It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Janky Red
Originally posted by Zippidee
So, he shouldn't be wisely investing? He should throw away his money to prove a point? Hey look at me I'm breaking myself to prove that the economy is a propped up festering waste site? I don't know about you but when I go to the track I don't bet on the horse that is limping.edit on 23-8-2011 by Zippidee because: (no reason given)
No the point is you don't put someone in charge of something they are betting against, because that
person has incentive to intentionally engineer failure.
It is called ethics
Fueled by his understanding of the inflationary policies unrelentingly pushed by his colleagues in Washington, Ron wisely loaded up on gold and gold-mining stocks in the mid- to late 1990s, when those assets were regarded as the poor stepchildren of Wall Street.
Although these assets have significantly beaten the broad markets over the one- and three-year time frames used in the article, most of their phenomenal gains occurred earlier in the last decade.
Amazingly, the average 10-year return of the 8 stocks listed in his top 10 holdings (that have 10-year track records—the two other positions have not been around that long) came in at more than 600 percent!
Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
Originally posted by Janky Red
reply to post by Janky Red
More over... I assume many of you would not be pleased if the currency you have were completely
debased so that a politician is able to
A. Prove a Point
B. Secure a Political Objective
C. Get Rich in the process
In my neck of the woods, such a proposal defies common sense
He doesn't want to debase our currency, Obama is doing that.....
Ron Paul wants sound money and no more counterfeiting.
In order to clean the books, Paul would probably have to debase our currency
otherwise why would he invest the was he did? His position is strongest if such a thing occurs
More pernicious still are implications that the Congressman opposed the recent debt ceiling increase because he was looking to goose his investment returns. The article argues that an engineered default (by failing to raise the ceiling) would have caused economic crisis in the U.S., thereby pushing up the price of gold and gold-related investments. Not only is this a low blow but the logic is faulty at its core.
It is much more likely that a failure to raise the debt ceiling would have signaled an end to reckless spending and currency debasement, which would have restored confidence in the U.S. dollar and taken the shine off of gold and gold-related investments. In fact, all of Paul's efforts in Congress over the decades to champion more responsible monetary and fiscal policy can be seen as detrimental to his own investment portfolio. If anything, his actions have been selfless rather than selfish.
Like most investment professionals, Ron Paul's opponents likely failed to comprehend the damage the overly expansive monetary and fiscal policy would do to our economy and, as a result, adopted mainstream investment strategies. While Barron's could try to characterize such approaches as being more patriotic, it certainly cannot describe them as being more successful. Isn't it about time we elected a president with some substance rather than someone who pantomimes in the preferred manner? Who do we want working in the Oval Office anyway: one of the few who understood how government policy would undermine our economy, and arranged his finances to profit from it, or one of many who had no clue?