Note to voters: Ron Paul's multi-million investment portfolio is a big bet against the U.S. economy

While this is most likely true, there is one thing I can almost guarantee about Ron Paul, and that is that he has no problem separating his interests from the interests of the nation. Basically, he invests based on his beliefs, and votes based on his beliefs, and that could seem to some to look like he is trying to profit from his position, and I disagree with that.

Investor Peter Schiff explains why Ron Paul is simply following is own economic advice.



Further, every vote Ron Paul has taken in Congress was against his own financial positions.

Ron Paul voted against the debt ceiling increase, the stimulus and the bailouts. All of those things are very bullish for gold.

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

yes, ethics and conflict of interest.

wow, janky great post!

now watch out for all the coming.

I agree with so many of the above, and so many millions of voters and men and women of all races. Ron Paul is the real deal, oh no, you mean he invests like he talks? If that is strange to you, you are used to two face behavior. You people keep knocking, but you can't come in.

Ron Paul: Investing Genius

link
link 2

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!

Here's his entire portfolio.

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

reply to post by Janky Red

In order to clean the books, Paul would probably have to debase our currency

He wouldn't do that. Debasing our currency is a horrible idea..... and he has openly spoken out against it.

otherwise why would he invest the was he did? His position is strongest if such a thing occurs

Can the president even own stocks?

reply to post by mnemeth1


Peter Schiff was/is(?) an economic adviser to Ron Paul. If you know Peter's beliefs you would see why Ron Paul is investing the way he is. Out of all the current crop of politicians, Ron Paul is the one who I believe will do whatever is right for America first. The man has no skeletons in the closet, people have been looking for them....there's nothing there to find. www.theburningplatform.com...

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


Here's a great article that explains this....

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?
finance.townhall.com...