Ron Paul: Anti-war, Anti-Fed

I knew Ron Paul was a rare conservative Republican against the war in Afghanistan: outspokenly against. I had seen him in the Presidential debates, and he had seemed too old, and too obsessive about a lot of more quirky issues: I didn't take him seriously.

But when he rose to debate the war in Afghanistan this year, he was oddly elegant. He did ramble a bit, but his argument made a lot of sense. Two points stand out: first, the reason we're in these wars is because it's too easy to go to war. The War Powers Act gave the President 90 days of war before Congress could say boo. By then, it becomes an accomplished fact: how can you withdraw and let the x number of soldiers killed, "die in vain?" So, it's hard, once engaged, to get out of a war, as demonstrated by both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Paul's other main point was that by fighting these wars against Muslims, we are fulfilling Osama bin Laden's strategy for winning the region and driving out the US and the West--using the anger we generate among Muslims to recruit support, while bankrupting us.

Ron Paul is predictably critical of the financial reform bill, but he reveals why housing the Consumer Finance watchdog agency in the Fed is not just a convenience: it will be dependent for a budget not from Congress, but from the Fed, itself. It will be controlled by it.

Paul would like to abolish the Fed and fiat money, for gold, which makes him a bit of a kook among most economists, conservative or liberal. However, he's co-sponsoring, with liberal Democrat, Kucinich, a bill that would require the Fed to be audited, a proposal that makes sense.

Paul's opposition to the Afghan war connects with his opposition to the Fed: fiat money finances wars for Republicans and "unlimited welfare" for Democrats, he says, because the Fed can just keep issuing money, indebting us all. He's not entirely wrong about the debt part, but too many Democrats are willing to finance wars, as well, and "welfare" is pretty meager, compared to the money we lavish on wars.

Paul made the same point I've made on this site: empires bankrupt themselves over wars. The Romans, after their peak, had a long and painful decline, because they could no longer pay for the Empire's continuous wars. They lost territory, losing revenue and the loot from conquest. The Empire consumed more than it produced. Sound familiar?

The western Empire fell because it was so bankrupt it couldn’t even pay the palace guard: so, they overthrew the Emperor, and stole what remained of his assets.

It is a valid question, though: how long can the Fed create money for wars and consumption, and persuade the rest of the world that "the dollar is sound?"