Originally from The Market Oracle

I have watched Ron Paul for a very long time and one trend I see over and over is the split that emerges between people of roughly under the age of 40 and those who are older when his name is mentioned. I have no polling data to back this up, but young people seem to like Ron Paul and older people seem not to.

This is by no means uniform. I know plenty of older folks who love the good doctor and plenty of young people who do not like him, but generally the above statement holds I think. Why is this?

Fundamentally I believe it comes down to faith in the markets and whether or not one is playing for the future, or if one is clinging to the past.

Young people have much to lose in the economic quagmire we find ourselves in, namely their future. They recognize that times have changed, that the old economic regime is corrupt, and in order to get things going in any real way (not government stimulated) fundamental reforms must be implemented. Many, including myself would embrace a gold standard or a standard based on a basket of commodities. This is a radical departure from the Fed centered fiat currency regime. It would disrupt the current economic order, but a reset is needed and many young people recognize that it is vital that we head in this direction before it is too late. The economic hubris of the 20th century has come home to roost. We would like a real economy.

Older people understandably believe they have much to lose with a reality based economic system(I know this is a loaded term) such as the one Ron Paul advocates. In fairness they likely do.

If one has spent a lifetime compiling paper currency, amassing sums large and small in IRAs and retirement plans, a gold centered revolution could be pretty scary. For many people, especially those who are just now retiring, they have lived their entire lives with the understanding that the money they have saved will provide for their future. It’s a pretty reasonable assumption.

They, and even many long committed “conservatives” believe in the current system. The truth is, they like a large state. They like Social Security, and indeed many rely on it (which makes economic sense if one believes that the current New Deal based system is sustainable and they had always been told that it was.)

The baby boomers are also children of the Cold War where a massive military in the face of the Soviet threat seemed to, and arguably did, make sense. A large state is deeply engrained in the grey matter of the older generation and this is completely understandable.

However even older people must adapt when the alternative is catastrophe.

We are not yet at the point where a majority of thinking people understand the extent of the economic challenges that lay before us. My sense is that many smart older people know that there is much that is wrong, and that something must be done, but that the regime to which they have given so much of their lives can still be saved without real change. In fact many bristle at the thought. Ron Paul is an agent of change, and so they bristle at Dr. Paul.

Aside from the new economic paradigm Ron Paul introduces, something that is at least equally as scary for some is Ron Paul’s foreign policy stance. The thought that the United States should dominate the world, and that it would be dangerous for it not to, runs deep in the baby boomer generation.

For a generation that it is said to not only recognized the folly of Vietnam but brought an end to it, the boomers seem pretty keen on keeping the war machine going. The concept of the military as “big government” is lost on many baby boomer conservatives.

It doesn’t seem lost on many active duty members of the military however, who have given more to Ron Paul than to any other presidential candidate in this election cycle. But most of those active duty folks are young.

What I write here is probably moot of course. It looks like the establishment has gotten Mitt-”I don’t worry about the poor” -Romney, just as it wanted. But Ron Paul will collect enough delegates to make noise at the convention that is for sure.

Also, though the Republican establishment may feel that it has effectively put down the libertarian uprising, liberty oriented Republicans are the future if the GOP wishes to remain viable.

The libertarians are young, committed, information savvy, economically correct, and they are going to see their time in the sun like it or not.

The smartest, most innovative political thinkers on what is called the “right” aren’t in the Romeny, or Gingrich camp, they are in the Ron Paul camp. And the GOP knows it. But the party will fight this reality every step of the way. The real question is whether the Dick Cheney types would rather commit party suicide than capitulate to the New Wave. We’ll see.

Just as the Goldwater Republicans overtook the Rockefeller Republicans, the Ron Paul Republicans will take things further down the freedom path as they eclipse the Bushies.

Time may not have come today, but it is coming.

This article was originally posted at AgainstCronyCapitalism.org.

Originally from Big Government

A couple of years ago, after the bubble crashed, my wife and I decided to buy a condo in Vegas.  There were many reasons behind that decision, but Sin City is known for delivering the unexpected.  And so, political junkie that I am, I suddenly found myself eligible to participate in an early, swing-state, caucus.  Las Vegas had taken me into virgin territory.

Being a caucus neophyte, I approached the matter gingerly.  I called the Clark County Republican Party office seeking guidance.  What happens at a caucus?  How long does it run?  What’s the procedure?  No one possessed definitive answers to these complex questions, but we were able to determine that folks in my precinct were caucusing at a nearby High School.  The doors opened at 8:00 AM, with the caucus itself slated to start at 9:00.  Anyone could speak on behalf of any candidate; each speaker would have two minutes.  Beyond that, things got a little vague.  I pre-registered on line “to avoid the crowds” of caucus day.

I arrived at Valley High School at 9:00 AM, impressed to see a sizable packed parking lot.  Perhaps these are the political activists I hear so much about, I thought.  Great to see how many of them show up early on a Saturday morning.  But for a group of activists, the lot seemed singularly inactive.  Where were the Paulistas, gesticulating wildly to emphasize that the Fed is our enemy, while Iran is not?  Where were the Romney and Gingrich surrogates deflating each other’s tires?  Where were Santorum’s nattily-dressed minions?  Where were the folks waving Perry and Bachmann signs, refusing to admit that their party was over?  Two helpful teenagers provided the answers: the caucus was on the other side of campus.  The folks parked in this lot were there for—get this—Valley High School.

I dutifully drove around the block to find the much smaller but equally pacific lot bearing two signs marked “Caucus here,” one sign for Ron Paul, and a TV truck.  I entered the school cafeteria, where a helpful volunteer directed me to the table for pre-registrants.  I surveyed the scene quickly: Fifty or so small tables, broken into groups, and perhaps two hundred people.  No politicking as far as I could tell, no speechifying, just a room full of Americans out enjoying their morning.  The young woman who checked me informed me that my precinct was convening in the gym.  I thanked her for the directions.  Then I told her that it was my first caucus, and asked her what the procedure was.  “It’s my first caucus, too,” she said.  “So I don’t know.”  I thanked her again and headed to the gym.

I found groups of people sitting either in the bleachers or in chairs on the gym floor.  Each group had a sign with a four-digit number—a precinct number, I presumed.  I found my precinct.  A gentleman with a list—the precinct captain, I guessed—checked me in.  I told him that it was my first caucus, and asked him what to expect.  “It’s my first caucus, too,” he said, “but I think that pretty soon we get to vote.”  I thanked him for the information and struck up a conversation with some of the other voters.

A man named Steve wandered by.  He wore a T-shirt with what appeared to be some sort of caucus logo and carried a clipboard, so I sensed an air of authority.  “How many voters do you have?” he asked.  “Fourteen,” said our captain, forgetting to count himself.  Steve counted out fourteen blue ballots.  “You get eight delegates and one alternate,” he said, then ran off to the next precinct.

Our captain distributed the ballots, each of which bore the names of the four remaining GOP candidates.  “Now we have to select eight delegates and an alternate,” he announced.  “Then we get to vote for President.”  “Why don’t we just see who is not interested?” suggested the man to my right.  I looked around to see if, perhaps, I might make a good delegate.  I realized that I was the youngest voter in the precinct, likely by at least a decade (I’m 48), but reasoned that I could nevertheless represent the group admirably if chosen to do so.

“I’m not sure that I want to go to Tampa during the summer,” one voter mused.  “Oh,” said our captain.  “I don’t think we’re electing delegates for the national convention.  Are we?  Does anyone know?”  “I would imagine that there’s some sort of state thing,” someone suggested.  We agreed that that sounded right.  “Does anyone know when that is?  Or where?”  “Probably around here somewhere,” someone suggested, “or maybe Carson City.”  “My vote would be Chicago,” our captain offered, but conceding that such a venue was unlikely, he set off to ask some questions.  He returned.  “Someone says they think its in Reno, but they’re not sure when,” he announced to the group.

I decided that it was time to pull up a browser on my iPhone.  Apparently, between today’s caucuses and the national convention, the Nevada Republican Party plans to hold a series of county conventions—sometime tentatively scheduled to fall between March 10 and March 17 at places to be determined—and a state convention in Reno in May.  I suggested that perhaps we were selecting delegates to the Clark County convention.  Everyone agreed that my analysis seemed plausible, but our captain went to find Steve to verify this new information.

He returned with answers.  We were tasked with selecting delegates for the county convention, to be held some time in March somewhere in Clark County.  Then we could vote for President.  “What do the delegates do?” someone asked.  “Are they bound by our votes for President?”  “Is there any relationship between our votes for President and delegate?”  “Are we supposed to support delegates who share our preferences for President?”  Our captain looked perplexed.  He set out once more in search of Steve.  He returned.  Delegates to the county conventions get to vote on delegates to the state convention, and on a platform, he announced.

“Does any of that have anything to do with our presidential votes?” someone asked.  “Well, those are distributed proportionally,” someone else answered.  We collectively deemed this answer sufficient, marked our X’s on our blue ballots, and handed them back to our captain.  He sealed them in an envelope and put check marks near those of us who had agreed to serve as delegates.  “Now what?”  someone asked.  “I think we’re done,” said our captain.  We all wandered off.

I surveyed the broader scene again, this time from my vantage point as an experienced caucus-goer and a freshly minted delegate to the Clark County Republican convention.  I was pleased to note that I was not the youngest person in the room, though everyone younger did seem to be either wearing a volunteer’s badge or providing mobility assistance to someone in need.  Very definitely not the crowd you see at Lavo, I thought.

I found myself standing next to a guy who appeared to be about my age—one of three men in the room wearing a suit.  “Are you a reporter?” he asked me.  “No,” I said.  “Just a voter.  But I do blog from time to time.”  “Same thing, these days,” he said.  “Are you a reporter?” I asked.  “Yes,” he said.  “For whom?” I asked.  “From Israel,” he said, starting to edge away from me.  “For Israel Hayom.  I cover elections all over the world.  Egypt.  Tunisia.”  I laughed.  “Very different,” he said.  “Yes,” I agreed.  “No one gets shot here.”  He nodded.  “This is a very good thing,” he said, completing his escape.

I realized that I must have wandered into some unmarked press area, because the one other obvious reporter in the room—the one with the TV truck and camera from the local NBC affiliate—was  interviewing another man in a suit.  I overheard the interviewee’s bold prediction that Romney would win Nevada and then take the nomination.  The reporter took this news in stride.  With his interview concluded he sat back down and struck a pose that seemed to say don’t bother me.  No one did.

I determined that I had learned all that I could learn, and that it was time to leave.  As I turned to go, I saw Steve, standing still behind a table.  I seized the opening.  “So I think I’m a delegate, but I’m not sure what comes next,” I said.  “Did you fill out one of these forms?” he asked, waving a form at me.  “No,” I said.  “But none of us did.  We just put check marks near the names of folks who agreed to be delegates.”  He looked concerned.  “Would you like me to fill out a form?” I offered.  “No,” he said.  “Just give me your name.”  I did.  He wrote it on a yellow post-it note.  “Would you like my e-mail address?” I asked.  “Yes,” he said.  “That would be a good idea.”  He handed me the post-it note.  I jotted down my e-mail address and handed it back.  He folded it in half and put it in his pocket.  “We’ll let you know,” he said, and ran off.

I headed back to the parking lot.  Looked my watch.  The whole thing had taken about an hour.  Grassroots democracy in action, I thought.  And no one got shot.  Gotta love it.

Originally from Big Government

Originally from The Market Oracle

Originally from Calculated Risk

Originally from WSJ.com: Economy

Quiet week for the Unofficial Bank List with no closings, one voluntary liquidation, and one addition. The list is unchanged at 958 institutions but assets increased by nearly $600 million to $389.6 billion. The First National Bank of Ordway, Ordway, CO ($45 million) underwent a voluntary liquidation in late January. The sole addition was Community West Bank, National Association, Goleta, CA ($643 million Ticker: CWBC) after the OCC issued a Consent Order against the bank. The only other change was a Prompt Corrective Action order issued by the Federal Reserve against Bank of Bartlett, Bartlett, TN ($371 million). Next week will likely be quiet as well.

Originally from Calculated Risk

Originally from WSJ.com: Economy

Originally from All News, Video and Posts related to TOPIC: Federal Reserve

The Senate’s 96-3 vote to ban members of Congress from using nonpublic information to inform their private investments brought with it important additional amendments that stand to shape the debate next week as the House takes up the STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) Act.

In addition to outlawing members of Congress and their staffs from engaging in insider trading and requiring a 30 day public disclosure rule for all investments, an amendment by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) successfully expanded the STOCK Act to also include the executive branch’s 28,000 workers.  Sen. Shelby said the reason for his amendment , which passed on a 58-41 vote, is simple:

It only seems fair that executive branch officials who are already required to file annual financial reports, also be directed to meet the same additional reporting requirements being imposed on the legislative branch.

The specifics of Sen. Shelby’s added provision will have to be hammered out in a House-Senate conference committee, as Sen. Shelby’s language conflicts with that of Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) who wants to limit the provision to just include the 2,000 top policymakers, such as the president and vice president, as well as the Federal Reserve Board.  Sen. Lieberman claims the amendment would apply to 300,000 federal workers and place an undue burden on them.  Sen. Shelby’s aides contend that his amendment would only include 28,000 workers.

Another important amendment that was added to the STOCK Act would subject so-called “political intelligence” operatives to the same kinds of disclosure and registration requirements lobbyists must submit to.   The amendment, proposed by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), would apply to the $100 million, 2,000-person political intelligence industry that seeks to gather tidbits of relevant information in and around Capitol Hill and sell them to stock traders.  According to Sen. Grassley:

Political intelligence professionals aren’t considered lobbyists, so they don’t have to disclose that they’re seeking information and are paid for it.  As a result, members of Congress and congressional staff have no way of knowing whether such meetings result in information being sold to firms that trade based on that information.  My amendment would shed sunshine on this kind of political intelligence gathering.

Finally, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) successfully passed an amendment that would require all members of Congress, the president, vice president, and most Senate-confirmed appointees to publicly disclose all residential mortgages, something current law does not require senators to do.   Sen. Boxer said that:

This measure makes it clear that any mortgage held by a member of Congress must be disclosed to ensure that lawmakers are treated the same as every other American.  The amendment corrects an omission in Senate ethics rules that did not require disclosure of all residential mortgages.

Sen. Isakson agreed and added:

I am a firm believer that the greatest accountability mechanism for members of Congress is transparency, and this amendment will add more transparency to our financial disclosures.  The Senate’s passage of this amendment demonstrates a commitment to making ourselves more accountable to the American people.

The Senate’s overwhelming 96-3 bipartisan passage of the STOCK Act readies the bill for consideration next week in the House.

Originally from Big Government