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

I like Joe Salerno. This statement by Trump also doesnt mean he would dissolve the fed or audit it.
 
helmuth_hubener said:
That is, to my knowledge, Rand's only official position on the subject. That is also, to my knowledge his only unofficial position.
Click to expand...

Officially, Rand is only calling for an audit (for the obvious reason that abolition is seen as too "fringe" at the moment).

Unofficially, Rand is a dyed-in-the-wool Austrian, who understands central banking as well as anyone here, and would abolish the Fed tomorrow afternoon if he could.

I don't rest that claim only on the fact that he was raised by Ron, and spent years campaigning for him.

Here's Rand arguing for the abolition of the Fed:

MANCHESTER, N.H.—Nearly six years ago, flanked by members of the Campaign for Liberty started after his father's presidential campaign, a longshot Kentucky candidate for Senate leaned into a bullhorn and called for the Federal Reserve to be scrapped. "I don't oppose the Federal Reserve because it is secretive, though it is," said Rand Paul at an April 25, 2009, "End the Fed" rally. "I don't oppose the Federal Reserve because it lacks congressional oversight, although it does. I don't oppose the Federal Reserve because it's a private cartel, though it is. I oppose the Federal Reserve primarily because it wreaks havoc on the economy. We need to understand that this is the most important question of the last 30, 40 years. What caused the panic of 2008? Was it capitalism or was it the Federal Reserve?"
Click to expand...

Here's a hint about Rand's grounding in AE:

n 1981, Rand entered Baylor University, a Baptist school in Waco, four hours from home. He immediately set himself apart. He contributed regularly to the school newspaper, the Lariat, drawing on Ayn Rand, Hayek, and Mises’s disciple Murray Rothbard.
Click to expand...

Here's one of those college writings:

[responding to a critic of the gold standard] Economic instability...was the result of the federal government's deviation from a gold standard. The greenback ear of the civil war is one example. The inflation of World War I is another example. The assertion that the US was on a true gold standard from 1900 to 1933 has no factual support whatsoever. In 1913 the reserve was created and through its inflationary manipulation of the money supply, the economy experienced problem after problem resulting in the eventual crash of the market in 1929. Thus the economic problems of the past can be traced to the government control of our currency.
Click to expand...

There are many more proofs. Just listen to any few random speeches on youtube and note the use of Austrian phraseology.

He doesn't talk as explicitly about it as Ron did, but that's because he realized it's ineffective: most people had no clue what Ron was talking about when he brought up credit expansion, the business cycle, resource misallocation, the price of money, etc.
 
Last edited:
r3volution 3.0 said:
Officially, Rand is only calling for an audit (for the obvious reason that abolition is seen as too "fringe" at the moment).

Unofficially, Rand is a dyed-in-the-wool Austrian, who understands central banking as well as anyone here, and would abolish the Fed tomorrow afternoon if he could.

I don't rest that claim only on the fact that he was raised by Ron, and spent years campaigning for him.

Here's Rand arguing for the abolition of the Fed:



Here's a hint about Rand's grounding in AE:



Here's one of those college writings:



There are many more proofs. Just listen to any few random speeches on youtube and note the use of Austrian phraseology.

He doesn't talk as explicitly about it as Ron did, but that's because he realized it's ineffective: most people had no clue what Ron was talking about when he brought up credit expansion, the business cycle, resource misallocation, the price of money, etc.
Click to expand...

Don't forget this op-ed.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/if-only-the-fed-would-get-out-of-the-way-1442356924

This op-ed, written by Rand and Mark Spitznagel in September, might be the most explicit condemnation Rand has ever given. For the first time (at least in the last 3 years), Rand's criticism of the Fed went beyond just oversight issues. Through that article he actually supported the idea of free-floating interest rates, which, of course, would remove the Fed's ability to set them. He also criticizes credit expansion in that article, and although the article never supports abolishing the Federal Reserve outright, it's kind of hard to imply anything else -- especially considering how the article concludes.

What is true of forests holds for the economy: When governments create a lie, whether it’s a fabricated ecology of no fires or a fabricated economy of no failures, the truth reveals itself even more violently than otherwise. Attempts to stop any dips in the stock market with monetary stimulus postpone the necessary adjustments to how and where resources and workers are deployed. Interest rates are a vital signal in the market; they must be allowed to do their job—that is, they must be allowed to be free.

The sooner Fed officials withdraw their artificial monetary injections and let interest rates rise to their natural level set by free markets rather than government decree, the sooner the economy can return to genuine, sustainable growth.
Click to expand...

No candidate has gone this far in criticizing the Fed; partly because most other candidates, if not all of them, don't have the same depth of knowledge of Austrian theory that Rand has, and because it implies exactly the radical conclusion that Joe Salerno and the like want.
 
Last edited:
Chester Copperpot said:
I like Joe Salerno. This statement by Trump also doesnt mean he would dissolve the fed or audit it.
Click to expand...

I agree. I hope Rand presses this issue in a debate. If he gets a chance to ask anything of the other candidates, he should ask them to commit to a full Fed audit.
 
r3volution 3.0 said:
Unofficially, Rand is a dyed-in-the-wool Austrian, who understands central banking as well as anyone here, and would abolish the Fed tomorrow afternoon if he could.
Click to expand...

Thank you! I figured there might be something, given his background, but I sincerely had not run across it (or if I did, I don't remember). I don't recall ever hearing him talk about it in a speech, nor in his writings, nor in an interview.

I am very happy to be corrected! Those are some very strong statements you found. I think it's safe to say that Rand *is* in favor of sound money, *is* in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve, and is, in short, one of us. Is that a fair summation?
 
T.hill said:
Don't forget this op-ed.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/if-only-the-fed-would-get-out-of-the-way-1442356924

This op-ed, written by Rand and Mark Spitznagel in September, might be the most explicit condemnation Rand has ever given. For the first time (at least in the last 3 years), Rand's criticism of the Fed went beyond just oversight issues. Through that article he actually supported the idea of free-floating interest rates, which, of course, would remove the Fed's ability to set them. He also criticizes credit expansion in that article, and although the article never supports abolishing the Federal Reserve outright, it's kind of hard to imply anything else -- especially considering how the article concludes.



No candidate has gone this far in criticizing the Fed; partly because most other candidates, if not all of them, don't have the same depth of knowledge of Austrian theory that Rand has, and because it implies exactly the radical conclusion that Joe Salerno and the like want.
Click to expand...

Great post.
 
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
Click to expand...

Anyone with half a brain knows what this language means in it's context. The fact that people here have to explain this is actually sarcasm implying that Trump is the only candidate who is talking about the Federal Reserve is astonishing. These trump pushers pretending otherwise are either willfully ignorant, stupid, or have not had enough social interaction in life to have heard this type of phrase used before.

Honestly not surprised to see this published. These institutional libertarians are sometimes our worst enemy. I sometimes think that they relish the obscurity of our movement.
 
Last edited:
fcreature said:
Anyone with half a brain knows what this language means in it's context. The fact that people here have to explain this is actually sarcasm implying that Trump is the only candidate who is talking about the Federal Reserve is astonishing.
Click to expand...

I'm not a Trump pusher by any stretch. I just don't think Salerno is doing what you're claiming here. He could have said what you're saying if he had wanted to, but conspicuously he deliberately chose not to.
 
fcreature said:
Anyone with half a brain knows what this language means in it's context. The fact that people here have to explain this is actually sarcasm implying that Trump is the only candidate who is talking about the Federal Reserve is astonishing.
Click to expand...

I'm not a Trump pusher by any stretch. I just don't think Salerno is doing what you're claiming here. He could have said what you're saying if he had wanted to, but conspicuously he deliberately chose not to.
 
Not saying you are a trump pusher by any means. But there clearly are trump pushers who are and will use this as ammunition. If he didn't mean that, he should re-evaluate the first sentence of his article as to reduce the confusion because clearly, his words could have been more carefully chosen.
 
helmuth_hubener said:
Thank you! I figured there might be something, given his background, but I sincerely had not run across it (or if I did, I don't remember). I don't recall ever hearing him talk about it in a speech, nor in his writings, nor in an interview.

I am very happy to be corrected! Those are some very strong statements you found. I think it's safe to say that Rand *is* in favor of sound money, *is* in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve, and is, in short, one of us. Is that a fair summation?
Click to expand...

Yes indeed

fcreature said:
These institutional libertarians are sometimes our worst enemy. I sometimes think that they relish the obscurity of our movement.
Click to expand...

I think so too; there aren't many other plausible explanations for their behavior.

Salerno, Raimondo, Woods, and Rockwell - all dedicated libertarians, all intelligent, all afflicted with Rand Derangement Syndrome.

(warning: amateur psychology incoming...)

These guys have spent their entire adult lives in the libertarian movement, which, until very recently, was on the extreme fringe. They must have known, all those decades, that they had no chance of success in electoral politics. In that context, it makes sense that they'd adopt a dismissive attitude towards it - like how you find a lot of poor people in ascetic movements, or ugly women in the feminist movement, etc. When a person lacks something, he makes himself feel better by claiming he doesn't really need it, or even demonizing it. Admitting that Rand has a chance of success is an implicit admission that their life-long attitude towards politics was all wrong, which is a hard pill to swallow. Thus did this anti-politics ideology emerge in the libertarian movement. And now that libertarianism is becoming more mainstream, and actually has a reasonable chance of electoral success, these guys are having a hard time adapting: and probably won't. As Rothbard said, the war is for the souls of the young, you don't try to teach Austrian Economics to Paul Samuelson (
cool.gif
); likewise, don't bother trying to educate these guys about the value of practical politics.
 
Last edited:
r3volution 3.0 said:
Yes indeed



I think so too; there aren't many other plausible explanations for their behavior.

Salerno, Raimondo, Woods, and Rockwell - all dedicated libertarians, all intelligent, all afflicted with Rand Derangement Syndrome.

(warning: amateur psychology incoming...)

These guys have spent their entire adult lives in the libertarian movement, which, until very recently, was on the extreme fringe. They must have known, all those decades, that they had no chance of success in electoral politics. In that context, it makes sense that they'd adopt a dismissive attitude towards it - like how you find a lot of poor people in ascetic movements, or ugly women in the feminist movement, etc. When a person lacks something, he makes himself feel better by claiming he doesn't really need it, or even demonizing it. Admitting that Rand has a chance of success is an implicit admission that their life-long attitude towards politics was all wrong, which is a hard pill to swallow. Thus did this anti-politics ideology emerge in the libertarian movement. And now that libertarianism is becoming more mainstream, and actually has a reasonable chance of electoral success, these guys are having a hard time adapting: and probably won't. As Rothbard said, the war is for the souls of the young, you don't try to teach Austrian Economics to Paul Samuelson (:cool:); likewise, don't bother trying to educate these guys about the value of practical politics.
Click to expand...

maxresdefault.jpg

I doubt even Freud could conjure up such a quack analysis. SMH.
 
helmuth_hubener said:
Because he's tentatively criticizing a film for looking boring and being too left-wing?

I don't get it. Explain, please.
Click to expand...

His post is incoherent. Sounds to me (and to other people who noticed) like he thought the trailer was boring, therefore commies. For god's sakes, the original trilogy centers around good-guy rebels battling an oppressive empire (government). It's Star Wars, Lew; get the stick out of your butt.
 
Rothbardian Girl said:
His post is incoherent. Sounds to me (and to other people who noticed) like he thought the trailer was boring, therefore commies. For god's sakes, the original trilogy centers around good-guy rebels battling an oppressive empire (government). It's Star Wars, Lew; get the stick out of your butt.
Click to expand...

Ahh, so you're saying he seems to you to be going senile. Babbling incoherencies. Correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top