Ron Paul Questions Fed Governor Elizabeth Duke at Financial Services Hearing 7/16/09
www.house.gov CampaignForLiberty.com Congressman Ron Paul questions Federal Reserve Governor Elizabeth Duke at the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology hearing on July 16, 2009 entitled, “Regulatory Restructuring Safeguarding Consumer Protection and the Role of the Federal Reserve.”
Tagged with: Bernanke • carr • committee • congressman • duke • elizabeth • Fed • federal • financial • Geithner • governor • greenspan • hearing • jim • monetary • opening • Paul • policy • Reserve • Ron • Services • statement • subcommittee
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!

Just like most of those corporate and finance thieves they’re geniuses at not really answering questions straight up. I wanted to slap her and just shake a straight forward response out of her. These people have no conscience about the things they’re doing. Just look at the attitude. They do not care that they’re robbing us blind.
Dr Ron Paul
Denis Kucinich
Mike Gravel
Ralph Nader
any and all of Dr Paul’s brothers!!
Dear Mono
There is no choice.
Please forgive my OT question – but I noticed Dr Paul’s wedding ring is missing – maybe he’s having it re-sized?
yeah thats it… lol
haha your awsome, and i dont even know you
just drop the question without warning t scare the shits out of these people and let them know how mad are the american people
I would assume that Ron Paul should realize that the law takes awhile to catch up with the market. The cause of the Great Depression was simply too much hubris. Regulations vs. non-regulations is a double edged sword.
I love ron paul, but the man has no clue how to ask a question and budget his time during these hearings. Compare with Alan Grayson (who asks pointed and succinct questions rather than talking on and on) and see who gets better results…
no Grayson is not an economist he doesn’t understand what the underlying wider issue is of central control, he just wants an opportunity to interrogate. RP is thoughtful and prefaces his question.
Of course Ron Paul knows much more about economics than Grayson, but the point in these hearings should be to expose these people and get them to stick their foot in their mouth (see Grayson vs. Fed inspector). Ron Paul’s preface, although it is insightful, does nothing to accomplish this – he makes it easy for the people he is questioning to simply respond with talking points.
Any other economist out there who thinks that it seems like Ron Paul does not know economics very well?
That the dollar today is 4 cents of the dollar in 1913 might sound very extreme, but as the inflation goals are always higher than 0% (about 1%-4%?) to battle possible DEflation, that decrease in value it is what is to be expected from a well-functioning central bank.
What’s wrong with decreasing prices as society’s output increases?
If your money is worth more in the future then people tend to save money more and spend less
Banking becomes less profitable
DEflation means that interest levels are higher
There’s a term that is called ‘real interest’ = nominal interest + delflation
Banks + fed can never set a negative nonimal interest rate because that would mean that they loose money, it would be profitable to borrow!
When deflation is positive the problem is that real interest gets too high, that means it’s all fucked
If money will be worth more in the future (since production is increasing), people have the right to defer their spending.
A theoretical negative nominal interest says nothing about profitability. Profitability is measured in terms of real interest and real purchasing power. If I ask you to give me 5 bucks today and tomorrow I’ll give you 3 back, but for some reason you’ll be able to buy a car with that 3 dollars, it sure sounds like a great deal for you.
If a bank changed a negative (nominal) interest rate, why would the bank ever allow anyone to borrow it? They make more by simply holding the cash!
The bank wouldn’t have any money either since people won’t deposit for a negative return. I was arguing against your claim that the borrower would profit, since the borrower would be paying higher-powered money back than what he borrowed.
The paradox is resolved in that if production is skyrocketing and prices are constantly falling, then at a certain point there need not be any borrowing going on. That’s what you’ve described – none need to borrow any money and all prefer to save and consume.
That CD question really screwed her up?
LOL
Pause at 5:19 and 5:20. That’s the root of one of the largest problems to plague America since 1913. Only a handful of politicians have any interest in monetary policy and preserving the liberties of the citizens and the constitution. Ron Paul is unfortunately speaking to a nearly empty audience. They’re all fixated on what kind of animal Obama will buy for his kids etc…
she’s a pawn, her responses are lacking, which is typical for a Fed representative.
Setting interest rates is price fixing, savers don’t earn anything when the fed funds rate is 0%. Further, it masks the real economic problems and cheap money creates bubbles.
We got a housing bubble because money was free to borrow, so what’s the Fed doing now? It’s got free money available again, where exactly does anyone think that’s going to take us? If your answer included the word “bubble” you’re on track
Exposing the FED. I love it.
Are the Federal Reserve Christians, Satanists….or a little bit of BOTH!!!! I think I am on to something, im getting outa here like me running into a fat lady. P.S. i love living in the land of no justification, this is AWESOME!! GO FEDEREAL RESERVE!! KEEP SHAKING THEM HATERS OFF WITH Uncanny Ability to manuever words and sentenses leaving, people who voted in these dumb BASTARDS!!!! STUCK!
Help make this video go viral, twitter it, facebook it, email it whatever. The Federal Reserve and Govt at large need ot be exposed for the crooks they really are.
CUNT
Ron Paul or someone like him for 2012 PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!