You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy

[DanG 1]

Quote

But if we have a system in place where we can at least try to curb some of the rapid devaluation of our currency, then at least what we've saved up in our lives to retire will buy us relatively the same services as what that money is worth today. What good is $1,000,000 in the bank if 50 years from now it costs me $300,000 year just to survive each year vs the $70,000 I can live off of now.

I agree with the goal, I just don't think the gold standard is the way to get there.

- Dan G

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Quote

But if we have a system in place where we can at least try to curb some of the rapid devaluation of our currency, then at least what we've saved up in our lives to retire will buy us relatively the same services as what that money is worth today. What good is $1,000,000 in the bank if 50 years from now it costs me $300,000 year just to survive each year vs the $70,000 I can live off of now.

I agree with the goal, I just don't think the gold standard is the way to get there.

There very well could be better ways to approach this, but as of now something needs to be changed, and I haven't seen any other propositions yet.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Why do you think that only the dollars you loaned him were backed by gold?

I'll answer a question with a question: where did the gold come from to back the $10 that wasn't in the economy before? Or, in other words, if we all have more dollars in our pockets, what happens when we all try to cash them in at the same time? Either there is more gold there, or there isn't. The real answer, I suppose, was provided by diverborg, which is deflation. The number of dollars stays the same, but the value of each dollar in terms of what you can buy with it (except for gold) goes up. That sounds great, but why do we need gold to make that happen? Having things "backed by gold" only has value in reassuring people who don't really understand what money is.

- Dan G

[livendive 8]

Quote

Yeah, I understand that. Maybe I'm not thinking correctly about this, but I still fail to see how everyone can make more money, if there is no more money to be made. Let's say I loan you $100, and over time you pay me back $110. That's great, maybe you used the money to start a lemonade stand, and made $110, too. Sounds like economic growth. But what I don't understand is when I go to the government and ask for my 110 grams of gold, where did the new 10 grams come from? When dollars are just a medium of exchange, I have no problem with people making money. When you're forced to trade using physical objects, how is new wealth created?

It's not 10 "new" grams of gold, it's 10 grams of gold you got from your borrower who got them from his customers, who got them their employer, who got them from your competitor (another bank). Ownership of those 10 grams switched several times, but they never had to actually move, because that piece of paper (or a corresponding collection of electrons) did the busy work.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[DanG 1]

Quote

It's not 10 "new" grams of gold, it's 10 grams of gold you got from your borrower who got them from his customers, who got them their employer, who got them from your competitor (another bank). Ownership of those 10 grams switched several times, but they never had to actually move, because that piece of paper (or a corresponding collection of electrons) did the busy work.

So do you agree that the only way the economy can grow is through deflation?

- Dan G

[hwt 0]

Quote

Anyone who thinks going back to the gold standard would be anything but an economic disaster is completely out of touch with reality.

Anyone who thinks eliminating the EPA and relying on private lawsuits to stop major polluters would be anything other than an ecological disaster is completely out of touch with reality.

Ron Paul is completely out of touch with reality.

________________________________________________
I will give you a good reason to tie our currency to gold and silver...It is required and for a good reason by the constitution..
During tarp the secret bankers printed 16 trillion dollars out of thin air and loaned it to themselves at 0.01 percent interest rate. this money was used to prop up the failed socialist policies in Europe and here in America.
That money is gone and it failed to do the job. Now we are on the hook to these secret bankers for a lot more interest rate then 0.01 percent...This is a scam
When you print money from thin air you rob the wealth of the poor and middle class and transfers that wealth to the banks.

This is what you want ? bankers robbing us blind ?

As for EPA ... The EPA as it stands is unconstitutional .
Why ? it makes laws outside congress... Ron Paul is honest and has the people in mind .

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

It's not 10 "new" grams of gold, it's 10 grams of gold you got from your borrower who got them from his customers, who got them their employer, who got them from your competitor (another bank). Ownership of those 10 grams switched several times, but they never had to actually move, because that piece of paper (or a corresponding collection of electrons) did the busy work.

So do you agree that the only way the economy can grow is through deflation?

deflation is a bigger bogeyman to economists than inflation. It causes odd behavior in people - discourages spending (the item will get cheaper).

I think the very simplistic answer to problems with the Gold Standard can be see by watching Goldfinger and pay attention to the concerns over smuggling and in the nuking of Fort Knox. Plus check out Pussy Galore!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Why do you think that only the dollars you loaned him were backed by gold?

I'll answer a question with a question: where did the gold come from to back the $10 that wasn't in the economy before?

Why do you think the $10 profit magically appeared out of thin air, and not from someone's pay, thereby backed by the same gold that backed your $100 loan?

Quote

Or, in other words, if we all have more dollars in our pockets, what happens when we all try to cash them in at the same time?

Runs on banks, of course.

However, under the prior gold standard most of the gold remained at Ft. Knox as I recall. Smaller banks weren't required to have sufficient gold on hand to satisfy any/all comers.

Quote

That sounds great, but why do we need gold to make that happen? Having things "backed by gold" only has value in reassuring people who don't really understand what money is.

Yeah? How's the alternate working out in the world markets?

At least we're not to the Weimar Republic version of needing a wheelbarrow of money to get bread....yet.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DanG 1]

Okay, I'll play along. What part of the Constitution requires our currency to be tied to gold or silver? Let me guess, you're going to go with Article 1, Section 9:

Quote

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters
of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but
gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder,
ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any
Title of Nobility.

Is the US Treasury a State? Hmm, didn't think so. How about Article 1, Section 8:

Quote

The Congress shall have Power ... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the
Standard of Weights and Measures

Any comment?

As far as the EPA goes, if they are "making laws" then they should be taken to court. What they are actually doing is enforcing laws passed by Congress. If you think otherwise, then all Executive departments, by promulgating rules to facilitate enforcement of laws, are "making laws" and should be banned as unconstitutional.

Like I said, Ron Paul is completely out of touch with reality.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Quote

Runs on banks, of course.

However, under the prior gold standard most of the gold remained at Ft. Knox as I recall. Smaller banks weren't required to have sufficient gold on hand to satisfy any/all comers.

I'm talking about everyone going to the government and asking for the gold that backs up their dollars. If the government has a gram of gold (or whatever quantity you want to make it) for every dollar in the economy, there shouldn't be any problem cashing out greenbacks. In reality this means that no new wealth can be created, which translates into a stagnant economy.

Quote

Yeah? How's the alternate working out in the world markets?

The lack of a gold standard is not the root cause of the current economic problems, and it certainly isn't the solution.

- Dan G

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Runs on banks, of course.

However, under the prior gold standard most of the gold remained at Ft. Knox as I recall. Smaller banks weren't required to have sufficient gold on hand to satisfy any/all comers.

I'm talking about everyone going to the government and asking for the gold that backs up their dollars. If the government has a gram of gold (or whatever quantity you want to make it) for every dollar in the economy, there shouldn't be any problem cashing out greenbacks. In reality this means that no new wealth can be created, which translates into a stagnant economy.

Really? So, how did the economy increase before Nixon took us off the gold standard, then?

Quote

Quote

Yeah? How's the alternate working out in the world markets?

The lack of a gold standard is not the root cause of the current economic problems, and it certainly isn't the solution.

Never claimed it was. It *does* show the the idiocy of a statement that the gold standard is a balm only to people who don't understand money.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[diverborg 0]

[replyThe lack of a gold standard is not the root cause of the current economic problems, and it certainly isn't the solution.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Never claimed it was. It *does* show the the idiocy of a statement that the gold standard is a balm only to people who don't understand money.

Nope, you never claimed it, just strongly implied it. As usual, I expect you to start your usual "show me where I said that" dance, so I'm done responding to you.

And since you've decided to revert to using words like "idiocy" to reference my thoughts, I'm double done responding to you.

- Dan G

[SkyDekker 1,465]

So, who is going to spend the approx. one trilllion dollars to cover current M0?

[diverborg 0]

Quote

So, who is going to spend the approx. one trilllion dollars to cover current M0?

Good question. There in lies the problem and solution. We won't have any other option but to either cut spending or increase taxation or both (at least thats responsible). I like to view it as a good motivator for congress to "pull their heads out".

Unless your goal is to bankrupt the country which it seems an alarming amount of people seem to be perfectly fine with.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Never claimed it was. It *does* show the the idiocy of a statement that the gold standard is a balm only to people who don't understand money.

Nope, you never claimed it, just strongly implied it. As usual, I expect you to start your usual "show me where I said that" dance, so I'm done responding to you.

And you've just done your "I can't support my own argument, so I'll just quit responding now" schtick...and quite nicely, too.

Quote

And since you've decided to revert to using words like "idiocy" to reference my thoughts, I'm double done responding to you.

Oh, dear...I'm crushed. How *else* would you describe a theory that fiat money would be held more dear, then?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[hwt 0]

Quote

Quote

Runs on banks, of course.

However, under the prior gold standard most of the gold remained at Ft. Knox as I recall. Smaller banks weren't required to have sufficient gold on hand to satisfy any/all comers.

I'm talking about everyone going to the government and asking for the gold that backs up their dollars. If the government has a gram of gold (or whatever quantity you want to make it) for every dollar in the economy, there shouldn't be any problem cashing out greenbacks. In reality this means that no new wealth can be created, which translates into a stagnant economy.

Quote

Yeah? How's the alternate working out in the world markets?

The lack of a gold standard is not the root cause of the current economic problems, and it certainly isn't the solution.

________________________________________
The Keynesian economics is a fail...
the reason the government has a cost of living increase is because of this failed system.

The Austrian theory of economics is right on...
It is the whole system that needs to be changed...

Why allow secret bankers to profit from their scam?

[pirana 0]

Quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I8NhRPo0WAo

For those of you that think Ron Paul is wrong, please watch this...

Ron Paul is a modern day Thomas Jefferson...

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none”
Thomas Jefferson

“I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be.”
Thomas Jefferson

He's a bit of a nut on the details, but he has the principles needed for the future. We may have to go with a nut, eventually, in order to break the continuing same old same old.

The biggest problem is that very few people, and it appears none of our leaders, are willing to recognize that the world has changed so significantly that the same old shit simply will not play.

There was a serious attempt back in the mid to late 90's to address the approaching trainwreck with Social Security and welfare in general. The commission reported back that, despite the inevitability of said trainwreck, they could come up with no viable solutions that would be palatable to the US public, and certainly none that any candidate could embrace and still get elected.

So there it is. Our candidates pander to us to get elected, then get into office and find they have been given an impossible task. It is going to take somebody REALLY outside the box to get things rolling, and the public is either going to have to suck it up and play their part, or enjoy the trainwreck.

It's like a Greek tragedy; there is so much wrong, but nobody wants to change (or sees their role in the problem), so the inevitability of the wreck starts to become acceptable.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[BoogeyMan 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I8NhRPo0WAo

For those of you that think Ron Paul is wrong, please watch this...

Ron Paul is a modern day Thomas Jefferson...

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none”
Thomas Jefferson

“I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be.”
Thomas Jefferson

He's a bit of a nut on the details, but he has the principles needed for the future. We may have to go with a nut, eventually, in order to break the continuing same old same old.

The biggest problem is that very few people, and it appears none of our leaders, are willing to recognize that the world has changed so significantly that the same old shit simply will not play.

There was a serious attempt back in the mid to late 90's to address the approaching trainwreck with Social Security and welfare in general. The commission reported back that, despite the inevitability of said trainwreck, they could come up with no viable solutions that would be palatable to the US public, and certainly none that any candidate could embrace and still get elected.

So there it is. Our candidates pander to us to get elected, then get into office and find they have been given an impossible task. It is going to take somebody REALLY outside the box to get things rolling, and the public is either going to have to suck it up and play their part, or enjoy the trainwreck.

It's like a Greek tragedy; there is so much wrong, but nobody wants to change (or sees their role in the problem), so the inevitability of the wreck starts to become acceptable.

I saw the vid. The US is not on the planet alone. Today, not 50 or 60 years ago in a vastly different world, there were no credible threats against the US in the form of religious fundamentalists, who regularly conduct suicide bombings in crowded markets as a matter of policy.
The poor policies of the past have made the US interdependent on the worldwide economy. There is no running away from that fact.
For RP to espouse a policy of nonintervention against forces who have declared war on the US is dangerous. For RP to promote the US minding it's own business considering that the world is at war with international terrorists is too stupid to comment on. Burying our heads in the sand, in the manner of Slick Willie Clinton brought about the 9/11 attack.
A great many folks see what is wrong. This country needs a strong leader to turn the country to a new direction. Obama, and Ron Paul are not that leader. Actually listen to what Paul says. Generalizations with out any plan. Pie in the sky sugary platitudes from the 1960's.
One week ago I was ambivalent about all the Repub candidates. Today, I am as solidly against Ron Paul as I am against Obama.