Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Abolish the Federal Reserve by Ron Paul



February 01, 2009 – Comments (16)

Ron Paul's recent thoughts (these have been his consistent viewpoint for over 30 years) on how to fix the American economy. This is such a great speech! Delivered January 26, 2009 in Houston, TX.

Audio Link

Topics discussed:

1. Don't steal. Government hates the competition.

2. The head tax collector doesn't pay his taxes!

3. The ideas of liberty are spreading.

4.  End the FED!

5. Austrian Economics is a growing school of thought.

6. "It takes a genius to predict that if you print a lot of money it will lose its value!" LMAO

7. Print. Spend more money. Run up more debt.

8. Bubbles for everyone! How about the biggest bubble in human history! Wait.... what?

And so much more.

Enjoy the great listen.


David in Qatar



16 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On February 01, 2009 at 11:36 PM, abitare (30.11) wrote:

Ron Paul on CSPAN 29 Jan 09 Part 1 of 3

Report this comment
#2) On February 02, 2009 at 3:04 AM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

My goodness, this guy has absolutely no understanding of what has caused this financial mess. It is the lack of regulation that blew the markets up. ie, by lending to sub-prime clients, and now unregulated CDOs, and CDSs threaten to finish the job!!. If there is no short term intervention now, wave good buy to any hope of recovery...ever. I am for free markets, but they need to be regulated to stop greedy, speculative practices. Neo-liberalism must be abolished and replaced with moderate thinking and systems.

Let alone the first caller!! Idiot!! Neo-cons come from the far right, not the left.

Report this comment
#3) On February 02, 2009 at 3:20 AM, chino88 (< 20) wrote:

I dont want to be a smart @ss or maybe the opposite, but from a few chart i've seen the flow of money compare to the national debt has been quite interesting. While the Fed took over, the national debt raised with the money supply. please correct me if im wrong, but Didnt G.W Bush started this mess by pushing for his Homeownership for Everyone program back in 2002, here is a link if you dont follow the news that much If im correct, Bush created the new Sub-Prime loans to provide unqualified people to obtain mortgages - people how shouldnt have had those loans in the first place. So Drummnutt, since you apperantly understand economics in a different way that the Free market economies, or free trade markets are supposed to work withouth government intervention.  The subprime was created by government. anyways please read some Adam smith and clarified your statement of Sub-prime crisis and not to forget about the Fed, I do believe they should be abolish completely. Look at the History of the Fed - they way they were stablish was pretty fishy if you understand some economic history. Any comments? correct me if im wrong guys

Report this comment
#4) On February 02, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Gingerbreadman55 (26.74) wrote:


I was laughing until I realized you were serious. What Dr. Paul is talking about is the source of the source; by that I mean that your "needs" for regulation really go back to Bretton Woods and the Fed and the structure of our system.

What you're saying is absolutely correct. Regulations were removed and entities like Fannie and Freddie were allowed, if even encouraged thanks to the laws and tax structures passed over the past decade. 

Your problem is you need to look back even farther. I think if you stopped back and looked at the line you wrote:

If there is no short term intervention now, wave good buy to any hope of recovery...ever.

So if a dam was breaking because its repairs were neglected and everyone just assumed it would hold forever, would you make the argument that "if only we could just put up some plaster we'd have a chance of fixing it?"

For years we've been plastering over that dam without actually fixing it. If you want to SOLVE the problem rather than DELAY the problem you must look back to the true sources rather than symptoms.


You've got it; government intervention causes most of our problems, but thats an arguement a lot of people just don't want to hear or believe. We can point to writings from our founders and Adam Smith, but in the end very few people really would take the time to go and read them. 


Report this comment
#5) On February 02, 2009 at 11:47 AM, MusoSpuso (< 20) wrote:


Your analysis of the situation is similar to blaming the fire for burning down the house rather than the arsonist who set it.

You must have a a greater understanding of monetary policy and business cycles as well as our fractional reserve banking system to fully understand the crisis we are in. Ron Paul fully understands why we are where we are--he's been warning about it for 30 years since he entered politics due to Nixon closing the gold window in 1971.

Watching so-called "experts" on CNN does not even begin to explain the full picture of our economic crisis to all the economic Johnny-come-latelys. If you want to know what's really going on, watch Chris Martenson's "Crash Course" for starters. Then look up Austrian Economics and read/watch what you can about it.

Here's a nice short article by Walter Williams to help you with the de-regulation myth: Report this comment
#6) On February 02, 2009 at 11:56 AM, eldemonio (97.96) wrote:

buttnutt - Now that I've read a few of your blog comments, I think it is safe to say that you shouldn't comment on anymore blogs.

 It's one thing to call someone an idiot - it's quite another to call someone an idiot when you yourself clearly have no clue........Better to have people think you might be a moron, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Ron Paul is a staunch conservative.  He is a strict constitutionalist who favors smaller government = very conservative.

There is not just one root cause to the financial clusterflock we are facing.  There is a long laundry list of mistakes that were made by government, the Fed, lenders, and consumers.  Regulation issues played a small role. 

Don't mistake my request that you stop commenting as a desire to censor ideas.  It's just that CAPS members offer some great advice, and we can't risk your ill thought comments sucking the intelligence out of the site.  Thanks.

Report this comment
#7) On February 02, 2009 at 12:02 PM, kdakota630 (29.06) wrote:

Excellent Walter Williams link, MusoSpuso.

Report this comment
#8) On February 02, 2009 at 12:49 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

I'm a big fan of Walter Williams as well. Early in Ron Paul's presidential bid he was asked who might consider for VP and Cabinet positions, and I remember watching that thinking "please say Walter Williams..." and whaddya know! 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#9) On February 02, 2009 at 3:40 PM, DaretothREdux (50.88) wrote:

Thanks for that David. It's hard to find anything RP has said that I haven't already heard, but that one was new for me.

Report this comment
#10) On February 02, 2009 at 3:40 PM, PDA1 (< 20) wrote:

You think Ron Paul's a joke?  His ideas aren't orginal to himself- the Founding Fathers said the same thing.

Consider that the Fed was the direct cause of the housing bubble per Greenspan's admission.  And now with trillions of dollars that have been "injected" into the US market you won't expect anything except high inflation.  The govt. CANNOT control the market and what people do with their mone.

Think of it- that dollar bill you have is backed by NOTHING of's fiat currency.  The Federal Reserve is the direct cause of inflation they're fundamentally the one that's robbing us of our money through inflation.  The dollar of today will only buy 4 cents of what it would purchase in 1913....when the Fed was chartered.

In and of itself it's worthless, unlike, gold or silver which have real value.  Take a look at the price of Gold and how it has risen since last year.  Gold is the great store of value in a deflating currency value.

We are headed for a depression that'll make FDR's depression look like a joke.

There is no confidence in the dollar and if the China stops funding our debt then you'll see hyperinflation.  What about the stupid wars we're running- they'll indeed come to an end and the troops will come home when we have no more money provided by the Chinese.


Report this comment
#11) On February 02, 2009 at 11:54 PM, FreedomsAdvocate (< 20) wrote:

PDA1: And didn't Milton Friedman win his Nobel in 1976 for identifying that the Great Depression was caused the Fed's contraction of the money suppy by about 30%?


Report this comment
#12) On February 04, 2009 at 2:57 PM, OleDrippy (< 20) wrote:

People who believe the "free market" created this disaster fail to realize that the market is NOT free, nor has it been for some time. Government and financial shinanigans have been tearing down our system since its inception, IMHO. There is a reason the rich get richer, they have the knowledge, the information, and the government connections to ensure that they keep that position.

 I have to respectfully disagree with the whole gold/fiat money issue. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with fiat currency, just as there is really very little intrinsic value in gold, other than that it is scarce. I feel our system could work just dandy if we had some controls implemented to hinder the government's ability to create more money. I honestly don't feel that reverting back to gold coins or barter is the right answer, we simply need to keep the government accountable for not devaluing our currency.

Big fan, you guys.. Good talk.

Report this comment
#13) On February 05, 2009 at 12:32 PM, MusoSpuso (< 20) wrote:


I would like to point out a couple of facts before presenting my full argument:

1) There is no (0, zilch, nada) account of a fiat currency surviving over the long term (say, over 50 years?). If you can find one, please let me know because I've researched this and have found nothing. Bear in mind we have only been on a complete fiat currency since 1971--only 38 years.

2) Intrinsic: belonging to a thing by its very nature. Gold either has intrinsic value or it does not. It cannot have partially intrinsic value based on one property but not on another. In other words, gold has intrinsic value, period. One only need look at recorded (roughly 4000 years) human history to see that gold (and silver) have been the only stable and consistant units of money. A good book to read on the subject is Rothbard's Case for the 100% Gold Backed Dollar.

First off, I whole-heartedly agree with you in regards to the free market. I also agree that we should not go back to barter. That's just sillyness (but open to debate if one wishes to tackle it--I'm all ears). However, saying that we should not revert "back to gold coins" is disingenuous at best and horribly uninformed at worst.

In a gold (or silver/gold) standard we would not all be carrying around gold coins in our pocket. While some could (and did) carry around the actual metal coins, most would (and did) use certificates which were specifically backed by a certain meaure of metal which would be redeamable at a bank or treasury office.

The most important thing that a silver/gold standard would do is back up the paper money we all already use with something of actual value as opposed to--nothing at all but faith in our government and the benevolent and wise politicians who run it...

Going one step further, now that we are in the digital age there could easily be "digital gold" standards. Something like which already exists, see for an example. Something like this implemented in a truly free market would bring sanity, honesty and value back to our money and economy.

Report this comment
#14) On February 05, 2009 at 2:29 PM, GNUBEE (< 20) wrote:

Hey David,

Did you see H.R 833?

RP's more than talk. Lets see what happens. 

Report this comment
#15) On February 08, 2009 at 1:13 PM, GunLock123 (< 20) wrote:

Drummnut are you serious?? You have no understanding of Ron Pauls position at all do you

Report this comment
#16) On February 27, 2009 at 3:54 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:


I seem to recall a discussion about Lincoln's untimely death being possible linked to a scheme he had to replace US Bank notes (early fed) with "Green backs" - a new fiat currency issued by the federal government, i.e. the Treasury and not the Federal Reserve (bank notes - or dollars in our case). It would have existed in conjunction with the bank notes but the new green backs would be accepted for the payment of taxes, and therefore people would use them for their debt to "caesar".

If the true failing of any fiat currency is the issue of more notes than the increase of goods and services in the economy, i.e. inflation, then the controlling authority for issuing the fiat currency is the entity which controls the value. IF the treasury were to issue "green backs" in the increasing ratio of goods and services in the economy then there would be no inflation. Indeed, people would begin trading in their old bank notes for the more stable green backs, since they would hold their purchasing power (i.e. value) whereas the printing presses (virtual or real) on federal reserve bank notes marches on to the point of becoming worthless.

That's one big "IF" back there huh?, since no government, without tying their paper money to a commodity (i.e. salt, gold, spices etc.) has ever resisted the temptation to tax inflate the currency. Zimbabwe is an overt example of fiat currency without restraint. I doubt we would have any sort of political restraint not to inflate.

I think the framers of the constitution missed out on a few points, and the more I read, the more I think they could have prevented this with some greater form of control on government.

1. Abolishing any direct tax was great. The problem was the constitution was amended (albeit in the dark of night). If this were a protected unalterable clause, perhaps the scheming of these men would not have succeeded.

2. Property was left out of the "life, liberty, and pursuit" (although many argue that life extends to the proerty of the self) and siezure have both been eroded. Some clause (unalterable) to the extent that government may not tax or levy and fees on private property would have been welcome.

3. There was no cap on government. If it were to be limited to no more than 10% (or some other unalterable number) of GDP (or some other measure) or automatic cuts would come in to rebalance things.

4. Money. I do not know how to fix this. Gold standard? Well regulated fiat currency. Something else?

On a personal note: Reading and seeing all this happen is a heavy burden on my heart for the country I love. Sometimes I wish I did not know, but the genie is out of the bottle.

Thanks for the time to discuss/vent.

Known by my wife of 15 years as nzsvz9

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners