Say It Ain't So Joe: the LvMI's Joe Salerno Now Pumping Trump

[r3volution 3.0]

...and implicitly attacking Rand.

https://mises.org/blog/donalds-remarks-bubble-and-fed-are-money

Well at least one of the candidates vying for the Republican or Democratic presidential nomination appears to have a reasonable grasp of current economic reality and the complicity of the Federal Reserve in exacerbating an impending financial disaster

Well Joe, there's actually another candidate who's been talking about the Fed since he first became a public figure in 2010: a candidate who did not have a miraculous conversion to this view in the midst of an election, a candidate who has not been in favor of central planning his entire life and is not currently running on a platform of more of the same, a candidate who did not support the bailouts of the banks at the end of the last Fed-created bubble.



Woods, Rockwell, Raimondo, now Salerno...I'm running out of prominent libertarians to respect.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

Lol.

I saw this coming a long time ago, and several on this forum laughed at me. The Mises Institute continues its steady decline.

 

[Krugminator2]

Woods, Rockwell, Raimondo, now Salerno...I'm running out of prominent libertarians to respect.

There are no words. I really do not know what is wrong with those people. I mean, it is insane.

Chris Christie has been saying similar things about the Fed. The Mises Institute has been actively promoting the least libertarian candidate in the field. I have read pretty much everything by Mises. It is a disgrace that his name is associated with these people.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Quit being reactionary dummies, people. Consider why the MI people what they do. (I haven't read them on this subject yet, so I don't have any context) Rothbard himself endorsed GHWB back in '92 because "he ain't Clinton", and no 3rd party had a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

full context:

Well at least one of the candidates vying for the Republican or Democratic presidential nomination appears to have a reasonable grasp of current economic reality and the complicity of the Federal Reserve in exacerbating an impending financial disaster. In an interview with The Hill, Donald Trump blasted the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law as a "disaster." Trump noted that despite Dodd-Frank "we’re in a bubble right now anyway.” He pointed to social media companies that have issued IPOs worth “billions” but “haven’t even made 10 cents.” Trump also showed insight into the political machinations of the Fed, accusing Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen of resisting an increase in interest rates to protect the incumbent administration from leaving office during a recession. In Trump's words:

“She’s keeping the economy going, barely. The reason they’re keeping the interest rate down is Obama doesn’t want to have a recession-slash-depression during his administration.”
​

Such a plain-spoken indictment of the Fed from a politician is always welcome, regardless of its source.

Saying "at least one of the candidates" is not the same as saying "only one of the candidates", btw. I don't see any endorsement of Trump here. Just pointing out something he got right. Even Barney Frank and some other House "liberals" were interested in RP's ETF bill.

I don't care about any of this political nonsense, but y'all are being just foolish. Stop that!

 

[helmuth_hubener]

If Joe Salerno is saying something, and other people are attacking him for it, I am probably going to side with Joe Salerno. Because what he is saying is probably right and even if not, even if I disagree, it is probably reasonable.

Sure enough, as HB shows, his statement is reasonable. We may not be able to completely agree with saying nice things about other candidates while not mentioning our guy, Rand. And yes, it was a mistake to fail to mention Rand -- he should have done so. But seriously? Not a big deal. No reason to "lose respect" for him over it.

 

[Krugminator2]

Sure enough, as HB shows, his statement is reasonable. We may not be able to completely agree with saying nice things about other candidates while not mentioning our guy, Rand. And yes, it was a mistake to fail to mention Rand -- he should have done so. But seriously? Not a big deal. No reason to "lose respect" for him over it.

Why do they all single out Trump? Rockwell, Woods, Raimondo, etc all do. Trump is the least libertarian candidate running. Why not pick almost any Republican at random? Here I just Googled a couple of candidates randomly on what they thought of the Fed. I do not see the same praise for these candidates.

Chris Christie said "The Fed Partly to blame for income inequality." Why do you suppose they don't write something positive about Chris Christie.

Ted Cruz mentions Mises in talks. Do you they write positive articles about Cruz? http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=760

Ben Carson http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...w-interest-rates-are-hurting-poor-carson-says

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

Just can't get over that first sentence. "Well at least one of the candidates vying for the Republican or Democratic presidential nomination appears to have a reasonable grasp of current economic reality." OK, so Trump says nice things about how much the Fed sucks. By this standard, Bernie Sanders also had a "reasonable grasp of current economic reality" when he called for a Fed audit (before reversing himself, likely for reasons of political expediency). How about if we examine Trump's statements on trade policy? Does Salerno still think Trump has a "reasonable grasp of current economic reality"?

Just because a candidate is vulgarly anti-Fed doesn't make he or she worthy of praise.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Saying "at least one of the candidates" is not the same as saying "only one of the candidates", btw.

Saying "at least one of the candidates" is the same as saying "only one of the candidates, as far as I know."

I.E. Salerno is pretending that he doesn't know about Rand's position on the Fed, the only plausible explanation for which being that he wants to promote Trump

 

[TaftFan]

I've heard that Rand was a jerk to this crowd in his youth. Who knows. But they should be giving him props.

Very good title, btw.

 

[nikcers]

LOL crackpot Trump thinks Obama controls the fed. The Fed got him elected, he does their bidding.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

I've heard that Rand was a jerk to this crowd in his youth.

Curious. Link?

 

[PCKY]

Saying "at least one of the candidates" is the same as saying "only one of the candidates, as far as I know."

I.E. Salerno is pretending that he doesn't know about Rand's position on the Fed, the only plausible explanation for which being that he wants to promote Trump

Bingo!

 

[TaftFan]

Curious. Link?

I tried to remember but couldn't. But it was from a credible source.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Saying "at least one of the candidates" is the same as saying "only one of the candidates, as far as I know."

I.E. Salerno is pretending that he doesn't know about Rand's position on the Fed, the only plausible explanation for which being that he wants to promote Trump

No, that's you reading into what he said.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Why do they all single out Trump? Rockwell, Woods, Raimondo, etc all do. Trump is the least libertarian candidate running. Why not pick almost any Republican at random? Here I just Googled a couple of candidates randomly on what they thought of the Fed. I do not see the same praise for these candidates.

Chris Christie said "The Fed Partly to blame for income inequality." Why do you suppose they don't write something positive about Chris Christie.

Ted Cruz mentions Mises in talks. Do you they write positive articles about Cruz? http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=760

Ben Carson http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...w-interest-rates-are-hurting-poor-carson-says

Perhaps because he's the most obnoxious and entertaining? (and not that many other candidates are "top tier" types)

 

[TaftFan]

Bruce Fein says to vote for none of the above

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?483190-Bruce-Fein-says-to-vote-for-none-of-the-above

 

[r3volution 3.0]

No, that's you reading into what he said.

No, that's the meaning of the words he wrote in this language we call English.

Q. If I say "There's at least one dog in my house," I am aware of how many dogs in my house?

A. one
B. more than one

 

[fr33]

No, that's you reading into what he said.

Well let's put this to rest. I emailed him about it. We'll see what he says.

Hello,



On October 15 you posted on the Mises Institute blog titled: Donald's Remarks on the Bubble and the Fed Are on the Money.



On that blog post you said, "Well at least one of the candidates vying for the Republican or Democratic presidential nomination appears to have a reasonable grasp of current economic reality and the complicity of the Federal Reserve in exacerbating an impending financial disaster"



Did you mean that more than one have that reasonable grasp, or are you unaware of Rand Paul's past statements about the Federal Reserve's actions?

 

[fr33]

I encourage more people to email him about it until we get an answer. It can't hurt and that way we're more likely to get an answer quickly. [email protected]

If I meant that more than one person had that opinion about the Fed, I certainly would not have worded it the way he did. The way he worded it, to me, sounds like he meant that only Trump has that opinion. But my grammar is terrible and I'm not a writer.