|
Extracted from the June issue of The Texas Hedge Report
Congressman
Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for
liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington
for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return
to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known
among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent
voting record in the House of Representatives. He was born and raised in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania and graduated from Gettysburg College and the Duke University
School of Medicine, before proudly serving as a flight surgeon in the U.S.
Air Force during the 1960s. He and his wife Carol moved to Texas in 1968, where
he began his medical practice in Brazoria County. Dr. Paul is the author of
several books, including Challenge to Liberty; The Case for Gold; and A
Republic, If You Can Keep It.
Six years ago, the Council on Foreign Relations conducted a policy simulation
in which a small number of experienced policymakers worked through the options
and constraints facing the U.S. government in the aftermath of a sudden and
significant stock market decline. A few years beforehand, the Washington
Post published an article about the President's Working Group on Financial
Markets which was established via executive order 12631 in response to the
crash of 1987. Known on some trading floors as "the plunge protection team",
very little since has been reported about the prospect of government intervention
in the stock and other securities markets. As someone who constantly fights
government intervention in the economy, what are your thoughts about the
degree (if any) to which the Federal government intervenes in the stock market?
Well, it's secretive and everything the Fed does is very secretive unless
they feel like it's necessary to announce it. Like on Long Term Capital Management,
they had to come clean on that, but I think they're into it. But I don't think
very often. On the big events like on the crisis with Russia and the Southeast
Asian crisis, I'm sure they're in there and they're capable of doing it. But
it's sort of like this idea about how much did our central bank and other central
banks fix the price of gold for so long. I think they probably did because
it's the nature of government to try to prop up paper and badmouth gold. We
certainly did it in the 1960s. We kept gold at $35/oz for years and years by
dumping gold. Today it's more sophisticated. So whether it's propping up the
stock market or keeping the price of gold down, they're very capable and it
is in their interest to do it. But I think in many ways it's irrelevant except
in the short run. I think it breaks loose just as it broke loose with gold
in 1971 and again in 2001 when gold bottomed at $250/oz. These things exist
but ultimately the market is more powerful than all the central banks and the
governments put together.
As far as having somebody on the hill testifying, would you ever consider
confronting or asking them about the Working Group on Financial Markets and
direct intervention in the stock market in addition to maybe a new audit
of the gold in Fort Knox?
Yeah - I headed toward that but have never been real precise. I tried to get
into the GATA contentions but the total five minutes that I get, you know,
sometimes it takes five minutes to even try to explain. Then it's almost impossible
to get a response but those are the kind of questions I shouldn't forget about.
Sometimes we get the opportunity to send questions in [writing] as we cannot
expect too much in that very short time that I get in the committee.
A large pillar of support for the U.S. Dollar has been the recycling of
so-called "petrodollars" from OPEC nations into our securities markets. Since
oil is priced and traded in Dollars, many producing nations will take their
proceeds from petroleum sales and invest them in US Treasuries. In 2000,
Iraq switched to pricing their oil in Euros and came out ahead as the Dollar
depreciated significantly in 2001 & 2002. Any time now, Iran is slated
to open its Iranian Oil Bourse and will price transactions in Euros - a move
that seems logical for Iran as almost half of its trade is with countries
in the euro zone. Now we hear talk of Venezuela, Russia and several other
nations moving out of the Dollar-denominated energy transactions while, at
the same time, these countries have been on the receiving end of critical
State Department rhetoric. Just how much of our foreign policy is designed
to keep the Dollar as the undisputed reserve currency of the world?
I do not believe it is a coincidence. I believe it is very deliberate and
they are related. I think the intertwining of international finance and foreign
policy is closely linked. I have talked about this and believe that the Iraq
invasion had something to do with it, although I don't think that was the only
thing. There were enough other reasons as well. I think this too will come
to an end and the market will just overwhelm. If you look at the weekly reports
on how many dollars [in the form] of Treasury Bills as well as Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac [bonds] bought by foreign governments are huge.
The international agreements are absolutely and totally secret. It is my suspicion
without any proof whatsoever that our agreements, whether they are gentleman's
agreements or in writing, that it is in the interest in many of these countries
to help prop up the dollar for their benefit. But our foreign policy can become
so aggravating to some of these countries that it might be in the interest
of Russia or Venezuela or China all of the sudden to turn on us. So that is
why I think we live in very dangerous times for the dollar.
Anecdotal evidence and common sense dictate that government CPI statistics
are habitually grossly understated - so much that it would be funny except
that savers are being robbed. Meanwhile, our new Fed chairman says that the
CPI overstates inflation! What is going on here? Is Bernanke, who evidently
must not eat, drive or pay electric bills just incompetent? Or do you think
there is an Orwellian agenda here where statistics are manipulated for political
purposes?
The latter. They are manipulated for political purposes and they've been so
for many decades. This came up on numerous occasions with Greenspan when he
was before the committee - I would point this out and I've already done this
with Bernanke and they just refuse to answer and they will not acknowledge
it. But I tell them and I repeat it because it's true that there is nobody
in my district that believes that the inflation rate is 2% and most of them
know darn well that their money is losing value a lot faster.
more follows for subscribers ...
|