Monday, June 14, 2010

A Sneak Attack on Ron Paul from the Anti-Gold Forces

In recent weeks, there have been attacks on gold from both WSJ and Barron's. The Barron's attack was particularly absurd. I dissected it, here.

The attacks looked co-ordinated to me. If this was the case, you just knew that the Washington Post was going to get in on the act.

Sure enough the frontpage of today's WaPo has a story ostensibly about conflicts of interest and uses Ron Paul's holdings of gold and gold stocks as an example of a conflict of interest, since Paul is for a gold backed dollar. Paul corrects the absurdity of the WaPo story by pointing out that if he succeeds in returning the dollar to the gold standard, his gold stocks would decline in price, as the threat of inflation would subside with a dollar backed by gold.

But WaPo plunges on and breathlessly tells us that:
In recent years, Paul (R-Tex.) has poured hundreds of thousands of his own dollars into stocks of some of the world's largest gold-mining operations, according to a review of his financial disclosure forms by The Washington Post. In 2008, while advocating for the United States to reinstate a gold standard, he reported owning up to $1.5 million in shares of at least nine gold-production companies. In addition, he disclosed up to $200,000 in silver stocks. In all, those holdings represented close to half of his assets.
A WaPo review? What can I say other than WaPo needs to surf the Internet more. That Ron Paul owns gold and gold stocks is nothing new. I have seen it mentioned on the internet for years and in detail, such as here.

But make no mistake, this is not a sudden interest by WaPo in conflicts of interest by Congressmen. This is about gold, as reader, Eli Crydermanput it:

The Washington Post was purchased in 1933 by Federal Reserve Chairman Eugene Meyer.  His son-in-law, Philip Graham took over in 1946 and after his death in 1963, Katherine Graham (Meyer’s daughter) took control.  In 1979, Katherine’s son (and Meyer’s grandson) Donald Graham took over up until 2008, when his college buddy ran it for a few years until Katherine Weymouth, Katherine Graham’s granddaughter took over.  All are ivy-league elites (some from influential families) who couldn’t possibly have any financial interest in keeping the fiat, house of cards monetary system going.  One dead-tree rag would never prop up another dead tree instrument of exchange for mutual benefit, would they?
As for  a conflict of interest, Lew Rockwell put it best:
Ron Paul has no sway of this sort in congress. He could have had it, but he chose not to play that game. Instead he has used his position to teach America and the world about sound money, freedom, and peace. He has persuaded individual congressmen, but–God bless him–he has no power in the conventional sense, has not sought it, and does not want it. So, are gold investments a conflict of interest because he also promotes the gold standard and competitive currencies? First, he has the right to protect his family with the money he earned as a successful physician and investor. Second, it is Greenspan and Bush, and Bernanke and Obama, who made gold go up in terms of dollars, not Ron Paul. If he had his way, gold would no longer be an investment. It would be money. But although Ron has no power in the Gingrich-Pelosi sense, he has vast influence, especially with young people. Millions of them. That’s why WaPo wants to hurt him. But he swats them away like a bothersome bug.


  1. so if they don't like gold, do they like the u.s. dollar? but surely their assets are all dollar-denominated. by their own standards, this is a conflict of interest.

  2. Why don't they do a breathless expose of how many Congress creeps benefit from their holdings in supposed "defense" industries, i.e., the purveyors of U.S. mass murder around the globe?

    Ron Paul harmlessly holding gold in anticipation of the inevitable collapse of fiat currencies is apparently so much more morally repugnant.

    Eff you, WaPo, and the criminal scum you represent.

  3. When an establishment type says that an Austrian doesn't know "economics", it is code for the Austrian rejecting the Keynesian Hoax.

    The immediate response should be that the ABCT specifically blames Keynesian style money dilution as the CAUSE of the boom/bust cycle and that Hayek won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on the ABCT. If the ABCT is so wrong, why is it NEVER refuted point by point in a calm, thorough and thoughtful manner? Never ever.

    I submit that because the ABCT is so transparently and obviously correct that its opponents can do nothing other than smear its advocates. This demonstrates that the opponents of the ABCT have absolutely nothing in the way of a substantive critique, and we should broadcast that fact to the world. These smears demonstrate that substantive intellectual opposition to the ABCT has completely collapsed.

  4. Perhaps, in the interest of eliminating such conflicts of interest, all FED employees should divest themselves of dollars?

  5. Here's an idea...if the fiat currency scam with "add a few zeros to the bank book" financial policy is the modus operandi for the Fed and our federal government, then their Monopoly rules should apply to the public at large. If you are $1,ooo,ooo in debt, you could reduce your debt by dropping the last two zeros on your debt load. NOW, you are $100,000 in debt. Problem solved... now you can sleep at night. The fiat and Fed system operates only on paper while we are trained to take it as a do or die mandate by global creditors and banksters. If we the general public took a Ghandian view of this financial slavery, we would be saying "NO" to it like Nancy Reagan urged us to do on drugs. India sent the Brits home by taking ownership of her human energy and sweat through cutting out the middlemen, the interlopers in life, governmental and financial parasites. It's time to think like Ghandi.