthfully report on their taxes that they only made (for example) $100 a week, and could pay much lower income tax accordingly! Likewise, the casino benefited by paying less on payroll tax/contributions. It’s a genius ploy: use the lie of fiat currency against the system! What happened? The IRS successfully sued the casino for using U.S. government-minted coins at their face value!! How embarrassing, that the system administrators were so forced to confess that they, in fact, do not have the power to dictate the value of their own currency!

The most enjoyable part of this book for me was the transcripts of debates and conversations Congressman Paul has had with various Chairmen of the Federal Reserve, over the years. At one point, he makes Alan Greenspan admit that every fiat currency in history has either failed, or is in the process of failing, while gold maintains a relatively constant long-term value.

To his credit, Greenspan at least engages Dr. Paul in intelligent debate. Ben Bernanke is too childish and insecure to sustain much conversation with the Congressman. Unfortunately, there are no checks and balances on the Fed, so Bernanke is not required to account to anybody for his policies.

On a more sober note, Ron Paul outlines how fiat money is consolidating political influence in the hands of fewer and fewer individuals. To preserve the façade of legitimacy, as money loses its value, more and more authoritarian measures will be needed to prevent a black market economy from completely supplanting the fiat system. This is the threat which fiat money poses to personal liberties, and it hardly matters what political environment or legal framework this occurs in; authoritarianism is the endgame of every failing monitary system. This is the real importance of this book, and my reason for reviewing it. All the fun pictures were just to draw you in. Sorry if you feel I've deceived you.

For non-Americans out there, I still recommend reading this book. End the Fed is probably as relevant to you as it is to me, since most nations on Earth these days operate through some sort of fiat-based central banking system not significantly different from the American Federal Reserve. The principles in this book apply to almost every country. Read it, and see if you don’t agree your own fiat currency -whatever it may be- should be replaced with a commodity-backed medium of exchange.

Here’s me in front of the Reserve Bank of Australia.


Make today the day you take up the cause of Ending the Fed (and its foreign equivalents)!

Ron Paul has been on the mark about the political climate in America for a long time. He predicted the result of the federal reserve interference causing a false economic boom that led to the housing bubble.
His views on our military interference overseas should not be ignored. The blowback caused by our policies and the expense to our budget. If we stopped the wars we could use that money towards our social security.
The media doesn't admit the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac policies, the bailouts or the role the federal reserve caused in all of this.

It's depressing the new chapter written in 2009 before the bulk of those bailouts even happened [or the bonuses that were given]. He really hit home that the bill didn't pass the first time around but once the lobbyists and bankers called it was passed. The voters didn't matter.
It's doubly sickening during the current election to read about the Iraq sanctions and that Iran was proven not to have a nuclear weapon. He predicted they'd come up with a reason anyway and they have.
Sanctions included.
We're still where we were in 2008.

He covers the drug wars, warrant-less wiretapping and other losses to our civil liberties.
How our forebears never intended for the federal government to have such reach in power.
Even if you don't agree with Ron Paul's ideas about the gold standard [or the story fed to you about the media] it's hard to argue that the federal reserve has messed with inflation and how the costs directly affect the poor who don't get the created money first.
If it's not possible to return to the gold standard we still need to audit the federal reserve.

Glenn Greenwald just wrote an op-ed for the Guardian about which US presidents committed the worst assaults to our civil liberties that I recommend reading.
Who is the worst civil liberties president in US history?Where do the abuses of the last decade from Bush and Obama rank when compared to prior assaults in the name of war?

In Liberty Defined, Dr. Ron Paul spells out simple solutions and principled positions on 50 important issues. It is a quick, interesting and entertaining read. It is a phenomenal book to give to friends and family who haven't fully switched over to the side of liberty yet - the chapters are short and to the point and won't bore the reader by delving into the deeper, philosophical, esoteric minutiae that would likely result in a neophyte putting the book down and never picking it up again. Liberty Defined is even a good read for those who have long been on the side of freedom and a supporter of Ron Paul's message as there are plenty of little gems in each chapter that many of us have never heard or thought of ourselves. Regardless of where you are in your political journey, order this book - you won't be disappointed!

In "End the Fed", Ron Paul lays out the reasons that the Federal Reserve must go and a gold standard must return. Congressman Paul explains his reasons from Philosophical, Constitutional, Economical and Political standpoints citing the current mess we are in and have been in (albeit unknowingly for most Americans) since our fiat money system was instituted and we were removed from the gold standard. He argues that the Federal Reserve, namely chairman Ben Bernanke, while credited with "saving" us from an even more disastrous economy, is actually delaying the inevitable - a serious crash far worse than the Great Depression. Not only is he delaying it, but by continually printing more money into circulation, artificially adjusting interest rates creating bubbles in all markets and giving the false signal to investors and businesses to invest and spend in our broken economy, he is going to make the inevitable far worse than it could be if honesty and transparency within the market allowed change to happen now.

The idea of ridding the American people of the Federal Reserve is still not a super popular one, surprisingly. Many Americans will read "End the Fed" or similar titles, or listen all day to an expert discuss the reasons for abolishing it, and still say that it should stay. Their reasons are usually inane: What would we do for currency? We can't afford a bad economy (as if we don't currently have one). You can imagine the liberal's reasoning for keeping a large, overreaching, secretive, powerful federal agency around at the expense of future generations - nothing new. I assure you, the answers to all these questions are covered in detail in "End the Fed" if one is willing to carefully read the 200 pages with an open and unbiased mind.

I would strongly recommend everyone read this book. As Dr. Paul wrote, ending the "beast" is something that liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and populists can get behind, even if it's because of different motivations. Now is the time, every day the Fed operates is another nail in our coffin. Anti-Fed sentiment in this country is the absolute highest it has ever been since this central bank's conception in 1913. If we stick together and spread the word, that is the knowledge that is displayed within these pages, the Fed doesn't stand a chance.

I selected Ron Paul's book mostly because I have found his views via the Presidential debates to be interesting and unique to him. Although this book was published in 2008, it very much reflects the Ron Paul we hear today. Clearly, he is controversial in many of his views. He supports ending foreign aid and eliminating our military presence in over 130 countries world wide. And he makes a solid case.
I do not believe Ron Paul is electable today. While I believe his views make total sense, they do not reflect the belief system of the majority of Americans.
All the same, I believe Paul is right and the majority of Americans are not. Our system of government operates in denial, and Americans are in denial. With 15+ Trillion in debts, our house has become a house of cards. But everywhere you hear that America is the strongest, the most free, the most prosperous nation on Earth. And Americans buy this like it was written in stone, like we are, let's be honest, infallible.. And if it were true, Ron Paul would indeed be a chicken little.
Out nation is on the brink of economic collapse. It's no longer a question of if, but when. Were that collapse to occur very soon, well, Ron Paul's chances of being elected would soar. I see that collapse as his only realistic opportunity to reach the Presidency. Once it arrives, I predict this book and others he has written will soar in popularity, and Paul may well become remembered for his great wisdom and foresight.
I'm not seeking or expecting most who read my words to jump on this wagon. It's not my purpose, and I am satisfied with my views without the need of a "congregation" to give them "substance". My real purpose is to encourage readers to give his words , and reasons, some serious thought.. They will in my opinion prove to be very prophetic.. We need a savior, but for some reason, we first need to have the huge crisis before we can realize we need a savior.
I just hope we can survive.

Right on, Ron.
Ron Paul explains the fundamental reason for the ills being visited on the US at the beginning of the 21st century: a departure from the simplicity of the Constitution. The government has so stretched the limits that the Constitution is not recognizable in today's political and legal environment. Starting with foreign wars and going on to the drug war and abortion, he shows how the circumventing of the Constitution is bankrupting the country and putting the American dream out of reach of most Americans. The political spoils of the current system, he calls loot which is redistributed according to government mandate. He has a great assessment of our monetary system and the Fed and says the Fed should be done away with. The book has a long bibliography.