The Duran Podcast - The US Bankrupting Itself on Wars -w/ Ron Paul, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

Episode Date: September 1, 2023

The US Bankrupting Itself on Wars -w/ Ron Paul, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

Welcome to today's program. My name is Glenn Dyson. I'm a professor of political science. With me is the excellent Alexander Mercuris from the very popular Duran podcast. And with us today is none other than Dr. Ron Paul. Welcome, sir. Very good. Nice to be with you. So, yeah, for those who are not aware, Ron Paul, it's been a congressman for years representing Texas. It was also presidential candidate of 1988, 2008 and 2012. And I personally remember vividly how immensely popular peace message was during the presidential debates of 2008 and 12,

so making all of us very hopeful about the future. So the topic of today, we really wanted to get into looking at this new great power rivalry between the United States and Russia and China. But I thought first, since you tend to have an economic perspective on a lot of issues, I thought we could start by discussing how you see the military industrial complex, because you want to refer to the war we are currently fighting against Russia as a racket. I was wondering if you could explain your thoughts on this matter. Well, it's a big problem because it has little to do with national defense and national security.

It has a lot to do with it. in the military industrial complex. One of the Republican candidates has a pretty decent approach in, you know, foreign policy and sounds like it's fair and balanced. But then he sort of went over into just talking about, well, you know, it's good that we get weapons for Ukraine because we have to be involved. And he had his reasons. and he also wanted to talk about China.

He says, you have to remember that when we order weapons, we don't send them the money. We just send it to the military industrial complex, and they built these weapons. So he was trying to make it sound a little bit benign, but the whole thing, he says, and that's good for jobs. You're not supposed to say that, I lot,

but that's what it is. It's a jobs program. So he was saying, well, when we spend all this money overseas, we send the money, you know, into the military industrial complex itself. And that creates jobs. And that really stretches the point. Oh, no, we do this for national security. So I think there's a lot of fibbing going on with that. There isn't even though an audit, as I understand it, of what he's spent when it's been proposed by persons close to yourself.

It's rejected completely. The administration comes out with some very interesting creative accounting to manage to extend funds to continue to provide arms. It seems that there's absolutely no real proper legislative control of this process. I didn't get all of that, but I think you need to give me a hint on that question again, please. I mean, the fact is that they spend as much money as they want. There is no actual control over this process. Oh, yeah, okay. I get it now because that's one thing that should be done.

Let's say it is a serious effort, and they're doing it for a national defense. You ought to at least have audits. Pentagon never gets audited. My son tried to put it into legislation for the money, all this stuff we're sending to Ukraine, that we have an audit. Where do the weapons go? What happens to these things? And they think it's endless. And it is to a degree. But it's coming to an end because we've had to control the reserve currency of the world. We print the dollars. Everybody likes the dollar. And we get away with this by running up deficits. Republicans are just as bad as the Democrat. The deficits don't matter.

But except for right now, deficits do matter. They're starting to. And every day, you're going to see that deficit financing is going to get worse. And that, of course, is a source of the reason why they inflate. So the inflation isn't when you run up the deficit. The inflation is when you have to pay the bills, you don't have any money. So you print the money, which is a regressive tax on the middle class and a poor, because those are the ones that have to suffer from the higher prices.

So it's a mixed bag, but it is a jobs program. I always get very annoyed when somebody comes up and say, you know, when we have a recession, it's good to have a little war to go on, you know, because it's good for job. Well, that's a bunch of bologna. It's good for killing people. It's good for running up dead. It's good for hurting the middle class. But if you're talking about honest jobs and a prosperous economy, yes, there's,

The unemployment numbers might, you know, go down. But, you know, drafting somebody or putting them in the military and sending them around the world, that doesn't necessarily mean they're good jobs. They're actually consuming wealth rather than producing wealth. So, yeah, there's a lot of fiction going on. But the one thing is that I found when I was in those campaigns is they, you can't, and I understand it because I'm an American. And I don't, you don't want to criticize your own country.

But what if they're doing the wrong thing? You know, what if they're getting into too much trouble? What if the deficits are going to haunt us? What if you're going to have student education programs and loan of all the money? And it doesn't work. They don't get an education. They don't pay those bills back again. And it just goes on and on.

That's why I opt out for, well, we need a guideline. And we have one. We have the Constitution. But I was instructed very early in my career when I went to Congress when I was insisting that they justify why we're going to war in the Middle East and why don't you just declare war if you want to go to war in the Middle East? And I was told by the chairman of the committee in public. He says, oh, we don't follow that part. We don't follow that part of the Constitution anymore. That's anachnostic. So it's there, but we don't have to follow it. And that's about the attitude that I remember.

ran into the whole time there. It's a good constitution, not perfect, but they don't believe that we should follow it because it restrains government growth. Well, the founders intended, and my intention is you shrink the government, you enhance the people, enhance their ability to earn a living and save their money and be productive and be responsible. And that's quite a bit different than the programs endorsed by both Republicans and Democrats. Yeah, speaking of this new conflicts on economic consequences, because for the past 30 years, we tended to fight more of this small wars, the so-called forever wars. But over the past few years, we switched a bit to returning to great power rivalry, so now going to war against

Russia, but also potentially China. And one of the consequences has been, a lot of the consequences This has been a lot of the world preferring seemingly a move towards unipolarity. Only last week we have this BRIC summit, two main takeaways for the expansion and also the goal of de-dollarization. Now, de-dolarization might take a while being a gradual process, but how do you see this development? Is this is this a temporary trend, or is it something setting really the path for the future? Do you see the dollar being under threat immediately, or how do you see this?

Well, I think it's going to continue because, you know, they always have an enemy and they always have patriotism to hide behind. And therefore, if things were way too peaceful, we were actually trading with China and Russia and things seem to be pretty good, and we still do. But right now, the mood has changed, especially when NATO decided to attack Russia and create this war in Ukraine. This sort of shifted things because the propaganda throughout the country has been to be anti-Russia. And at the same time, they still had to be pro-war and pro-military industrial complex. So the new enemy right now, it's grown tremendously the hostility towards.

China. That doesn't mean we should defend China and all their policies, but it also means that why are we doing it? Does it really help us? It doesn't help our economy. Does it help our security? And why do we do this? Why do we provoke so often? And why do we provoke by, you know, supporting so many coups around the world? And we spend the money and if the countries don't obey what we do in a financial arena, then we put on sanction. And I think the world's getting sick and tired of that. And Americans are, too, because it's not working so well. And the bankruptcy is coming. But right now, they can hide behind, you know, patriotism and national security and do whatever they want, because as I can assure you, if you take another position and say you want to

defend the liberties of American citizen, they will make sure that they paint you as being unpatriotic. One thing they said about me when I was running is he doesn't care about the military, yet I had more support for the military else, and I had been in the military. I thought, well, why should anybody be surprised? I was in the military, but I wasn't looking for a war. I was looking for getting out of the military and getting out of those policies. But it's a tool that they use, but of course, there's a lot of profits behind it. It's a military industrial complex.

It's power and control and money. So it's coming to an end. So I'm a bit of an optimist because this can't last. It was sort of like Bratton Woods, which was a pseudo gold standard, and Americans who weren't even allowed on gold. I said, it'll have to change. And finally, Bretton Woods broke down the market. It says, gold, you're still going to give us your gold at $35 an ounce?

No, economic policy was stronger. Right now, economic policy is strong. That all the debt and all the malinvestment and all the mischief that we get into with our power, it will end. And I think that's why we're seeing these plans being laid like with Britson, these other countries that maybe we have. ought to have preparation. And some of them are saying, well, maybe we ought to have a gold standard. That's so time, it's off, but it's coming because I know the system we have is fragile, fragile, very friable, and it won't last. But the one thing is that the holding it together will last as long as the total bankruptcy doesn't occur. But the empire, the empire will end,

will end, our empire will end. And there will have to be monetary reform. But the one thing is, is we don't know how much harm can be done in the meantime. Because the biggest harm done with this type of a system is the erosion of personal liberty, which is where the answers are found. People that can own property, work, and hire people, and it's their own life, and they don't depend on the government. That's what will cause and bring about peace and prosperity.

I think that's a very good point because the point about the American system, as I've always understood it historically, is that it sought peace because it wanted small armed forces, it wanted to avoid a military industrial complex, in order to promote prosperity within the United States and democracy amongst the American United States and the American people. I mean, Lincoln spoke about peace between ourselves, a just and fair peace between ourselves and all nations. I mean, do people in the United States, does anybody in the political class understand that? That that was the policy that the United States used to have, and it which made it the United States and made it the first and most richest country in the world? Is this understood at all? How far it's departed from that? you know, people say, well, we have a good system, so we should promote it and insist that other people do the same thing. And that cancels out all the goodness of what you're talking about.

And I said, well, I'm concerned. People say, you're an isolationist. You don't want to do anything with anybody. I know the isolationists are the people who put on sanctions and start to war and provoke. They're the ones to isolate themselves and be. And be. And, you know, and be. build up, you know, only one country. But how would you handle it? I said, our job as Americans who believe in the system, and this was true, you know, for a long time, even though it was imperfectly done, it was, America was setting an example. They did have a higher respect for law and order, just to look at what our judicial system is like now.

You know, the American people are sick and tired, but most people don't believe we have honest elections anymore. But they're only arguing, who gets to control the Department of Justice to rig the elections come the next election. So it is something, it should be done through persuasion. But as soon as you say, we are great people, we have a moral obligation. A lot of Americans have come to believe that. We have a moral obligation to force it upon people. But as soon as you cross the line of saying, yes, we are good, we are rich, and we know what right and we are, we're supposed to be the manager and promote peace and prosperity, but you'll

have to do it and we'll have to tell you if you don't do what we say, we're going to put on sanctions and remove the benefits of free trade, trade and talking and traveling with people. That's what the founders have believed in. And I believe it's not perfect, but what we have now is just breeding more hatred. I mean, it's systemic. And I just cringe when I think about, you know, all the things that they say, the Chinese, and they have their problems, and we have our problems. But the whole thing is to say, what did China, oh, the Chinese keep spending their money

and they're spreading their message and all that. I said, but we spend our money on the military and cause enemies. China is doing a lot of things economically. and who's their best customer? We're their customer. Where do they get their money? Well, we printed it and sent it to them. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I think what is happening right now is predictable. It's understandable. The mistakes are aware of it. And this is why I remain an optimist because I believe that the message is not complex and all we have to do is expand its popularity. and the opportunity is here because the system we have now is not working. It's getting worse. And when the true effects of the bankruptcy hits, it's going to be a moral and a financial bankruptcy.

And we see also in this moral sense, and when we look at our schools and all the wokeism going on, the morality has been dissipated. There's people who just don't even care about it anymore. But I believe that because there will be more problems, more and more people are joining the remnant of people who believe in liberty. And that's what happens in all times. Any time a nation crashes, there's always somebody out there that's going to try to preserve the truth of things.

And right now, there's a great deal of distortion of what is truth. Some people don't even believe that truth exists. And that is a problem, but I still believe there's a remnant of people who believe in liberty, believe in justice, believe in peace, and honesty in all areas, and that you seek it, even though you know that you can't reach it, but to people who reject, you know, the system, and that you cannot know truth. So forget about it. Do what you want.

Go out and make your... money and use force if you have to. Where's the force in our streets? Look at our streets these days. Look at the inner cities. It has deteriorated here just tremendously. And it's sort of exploded with the lockdowns where the government just came in and ruthlessly pushed the people around and the people sacrificed their liberties. But knowing what liberty can do should be so positive that eventually the people will have to resort to it. But whether that's going to happen next month or next 10 years, nobody knows. But I do know that there's a responsibility on all of us who believe in the truth and believe in liberty. We have a job to do.

I'm curious to what you see as the main driver of now of US foreign policy, because you mentioned the military industrial complex, of course, but we have there maybe obsession with hegemony. but I find it interesting we refer to the ideals because a lot of this probably has good intentions as well. And sometimes I think of Woodrow Wilson, to some extent, perhaps it changed US foreign policy as well in his mission to make the world safe for democracy, because before then it seemed the US was determined to set a good example to be emulated. And thereafter, with this it transformed more into a civilizing mission by making the world safe. for democracy. Do you see this idealism as driving the policy or is it more crude power ambitions or maybe specifically to the war in Russia? I'm just wondering, or in Ukraine, sorry, how did you end up here? I'm just curious. Well, I think Wilson make his slogan, make, you know, make peace and make it popular and all.

He, that's just sort of a gimmick. They always say nice. things. Even the people who don't even believe in truth, you know, some of them get up and they don't believe in it for a minute and they don't do it. They want to fool the people. And when they go down to vote on the house floor, they always vote the wrong way and do the wrong thing. But they have to, they use a lot of propaganda to the point where they don't even believe anything, any of it themselves. But that's to get the popular support. And since it doesn't work, they have to start being redistributor of wealth. They have to steal it from one group and give them to another. But there's a very simple rule that would solve this. Bostia suggested to us, if you and I can't go into our neighbor's

house and take what we want, and if they have two cars and we don't have any, that we'll take a car. No, but we can send our congressman there to do that. So no, and is assume that government is something special, that they can do things morally. They can debase the currency. What if we as an individual counterfeited our money? Boy, you're in big trouble. But the government counterfeits the politicians, counterfeit the money all the time to do bad things. And so I think that's one rule that has to be accepted because without changing our attitudes on that, we can't really hope that much improvement will occur.

The question I have is this, I mean, you were in Congress for many, many years and you worked in the system and you must have met many, well, you worked with many people in Congress. The kind of things that you are saying to us seem to me like common sense. Why do so few people in Congress understand it? Is it because, I mean, they're swept along by the idealism or other pressures from lobbyists or other pressures from the parties' machines that push them in a particular direction? Because I can't believe that the pressure comes from below from the people who vote for them. So what is it that makes them conform always with these destructive policies? Well, two things. One, there's people seeking wealth and they are seeking, you know, financial benefits. At the same time, they want to make sure that they have power. But what about the other people? What about the people that the average person that are indoctrinated, you know, by our educational system, that there's nothing wrong with that.

You know, they think the government is different. They should be able to redistribute wealth, not realizing it's going to make things worse. So they go along with that. Then the more the government does that, the more poorer you create. And then they say, well, you can't just let them out out in the street. Look how we're treating the people who come here illegally and they break up things, break up stores, steal and just invade people's property. So the worse it gets, the more we take away from the people who are working.

We penalize the people who are working. You want to take care of themselves in order to give it and put the people who break the law in front. Matter of fact, what they do is they don't even punish people who do it. They defund the police and they have a judicial system that you can be arrested 15 or 20 times in a month. And they keep doing the thing over. So it's a philosophic thing. What motivates a lot of people who get started on this is that they are, they believe and they say they have a good heart and they want to help people who are having trouble rather than saying, where did the poverty come from? It came from the government pretending that they were going to help each other.

But I think they play on the, because they have to get support from the masses of people or there will be a revolution. So they tell them, we'll give you this, we'll give you this. And yet, most of the transfers go, you know, into the pockets of the very rich in the banking system, the pharmaceutical industry, the military industry. So it's all makes our problems much worse. And yet there is a market for it. People don't say, oh, because in a practical sense, if you come by and people are in the streets and they don't have anything to eat. eat. They say, well, you know, if we didn't have this system, it would be, you know, you'd be a lot better off. Well, people are going to say, oh, okay, I don't want my free lunch today. It's not going to

work from that. I think there's always, should be an effort to try to change people's mind and work our way out of it. But most likely, the only way we can reintroduce, you know, sound economics and moral system is for this thing to fall apart. And that will happen. The big question is, what will that remnant do? What will the people do? Where will they get their education? If they keep going to the government school system that teaches all this nonsense, you know, it's going to be a long, hard job to switch it over. But I think if you have people sit down and talk about it, I think that reasonable people will say, you know, that makes a lot of sense. I've just dumbfounded. How do I do it? And it is a problem. But because the answer is you got to get rid of all the mistakes.

If a person, individual, has been living really high on the hog, doing great, because they borrowed money every month. And you say, but things were getting shaky, prices were going up and they weren't doing well. people said, well, you have to give up all that stuff and you have to declare bankruptcy because you can't pay your bills. You're never going to work your way up. So that's what the market says. You have to declare the bankruptcy. That's what we're in the middle of.

And more every day there's going to be the declaration of the bankruptcy. And since they're going to continue to print the money, what you're going to have is the inflation, destruction, total destruction of the currency. Just look at what's happened to our dollar. You know, since the Fed's been in existence, we've lost 98% of the value of the dollar from the time the Fed was established. My, I guess a quick last question for me would be, if you would, I know you're not running again, but if you would have a president, Ron Paul, how would you get us out of this foreign policy crisis

as it seems like we're now sleepwalking into a war with possibly both Russia and, China, how would you get us out of this? Well, you know, that's an easier job to do, although difficult, because the people who make money off it in the past, like in the 1960s, when the Kennedy decided we were going to get out of Vietnam and quit this nonsense, you know, what happened, a few people, including Martin Luther King, were assassinated. But the president does have a lot of authority. We're in illegal wars and he has control of the troops. And what I would say when people would ask me that in the campaign and then the debate, I said, what are you going to do? This was when the

Middle East was just a fire with all our activity. I said, well, we just marched in. We can just march out. And that would have to be in. Oh, there'll be chaos. Yeah, like Afghanistan. Stay for 20 years and then try to walk out or try to get on an airplane that's going down a runway. So no, you should downsize it, never go to war. Don't set those troops over there. If you want to fight a war, make sure it's had agreed to by the people and have a declared war and make sure that people know why we're there and what is the endpoint. In World War II, even though there were shortcomings and how we got involved there, It was very precise. A war was declared, and it was the defeat of the authoritarianes that were trying to take over the world. And it wasn't a long war three years. Now we're just floundering all over. We have 20-year-old. So a president could do an awful lot to downsize that whole approach. But you'd have to get to people convinced that why they're doing it. But it would be better than probably.

taking food stamps away from the poor and saying, this is what we have to do. We have to take away your food stamps. No, you take away the food stamps from the corporations, the people who have been ripping off the middle class by getting the deficits up to print the money so that the higher prices are suffered by the middle class. Ron Paul, we've come up to 30 minutes, and we said 30 minutes, and I would like to say, I have no more questions, but just thank you for coming and answering our questions today. Very good. Nice to be with you. Thank you.