|
Wolfgang

Registered: 11/25/07
Posts: 8,370
|
Ron Paul's Economics
#7723033 - 12/06/07 02:47 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I like a lot of Ron Paul's ideas on things like Civil Liberties, but frankly his economic ideas are insane. So I'm kind of curious how the various Ron Paul groupies here would defend them.
Essentially Ron Paul and Alan Greenspan have views which almost always are directly contradictory (and its not a political difference since both are libertarian Republicans). If you believe that Greenspan knows anything about economics, you have to believe that Ron Paul is totally wrong about economics since their views are just such opposites. Frankly, I respect Greenspan's take on national ecnomics a lot more than Ron Paul's.
Here is a nice little speach by him that kind of outlines part of what he thinks:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul53.html
There are several very obvious flaws here. For one he blames every single economic problem on the Fed and gives them no credit for any economic success. That seems a bit odd. Secondly, he refuses to acknowledge that we have gone through a period of time of about 30 years with no serious recessions, no serious rises in unemployment, no serious rises in inflation, and steady ecnomic growth. Why is he so hot to tear down how we run national ecnomics when everybody agrees that it has been an unqualified success for the past 25 years or so?
Third, he basically class Greenspan a liar. If you read what he says the Fed does and cares about, its the exact opposite of what Greenspan said the Fed did and cared about when he was in charge. Unless you believe that things like Greenspan's book are just a collection of lies, you have to think that Ron Paul is completely wrong here.
In fact, Paul's argument doesnt even make sense.
He says that the Fed floods the market unnecessarily with too much money. Everybody (including Ron Paul in this speach) agrees that too much money causes great short term growth, but will hurt you in the long run. Fed people are appointed for long terms and are judged based on how the economy goes over LONG TERMS. Most national politicians are elected every 2 years (and at most every 6 years, but they really care about elections every 2 years anyway), and are thus judged on short term growth. The main complaint politicians have is that the Fed has TOO LITTLE money in the market and thus inhibits growth (Ron Paul is complaining that the Fed puts TOO MUCH money out there). This makes sense since they really want that fast, short term growth to be reelected and figure they will worry about long term growth after they win reelection.
So Paul wants to hand over control to a group (politicians) that has historically always wanted to dump more money into the market in order to...have less money in the market. This doesnt make any sense at all. Plus, I'd much rather have financial experts in charge of this stuff than politicians any day. Do you really want Congressmen to have control of all this stuff instead of experts like Greenspan? Ron Paul does.
Now I know that part of Ron Paul's ideas are to get rid of fiat currency (ie go to a gold standard). That economic ideas was rejected over 100 years ago, and since it was rejected, the country has enjoyed unprecedented economic growth and the lives of everyday Americans has undeniably improved greatly. Pretty much every country has experienced growth if they go to a well controlled fiat system over any kind of standard. To put it bluntly, his ideas just dont mesh with reality very well.
This is one of the reasons I dont see why anybody could vote for Ron Paul. Although he has a lot of good ideas, some of his ideas are madness. And economics is a biggie because if the economy goes into the toilet, not much else matters.
Can anybody defend this guy on the economy?
|
Kamin



Registered: 02/04/07
Posts: 449
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Wolfgang]
#7723068 - 12/06/07 03:54 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
If there is anything I agree with Paul about the most, it is his economic stance. I would get into it, but my brain is at 5% currently, as I haven't gone to bed.
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Kamin]
#7723204 - 12/06/07 06:10 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I think it is out of neccessity that he says "the gold standard"... because, what else is there to do if you dissolve the fed? I think that he has very good points about the absurdity of the fed and its policies, and instead of having no answer when people ask "so what would you do better?", he says "go to the gold standard".
I also think it is somewhat of a pipedream/radical stunt, because even if he was president, it is highly unlikely that he could do such a thing.
Frankly, I dont agree with half of RP's platform, but he is the first and only honest, decent human being I have ever seen run for any office. There is no puppetmaster pulling his strings, nor is he painting on a smile and telling you what you want to hear... which will be his downfall, because the majority of american citizens are fat, dumb fucks that want the dog and pony show and want someone to lie to their face.
|
Wolfgang

Registered: 11/25/07
Posts: 8,370
|
|
Quote:
YawningAnus said: I think it is out of neccessity that he says "the gold standard"... because, what else is there to do if you dissolve the fed? I think that he has very good points about the absurdity of the fed and its policies, and instead of having no answer when people ask "so what would you do better?", he says "go to the gold standard".
I also think it is somewhat of a pipedream/radical stunt, because even if he was president, it is highly unlikely that he could do such a thing.
Frankly, I dont agree with half of RP's platform, but he is the first and only honest, decent human being I have ever seen run for any office. There is no puppetmaster pulling his strings, nor is he painting on a smile and telling you what you want to hear... which will be his downfall, because the majority of american citizens are fat, dumb fucks that want the dog and pony show and want someone to lie to their face.
What exactly is so bad about the Fed and its policies?
A lot of politicians like to scapegoat the Fed because the Fed doesnt play politics and thus wont respond, but it usually doesnt make sense. For example, RP and his fellow libertarians claim that the Fed is bad because they put too much money into the economy. Most other politicians complain because the Fed puts too little money into the economy. And the Fed doesnt say much because the Fed doesnt play politics.
So what exactly is the problem with the Fed exactly? I find that most people who object to the Fed dont really know whats going on with it and just object because they want to lash out at something.
If RP is wrong about his economics and he gets his way, its a massive disaster for the US. As in the economy collapses and we are no longer a superpower. Getting rid of the IRS, going away from fiat currency, increasing isolationism when everybody else is embracing globalism...if you do all that you risk that your economy can go into a spiral that makes the Great Depression look not so bad.
Also, I dont get why people vote for politicians "because they seem like a nice guy". Thats why Bush got elected over Gore and it turned out to be not true at all. Vote for the guy (or woman) who will be the best president, not the person who is the best person.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Wolfgang]
#7724070 - 12/06/07 11:49 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
There's over hundreds years of History explaining why the Federal Reserve private banking system is the greatest legalized money making scam of the millennium. Google is your friend and so is the search engine here.:)
To ease your panic, Paul just wants for a legalized currency backed by a hard asset like gold, or even gold, to be able to compete in the free market with federal reserve notes.
Let me ask you something.
Would you rather own a currency backed by a hard asset like gold, or one backed by debt?
Debt is the only thing backing the value of the Federal Reserve note in your pocket right now. The U.S. Treasury is virtually broke and over $10, trillion dollars in debt.
It's because the Feds pump more new money backed by debt into the system that the value of your federal reserve note dollar has been tanking since the creation of the Federal Reserve, while the value of gold, that use to be legal tender has been appreciating.
This knowledge alone should get some bells ringing in your head about where that depreciating value was funneled off too.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Wolfgang]
#7724368 - 12/06/07 12:47 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I haven't read too deeply into his ideas on economics, which is something he is deeply passionate about, and is the reason he entered into politics. I'm interested in learning more, but haven't had the time to look into it yet.
The one thing that I do know beyond what is generally known regarding his views on the Federal Reserve and the dollar is that, if he was given the political opportunity to begin implementing some of his ideas, he would introduce a new currency, backed with gold and silver, and have it compete with the dollar.
This is probably the most effective manner to begin to push the Federal Reserve out, it would seem. Simply stop using their money.
I don't believe Ron Paul is an advocate of returning to the gold standard. My impression, from his inclusion of silver, is not so much that money is fully-backed by gold, but that there was an assemblage of precious metals that would most effectively hold value in the currency. This would act as a sinker, to prevent inflation, since it is a base value attributed to the money that does not waver, beyond the investment prices of the metal, I guess. At any rate, it would certainly hold much more stable. Confidence in the value of the money wouldn't be prone to falling sharply. Holding value with money accumulates wealth, doesn't it?
These are just ideas I've kind of gathered from what I have observed from Ron Paul. I think the above is reasonable, makes sense, and is capable of working.
And then, judging from Ron Paul's views on levels of government that supercede the jurisdiction of the Constitution that entangle our sovereignity, I'm sure the whole centralized bank and the global organizations involved thing he sees as a threat to our interests. They are held pretty distinct from the checks and balances of the government, and they pretty much make or break the economy. Its power that shouldn't exist, and doesn't need to exist.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
ElectricJW
Stoner


Registered: 10/31/05
Posts: 136
Last seen: 6 years, 11 months
|
|
Ron Paul is against the fiat dollar, b/c basically that means that the dollar is valuable b/c the govt tells you so. Whereas with the gold standard, the dollar is valuable b/c it is backed by gold. So if the people believes that inflation is happening, they can cash in their paper certificates (dollar bills) for gold. But Ron Paul has said that he doesn't want to go back to the Gold Standard 100%. He's said that he wants to have competing currencies and let the free market naturally decide its value (through competition).
He is against the FED b/c they are causing inflation. They keep printing up new money and pumping it into the economy. Here is an article where in AUG they pumped 62 billion dollars into the economy: http://www.slate.com/id/2172342/
THey've done this many times, and this is something that Ron Paul wants to stop.
Ron Paul has said that it would take many yrs, like 5-10, to get his implementations going. So he's not trying to change things overnight.
-------------------- "Visualize the action, then actualize the vision." - King of the Hill “Long you live and high you'll fly and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be.”- Pink Floyd
Edited by ElectricJW (12/06/07 01:11 PM)
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Wolfgang]
#7724516 - 12/06/07 01:16 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
It is somewhat unfortunate that Ron Paul clings to Austrian economics, but I can't say that his economic ideas are any worse than the way the current bozo has been running the show. Hard currency like gold or silver has the advantage of being more stable than debt-based fiat currency, so I think he's necessarily crazy for advocating it. I am not convinced that central banking is bad in itself, but I do believe it is bad when it is debt-based, as our current system is.
I have heard numerous theories on how to reform the fed or replace it with a directly controlled central bank(as Alexander Hamilton advocated). But one of the major sources of the boom-bust cycle is land speculation, as we see with the housing bubble. Unfortunately, offers no solution to this problem, but the solution is going to have to start at the local level and work its way up.
Anyway, I'm supporting Ron Paul for the time being because of his his radical message of liberty, even if he is misguided on some issues. If it turns out he might actually win the election, I might have to reconsider my vote. But so long as he's just out there stirring shit up in the political arena, he has my support.
--------------------
|
SlashOZ
:D



Registered: 10/20/06
Posts: 3,557
Loc: Following the water cycle
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Wolfgang]
#7724727 - 12/06/07 02:13 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
i think the basis for ron pauls argument is that under the federal reserve the rich have become astronomically rich and the poor even poorer. currently the dollar is at all time lows, our budget deficit is massive, saving rates are pathetic, credit defaults and loan defaults are threatening to cripple the economy. the fed has some esplanin' to do.
-------------------- "Life sucks but in this really beautiful way" - Axl Rose "Life's a bitch and then you die that's why we get high cuz you never know when you're gonna go." - NAS "When people don't know what you're about they put you down and shut you out" - Black Sabbath "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi "Look up at me I am God, look down on me and I am evil, look at me I am you." - Charles Manson. "Don't question my reality." - Me (as far as I know)
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
|
There are problems with fiat currencies and problems with using specie or its equivalent as currency. Ron Paul's judgment (and he is not alone in this, although he is in the minority) is that the problems of specie as currency (most notably deflation) are the lesser of two evils.
Both inflation and deflation cause problems to economies. In theory it is possible to suffer deflation with fiat currency when the government doesn't print enough new notes to adjust for expanded production of goods and services (more than a few economics commentors have expressed concern over the Euro for just this reason), and inflation with specie (when more specie is mined and circulated in a period where production of goods and services is flat or declining), but historically for various reasons the reverse has been the case -- fiat currency results in inevitable steady inflation (no matter how slight) while specie results in inevitable deflation (except in the case of exceptionally weak economies).
A flawlessly administered fiat currency system is superior to using specie for currency, but it's unlikely to ever be adminstered flawlessly -- the temptation for government to pressure the mint (or, in the case of the US, the Fed) to run the printing presses just a little bit longer to cover some of those over-budget items is almost overwhelming.
Phred
--------------------
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist


Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,276
Last seen: 2 hours, 59 minutes
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Wolfgang]
#7725446 - 12/06/07 05:29 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
> What exactly is so bad about the Fed and its policies?
Every time the federal government tries to solve a problem, they make it worse.
Just look at the war on drugs or the war on poverty.
As far as feds are concerned, less is more.
|
zorbman
blarrr



Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Phred]
#7725509 - 12/06/07 05:49 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
There are problems with fiat currencies and problems with using specie
Phred, might that be considered a specious argument?
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?



Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Wolfgang]
#7725885 - 12/06/07 07:34 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I think of Paul's stance on the fed as being less about pure economics and more about politics.
The fact of the matter is that the fed operates as a fourth branch of the US government, but it does so without any oversight or checks and balances.
It wields a tremendous amount of power at the hands of unelected officials that are appointed and largely operate well below the public radar.
This is contrarian to a constitutionally-minded world view.
There are tangential arguments here regarding the means by which the Fed largely benefits the giant banking intrests at the expense of the smaller institutions, but ulitmately, a vibrant money market is what allows economic prosperity.
You can extend that power through fiat money. Since it lacks the true backing of some precious commmodity (gold/silver) you can arbitrarily grow and contract the money supply to control inflation and, in turn, unemployment and general economic prosperity.
Many people will shout "fiat money ALWAYS fails, eventually", while that may be true historically, we are operating in a manner unlike any other in history and, as pointed out previously, doing quite well at it at that.
"the temptation for government to run the printing presses just a little bit longer to cover some of those over-budget items is almost overwhelming."
this is the recurring theme in Paul's politics...
-------------------- All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
Minstrel
Man of Science


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 1,974
Loc: Hogtown
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: afoaf]
#7726818 - 12/06/07 11:27 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
You can't get rid of the American Dollars! Then how can we get back to the moon, and go to Mars!?
Backing the dollar with a valuable commodity will cut lots of reckless spending, not to mention that much of the budget will be canned when Paul gets into office.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: afoaf]
#7727133 - 12/07/07 01:04 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
> we are operating in a manner unlike any other in history and, as pointed out previously, doing quite well at it at that.
We aren't really doing that well when we have to borrow from China just to pay the interest on our nations debt.
> not to mention that much of the budget will be canned when Paul gets into office.
Canned at the federal level... states can do what they please.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
zorbman
blarrr



Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: afoaf]
#7728122 - 12/07/07 10:23 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Many people will shout "fiat money ALWAYS fails, eventually", while that may be true historically, we are operating in a manner unlike any other in history and, as pointed out previously, doing quite well at it at that.
Famous last words: "This time it's different".
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?



Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: zorbman]
#7729464 - 12/07/07 04:17 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I agree, but systems improve with time and increased historical data.
I'm not a blind optimist, by most standards.
-------------------- All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
zorbman
blarrr



Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: afoaf]
#7731239 - 12/07/07 11:22 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I agree, but systems improve with time and increased historical data.
Any increase in efficiency only buys us a little more time- it does not invalidate fundamental laws. Your original statement was correct- fiat currencies always fail. Unless human nature changes, the temptation to inflate and debase the currency will eventually predominate.
If you want to bet on human nature changing, go right ahead. Me? I'm betting on a collapse of the US dollar.
It has made me a tidy profit so far.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
Edited by zorbman (12/08/07 01:35 AM)
|
truekimbo2
Cya later, friends.



Registered: 12/08/02
Posts: 9,234
Loc: ny
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: zorbman]
#7733553 - 12/08/07 02:47 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
i'm hoping that he changes the US currencies to oak leaves. then i would be rich.
-------------------- You can check the last post in my journal for contact info.
|
Wolfgang

Registered: 11/25/07
Posts: 8,370
|
|
Quote:
gettinjiggywithit said: There's over hundreds years of History explaining why the Federal Reserve private banking system is the greatest legalized money making scam of the millennium. Google is your friend and so is the search engine here.:)
Good, then you will have no problem picking out a good one and giving it to me.
Quote:
gettinjiggywithit said: Let me ask you something.
Would you rather own a currency backed by a hard asset like gold, or one backed by debt?
Debt and its not even a contest.
Virtually every serious economist (including people like Alan Greenspan) advocates a debt based system. Empirically, countries that go to fiat systems (ie not gold standard like things) have always had their economies improved as long as the fiat system is well controlled. There is abundant real world evidence to suggest that the way the Fed does things maximizes longterm economic growth.
I think that any rational analysis by an economist will reach the conclusion that you are wrong. But, if you disagree with this, feel free to find one that agrees with you and provides a nice argument for us to discuss.
Quote:
gettinjiggywithit said: It's because the Feds pump more new money backed by debt into the system that the value of your federal reserve note dollar has been tanking since the creation of the Federal Reserve, while the value of gold, that use to be legal tender has been appreciating.
This knowledge alone should get some bells ringing in your head about where that depreciating value was funneled off too.
Sure, and the economy of the US has increased dramatically since the Fed started doing this. Around the time it was created, the US was a backwaters and its economy was nothing. Since the Fed the US has become the most powerful economy in the history of the world. Perhaps that should ring some bells.
Also, if all this is as simple as your "DEBT IS BAD" statements, then why does virtually every serious economics person out there disagree with your VERY simple and naive analysis? Do you think that your grasp of economics is superior to that of Alan Greenspan? If not, then why are you directly disagreeing with what he and everybody else who is an expert in this says?
I'm not saying that the way Congress is getting more and more debt is a good thing. Clearly fiscal conservatism needs to be in the picture and you cant be consistently increasing our debt like we are now. But debt is a good thing IF its controlled properly, which is what the Fed tries to do. Congress is bad about controlling the debt, which was the whole original point.
|
Wolfgang

Registered: 11/25/07
Posts: 8,370
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: afoaf]
#7736640 - 12/09/07 01:22 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
afoaf said: I think of Paul's stance on the fed as being less about pure economics and more about politics.
The fact of the matter is that the fed operates as a fourth branch of the US government, but it does so without any oversight or checks and balances.
It wields a tremendous amount of power at the hands of unelected officials that are appointed and largely operate well below the public radar.
This is contrarian to a constitutionally-minded world view.
There are tangential arguments here regarding the means by which the Fed largely benefits the giant banking intrests at the expense of the smaller institutions, but ulitmately, a vibrant money market is what allows economic prosperity.
You can extend that power through fiat money. Since it lacks the true backing of some precious commmodity (gold/silver) you can arbitrarily grow and contract the money supply to control inflation and, in turn, unemployment and general economic prosperity.
Many people will shout "fiat money ALWAYS fails, eventually", while that may be true historically, we are operating in a manner unlike any other in history and, as pointed out previously, doing quite well at it at that.
"the temptation for government to run the printing presses just a little bit longer to cover some of those over-budget items is almost overwhelming."
this is the recurring theme in Paul's politics...
"Fiat money systems always fail" is just not really true. I suppose every country eventually fails, so it might be true in that case, but gold standard systems have been abandoned left and right, and the major economies of the world have successfully been running fiat systems for years. If you read up on your economics, I think that everybody has to agree that fiat systems are not more likely to fail than standard systems if run responsibly.
The Fed being a fourth branch of government is an absurd claim. Its main task is to set the federal interest rates. That may be important, but it is hardly at the same level as any of the branches of the Government.
While the last quotation may be true, its something that SUPPORTS the Fed. The Fed is typically MUCH more conservative with the amount of money they let into the economy than Congress would like them to be. Remember that dumping tons of money into the economy is pretty much guaranteed to help things in the short term, which is what Congress is all about since everybody needs to get elected within a few years. If you are worried about somebody putting too much money in the economy, I dont see how ANY rational person can want Congress to run that given their long history of a complete lack of fiscal conservatism.
|
rickpsfuckyou
listening to Mozzy



Registered: 11/26/05
Posts: 1,860
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Wolfgang]
#7739518 - 12/10/07 07:36 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
the fed is a private banking cartel run for profit, at the expense of the american people. their number one job is to, along with the irs, basically redistribute the wealth of the american middle class and widen the gap between rich and poor. the fed is owned by european banking dynasties and aristocracy. the reason they want to empoverish americas middle class is to weaken our resistance to one world government and the new world order. they plan to undermine our national sovereignty by incrementalism and trade alliances like the proposed north american union, and usher in the amero currency. what is happening in our economy is a designed collapse meant to leave us no other alternative but depression or acceptance of the new trade union and loss of sovereignty and freedom. ron paul knows this, and so he wants to avoid it if possible.
--------------------
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
|
The idea that I have heard expressed by Ron Paul is to introduce a competing currency, that is backed by a good standard. Why let us speculate in such a theoretical way about which approach works, when we can let the free market decide, and directly observe what happens.
I'll tell you what, it couldn't hurt to introduce another currency backed by some standard. Alan Greenspan might be a formidable wealth of understanding of an economy, but he is only a formidable wealth of understanding of that economy. Others, like Ron Paul, who has directly challenged Alan Greenspan and his successor in Congress (yeah, I caught your "appeal to the authority of Alan Greenspan ), have a different vision of a different economy.
There are a lot of advantages and disadvantages to both currencies and the manner in which they are regulated. I see no reason why there couldn't be two currencies that work together to produce every advantage, and so that each can compensate for the disadvantage of the other. Two concurrent currencies.
If you are skeptical of Ron Paul because of his economic viewpoints, you only have to realize that the biggest change that could result from Ron Paul having influence as the President of the United States is that he would introduce a new currency that was not regulated by the Federal Reserve, that would be backed with value, in addition to the dollar that is regulated by the Federal Reserve. The free market would decide which currency, representing two distinct economic theories, would be most effective. My guess is both.
I'd see the new currency as being the implementation of a system of economic checks and balances. Stability and speculation. Why not? Makes sense to me.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?



Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
|
The Fed is not a for-profit group.
They actually refund a considerable amount of money to the Treasury yearly.
-------------------- All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
rickpsfuckyou
listening to Mozzy



Registered: 11/26/05
Posts: 1,860
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: afoaf]
#7741501 - 12/10/07 04:31 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
afoaf said: The Fed is not a for-profit group.
They actually refund a considerable amount of money to the Treasury yearly.
yes they are. they are not a part of our government. they are about as federal as federal express is. they are run for profit, all the money printed is sold to america, thats part of why our defecit is so large. thats why america is so in debt we are about to go bankrupt. the debt is backed by the future production of the people collected as the income tax, via the irs. so in essence our government is borrowing a worthless fiat currency and going into debt with foreign banking interests and putting us the american people up as collateral. debt is the new equal oppurtunity slavery.
--------------------
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?



Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
|
The vast majority of the interest gained on their reserves (their income) is refunded to the Treasury annually.
The Fed had net income totaling $23.9 billion in 1995, 23.4 billion of which was payed back to the Treasury.
that .5% of the income is spread between dividends for stock holders and the Fed itself for operating budget (nice lunches and big oak desks).
It has stock holders and costs, but when 99.5% of the profits are returned to the Treasury department, I'd say it's about as close to a not-for-profit as you can get and still maintain some ambiguity.
-------------------- All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
art
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/05
Posts: 331
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: afoaf]
#7747313 - 12/11/07 10:01 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I am real confused as to what is so bad about the federal reserve? What exactly is it that makes them so evil? They are keeping the economy steady.
And can someone explain why we should be off the gold standard? I have never heard of someone today wanting to go back on the gold standard, it sounds so pointless! Gold has no more value than the dollar does. How many countries actually operate on the gold standard?
Why do you guys actually want deregulation of business!? Do you really want to go back to the guilded age?
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: art]
#7748007 - 12/12/07 04:12 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
> Gold has no more value than the dollar does
???
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
SlashOZ
:D



Registered: 10/20/06
Posts: 3,557
Loc: Following the water cycle
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Seuss]
#7749375 - 12/12/07 01:27 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
-------------------- "Life sucks but in this really beautiful way" - Axl Rose "Life's a bitch and then you die that's why we get high cuz you never know when you're gonna go." - NAS "When people don't know what you're about they put you down and shut you out" - Black Sabbath "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi "Look up at me I am God, look down on me and I am evil, look at me I am you." - Charles Manson. "Don't question my reality." - Me (as far as I know)
|
bugabuga420
bUgAbUgaBOO


Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 488
Last seen: 6 years, 2 months
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: SlashOZ]
#7751231 - 12/12/07 08:32 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
"The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered." -Thomas Jefferson
FED = Central Bank
People should stop referring to the Federal Reserve as part of the Federal Government. The FED is a PRIVATE COMPANY w/ PRIVATE SHAREHOLDERS. The main reason that Ron Paul is against the FED is because it is illegal under his interpretation of the Constitution. Before you can make any arguments about the FED you first must know the history of its creation. The FED was the brainchild of Paul Warburg and Jacob Schiff (whoses great grandson is married to Al Gores Daughter), members of powerful banking families. Families who have tried to establish a central bank in America since immediately after the American Revolution. Early in 1907, New York Times Annual Financial Review published Paul Warburg's (a partner of Kuhn, Loeb and Co.) first official reform plan, entitled "A Plan for a Modified Central Bank," in which he outlined remedies that he thought might avert panics. Then also early in 1907, Jacob Schiff, the chief executive of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., in a speech to the New York Chamber of Commerce, warned that "unless we have a central bank with adequate control of credit resources, this country is going to undergo the most severe and far reaching money panic in its history." Later in that year Warburg, Schiff along with JP Morgan orchestrated through rumors and manipulation the recall of the majority of all margin loans , which led to the panic of 1907. After which they picked up near whole corporations for pennies on the dollar.
And during the aftermath of the panic of 1907 the European Banking families fanned the flames of public outrage through the newspapers they owned and lobby groups they funded which called for Full Banking Reform. Both of the banking reform bills that where being pushed by the Presidential candidates from both parties in 1912 , where nearly identical as they where both authored by Paul Warburg. Also all 3 of the major presidential campaigns of 1912 were mostly financed by Kuhn, Leob and co, one of the richest and most powerful European banking firms, headed by Schiff and Warburg.
They had orchestrated not only the panic of 1907, but the resulting banking reform bill, authored by Senator Nelson Aldrich, and the presidency of 1912. In 1912 Woodrow Wilson was elected, not surprisingly he came from a banking family. He signed into legislation the initially mis titled "Federal Reserve Act". This legislation officially transferred Congress’s Constitutional duty to issue America’s currency into the hands of a private corporation, The Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Stock in this private corporation was not made available to the public, and was purchased by only the powerful banking families.
Here is a excerpt from the Federal Reserve page on wikipedia about Senator Aldrich:
"Centralized banking was met with much opposition from politicians, who were suspicious of a central bank and who charged that Aldrich was biased due to his close ties to wealthy bankers such as J.P. Morgan and his daughter's marriage to John D. Rockefeller, Jr. In 1910, Aldrich and executives representing the banks of J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb, & Co., secluded themselves for 10 days at Jekyll Island, Georgia.[4] The executives included Frank Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank of New York, associated with the Rockefellers; Henry Davison, senior partner of J.P. Morgan Company; Charles D. Norton, president of the First National Bank of New York; and Col. Edward House, who would later become President Woodrow Wilson's closest adviser and founder of the Council on Foreign Relations.[5] There, Paul Warburg of Kuhn, Loeb, & Co. directed the proceedings and wrote the primary features of what would be called the Aldrich Plan. Warburg would later write that "The matter of a uniform discount rate (interest rate) was discussed and settled at Jekyll Island." Vanderlip wrote in his 1935 autobiography From Farmboy to Financier :
I was as secretive, indeed I was as furtive as any conspirator. Discovery, we knew, simply must not happen, or else all our time and effort would have been wasted. If it were to be exposed that our particular group had got together and written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever of passage by Congress…I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System.”
Despite the importance of the Jekyll Island meeting, it remained a secret to both the public and the government until journalist Bertie Charles Forbes wrote an article about it in 1916, three years after the Federal Reserve Act was passed."
Another note same person met in secrecy also created the council on foreign relations, which is david rockefeller directors, past director includes dick cheney. The CFR are the people who are pushing for a North American Union.
you tube video of lou dobbs reporting on north american union
www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_eng.pdf Their plan entitled Creating a North American Community
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations check out their membership list!!
Cheney at the CFR
Now if your still reading:
Now you are probably asking yourself well who actually owns the Federal Reserve Central Banks? That the actually owners are :
Rothschild Bank of London Warburg Bank of Hamburg Rothschild Bank of Berlin Lehman Brothers of New York Lazard Brothers of Paris Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy Goldman, Sachs of New York Warburg Bank of Amsterdam
And that these individuals owned banks or majority shares in banks which owned shares in the FED : First National Bank of New York James Stillman National City Bank, New York Mary W. Harnman National Bank of Commerce, New York A.D. Jiullard Hanover National Bank, New York Jacob Schiff Chase National Bank, New York Thomas F. Ryan Paul Warburg William Rockefeller Levi P. Morton M.T. Pyne George F. Baker Percy Pyne Mrs. G.F. St. George J.W. Sterling Katherine St. George H.P. Davidson J.P. Morgan (Equitable Life/Mutual Life) Edith Brevour T. Baker Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
At its inception the FED was to be monitored by Congress and the President,but over the years through subtle legislation all operations of the FED are independent of Congressional control. And that the FED even refuses to be audited by the United States Government. Under the pretenses of helping the Depression the FED with Roosevelt's help enacted a Gold Seizure of all gold coins, gold bullion, and United States gold certificates from common Americans; terminated the domestic redemption of all currency in gold; and outlawed and repudiated all private and public contracts and other debts requiring payment in gold. EVERY DOLLAR THE FED MAKES PUTS THE UNITED STATES MORE IN DEBT. With the FED, AMERICA WILL ALWAYS BE IN DEBT TO THIS PRIVATE BANK and the debt will never go away or get smaller. That the FED only loans the principle to the government and then charges them interest on that principle, so the government is forced to borrow again to pay off the principle and interest on the first loan. But then the second loan is being charged interest, therefore causing never ending debt? All the money we have in our pockets is not constitutional money, just pieces of paper which represent our debt to the stockholder's of the FED? The Federal Income Tax is what the government actually uses to pay off interest owed to the FED? There inst one law on record which says you have to pay federal income taxes. That it is actually arbitrary enforced by the federal courts. Thats the reason Ron Paul wants to get rid of the IRS. Its unconstitutional to tax our labor, after all we went to war with England over a tax on tea and stamps.
The remainder of this post is a collection of quotes spoken on the Floor of the House of Representatives by the Honorable Louis T. McFadden of Pennsylvania. McFadden served as Chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee for more than 10 years.
"Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation's debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over.
"This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.
"Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lender. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime.
"These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this Country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us our hospitality by undermining our American institutions. Those bankers took money out of this Country to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia, and thus drove a wedge between the allies in World War. They financed Trotsky's passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They fomented and instigated the Russian Revolution, and placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky's disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that through him Russian homes might be thoroughly broken up and Russian children flung far and wide from their natural protectors. They have since begun breaking up of American homes and the dispersal of American children. "Mr. Chairman, there should be no partisanship in matters concerning banking and currency affairs in this Country, and I do not speak with any.
"In 1912 the National Monetary Association, under the chairmanship of the late Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, made a report and presented a vicious bill called the National Reserve Association bill. This bill is usually spoken of as the Aldrich bill. Senator Aldrich did not write the Aldrich bill. He was the tool, if not the accomplice, of the European bankers who for nearly twenty years had been scheming to set up a central bank in this Country and who in 1912 has spent and were continuing to spend vast sums of money to accomplish their purpose."
"We were opposed to the Aldrich plan for a central bank. The men who rule the Democratic Party then promised the people that if they were returned to power there would be no central bank established here while they held the reigns of government. Thirteen months later that promise was broken, and the Wilson administration, under the tutelage of those sinister Wall Street figures who stood behind Colonel House, established here in our free Country the worm-eaten monarchical institution of the "King's Bank" to control us from the top downward, and from the cradle to the grave."
"The Federal Reserve Bank destroyed our old and characteristic way of doing business. It discriminated against our 1-name commercial paper, the finest in the world, and it set up the antiquated 2-name paper, which is the present curse of this Country and which wrecked every country which has ever given it scope; it fastened down upon the Country the very tyranny from which the framers of the Constitution sough to save us."
Thank you and Good Night
|
zorbman
blarrr



Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: bugabuga420]
#7751394 - 12/12/07 09:14 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I don't trust anyone who cooks up their schemes at a place called "Jekyll Island". Something just ain't right there.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
bugabuga420
bUgAbUgaBOO

Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 488
Last seen: 6 years, 2 months
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: zorbman]
#7751429 - 12/12/07 09:24 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
ive actually been there before its by st simon island and sea island( where they had the g8 summit) , also its where jfk jr got married
|
moho456
The Past Inside The Present



Registered: 06/10/06
Posts: 223
Loc: Translinguistic Matter
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: bugabuga420]
#7752031 - 12/12/07 11:43 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The point is, this whole system of debt, of debasing the currency and producing it in such a manner as the federal reserve, is bad. <notice the period. It is a giant corruption scheme, and if you think for a second that money they "give back" to the treasury is anything more than number fudging by the worlds best accountants then you don't know much about how things really work.
The study of macro/national-economics should not be applied here. This is not a government institution.
Ron Paul would do well to wean us off of this. And to those of you who advocate debt systems: Yeah it got us and a lot of others this far, but what now? A reactive and fluid approach with no preconceptions is one of my ideas about government and any kind of problem.
Not to mention the problems with welfare, taxation, education, foreign policy, etc...
--------------------
|
art
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/05
Posts: 331
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: moho456]
#7765844 - 12/16/07 02:39 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
First of all, Wikipedia, and Youtube are not really the most credible sources, I know they save time, and are great for some things, but I do not think this is one of them. I do not know much about economics but this is what I do know.
Something only has as much value as people give it, therefore gold is only valuable if we make it valuable. The dollar is not going anywhere, it does not need to go anywhere.
Here is a quote on the gold standard, and the federal reserve by Robert Mundell, winner of the 1999 Nobel Prize in Economics, "Had the price of gold been raised in the late 1920's, or alternatively, had the major central banks pursued policies of price stability instead of adhering to the gold standard, there would have been no Great Depression, no Nazi revolution, and no World War 2."
debt is NOT necessarily a bad thing! it can be extremely useful.
Thomas Jefferson was not an economist, his beliefs against a central bank caused many problems for America. You also have to remember that the economy was completely different when Thomas Jefferson was alive.
Stop using the constitution during the founding of America to dictate how we should act NOW. "I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us." George Washington.
I am real confused on how you think the federal reserve works, the point of the interest rate is to reduce/increase inflation.
You bring up the point of corruption, perhaps there is a reason why the "honorable" Louis T. McFadden is so negative towards the federal reserve. Now I do not know anything about him, but I do know that there are always two sides to the story.
Now what about the deregulation of business? doesn't that usually lead to CORRUPTION!? It seems Ron Paul wants to go back to the gilded age. I think Ron Paul and his fiscal libertarian views are a huge scam. And that is not to mention the negative effects that his other policies would have (NAFTA, WTO for example)
And the biggest thing you left out is the...ALTERNATIVE! please explain to me why the economy has been very steady compared to pre-new deal times, and how you would continue to keep the economy steady without the federal reserve, ect.
|
zorbman
blarrr



Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: art]
#7766251 - 12/16/07 04:21 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Something only has as much value as people give it, therefore gold is only valuable if we make it valuable. The dollar is not going anywhere, it does not need to go anywhere.
Not sure exactly what you meant by the last statement but I disagree with the first one. Currency is created out of thin air by the banking system whenever a loan is made and is backed by nothing. Gold is brought out of the ground by the hard work of blood, sweat and tears.
Gold, at a minimum, represents the labor which went into producing it.
Unlike currency, gold holds intrinsic value. Although there are fluctuations it always maintains some value over time.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
art
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/05
Posts: 331
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: zorbman]
#7767633 - 12/16/07 10:00 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
that is not true. There are places in the world that you can go, and gold will have NO value. We gave gold its value, just like we gave the dollar its value. Now I do not know much about the gold standard, but I have never read any logical explanation for getting ride of it. I have read MANY instances where the gold standard has caused huge problems for our economy. I think Ron Paul is using that as an excuse to get ride of some legitimate institutions.
By cutting back on federal spending who is going to get hurt? Ron Paul? other business men? fuck no. Right now America has the largest unequal distribution of wealth since 1929. Ron Paul will only increase that gap.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: art]
#7768210 - 12/17/07 02:03 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
> There are places in the world that you can go, and gold will have NO value.
History is against you on this one. Since the dawn of mankind, gold has been valued. Every single civilization that has had access to gold, from ancient Egyptians to modern nomads, have given it a high value. Of course you can get philosophical and claim that gold has no value beyond what mankind gives it, but in reality, every single culture that has access to gold gives it value. Reality, not philosophy, is what is important here. Take a pound of paper money and a pound of gold into the jungle with you and see which one the natives, which have never seen either, will be interested in trading. I'll give you a hint... the nice shiny one.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: art]
#7768222 - 12/17/07 02:12 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
art said: By cutting back on federal spending who is going to get hurt? Ron Paul? other business men? fuck no. Right now America has the largest unequal distribution of wealth since 1929. Ron Paul will only increase that gap.
So how would not taking hundreds of dollars from Americans who work for a living each paycheck be detrimental?
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
zorbman
blarrr



Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: art]
#7768703 - 12/17/07 09:48 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
There are places in the world that you can go, and gold will have NO value.
Name one country participating in the global monetary system which places no value on gold.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
art
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/05
Posts: 331
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: zorbman]
#7769998 - 12/17/07 02:58 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
well first of all I was making a point on the value of something, it is philosophy that is important here. As far as I know the point of getting ride of the gold standard was because it allowed more control of our economy. Now you all have yet to answer any of my other questions, specifically the comparison of the gold standard to the post-gold standard economy. Although I am not an economist, and pretty ignorant on the subject I do know that the economy was very tumultuous up until the new deal, suffering a depression about once a decade. It was these recent implications such as the gold standard that has helped keep our economy steady. So why now, would you would to get ride of these things. I am not opposed to the gold standard as much as I am to some of Ron Paul's other ideas. Do you guys know of some moderate economists who support the gold standard? I would be interested in learning more, just not from the libertarian viewpoint, not that they aren't valid, but because I would like to see the viewpoint from someone in the middle. I can not think of a single person who supports the gold standard besides the libertarians.
You don't need to tax "Americans" you can tax specific Americans. I don't know if you heard about Warren Buffets deal with the other billionaires, but his secretary gets taxed more than he does. Now I know that there are other ways of giving money back to the government without taxes, and I am sure Warren was not completely exempt from taxes, but it still leaves a huge question. As far as I know Ron Paul is against deficit spending as well. So if he were against taxes but for deficit spending I could see that. But you still did not answer my question of who will get hurt/helped with tax cuts, cuts in deficit spending, and a smaller federal government.
I believe that it is Ron Paul and the business that will see the vast majority of help. Regulation is a good thing, again, just look at the gilded age for an example of what life was like without a strong government, and then look at where it lead our economy.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Wolfgang]
#7773053 - 12/18/07 08:37 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
In the opening post of the thread, Wolfgang writes:
Quote:
I like a lot of Ron Paul's ideas on things like Civil Liberties, but frankly his economic ideas are insane.
and
Quote:
Now I know that part of Ron Paul's ideas are to get rid of fiat currency (ie go to a gold standard). That economic ideas was rejected over 100 years ago, and since it was rejected, the country has enjoyed unprecedented economic growth and the lives of everyday Americans has undeniably improved greatly. Pretty much every country has experienced growth if they go to a well controlled fiat system over any kind of standard. To put it bluntly, his ideas just dont mesh with reality very well.
Agreed. This is one of the reasons no serious political analyst takes him seriously. When it comes to economics, the man is a crank. There are other reasons, too (his isolationist stance being probably the other major bone of contention with the Republican base), but his bizarre economic stance is reason alone to disregard him as a viable presidential candidate.
By the way, to give y'all some background on my own monetary views, for decades I held the opinion that using specie as currency (gold, silver, copper, perhaps platinum) had less disadvantages than using government-issued fiat currency. As a matter of fact, when I first started posting in this forum seven years ago I still held that opinion. But one advantage of posting here is running up against people with opposing views who are actually able to support their case. Links provided by some of these people over the years have led me to various economic sites which clarified my understanding of the pros and cons of each system, and after careful review and consideration I find it impossible to continue to defend the use of specie as currency in today's world. The Gold Bugs (of whom Ron Paul is one) are just flat out wrong, and I feel embarassed not to have figured out the flaws in their views on my own.
The second part of this article is pretty good at explaining the problems with returning to a gold standard. It's not exhaustive, but it's not crammed with economic jargon either. I suggest those Ronulans who are easily offended by any criticism of either The One Man Who Can Save America or of some of his loopier supporters just skip the first few paragraphs and head straight to the economics stuff, though.
http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWQyYjc1ZjNjZTc5ZTcxODM1NDQ5ZDhhODZjZTU5YmQ=
I strongly recommend y'all take the time to read it, regardless of which candidate you may favor. It's not very long, but it's very informative.
Phred
--------------------
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Phred]
#7773148 - 12/18/07 09:27 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I haven't finished reading it yet, I just took some huge hits and need to focus on finer aspects of life , but a key point I have heard from Ron Paul regarding what he would do, regards introducing a new currency, to compete with the dollar I think that adds a new dynamic to the whole thing.... like a counter-weight, perhaps, Stability with speculation.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
zorbman
blarrr



Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Phred]
#7773173 - 12/18/07 09:36 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
In spite of my avatar (the idea there is to educate people on personal investments) you may be surprised that I am somewhat on the fence with the gold standard. I am leaning towards the gold standard but it is by no means a panacea. Both systems allow for economic instability and manias, but of different sorts.
Recessions and depressions are both possible with each system. Under our current system an Inflationary Depression can occur (which is what I'm betting on within a few years). Under a gold standard a Deflationary Depression is possible.
Pick your poison.
I would prefer a Deflationary Depression over the Inflationary one because the latter ends in the death of the currency. You can think of a depression as an illness in the economy- as painful as it is, imbalances are corrected in the end. But not if the patient dies!
The ID variety allows the official government propaganda and business news broadcasts to continue to trumpet how the economey is getting better, as all the "nominally" reported figures on incomes, GDP, production, etc. could continue to increase, as an ever-growing portion of the population heads to the Soup kitchens, the unemployment line, and the food stamp offices.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
Edited by zorbman (12/18/07 09:42 AM)
|
art
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/05
Posts: 331
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: zorbman]
#7773451 - 12/18/07 11:16 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zorbman said: Recessions and depressions are both possible with each system. Under our current system an Inflationary Depression can occur (which is what I'm betting on within a few years). Under a gold standard a Deflationary Depression is possible.
but it goes back to the federal reserve, my understanding of our economic system is that the federal reserve allows for a manipulation of the economy, which prevents severe inflation, or deflation. That is the federal reserves job, keep the economy steady. The gold standard makes it much more difficult to keep that equilibrium. So whether or not the federal reserve is "federal" is really irrelevant, they have kept us out of hard times many times (9/11 for example).
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: art]
#7773537 - 12/18/07 11:52 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
> So whether or not the federal reserve is "federal" is really irrelevant, they have kept us out of hard times many times (9/11 for example).
Nothing in life is free. (Disclaimer: I am an idiot when it comes to this topic, so please, be gentle.) Are we not now paying the price for the moves the fed made when lowering rates after 9/11?
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
zorbman
blarrr



Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: art]
#7773734 - 12/18/07 12:58 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
but it goes back to the federal reserve, my understanding of our economic system is that the federal reserve allows for a manipulation of the economy, which prevents severe inflation, or deflation.
In theory, yes. In reality, no.
Let me ask you something. Let's say I give you a printing press. And you keep in your basement. You use it to pay your bills. Would you be able to use it responsibly or would you have that baby smokin' like a crack pipe within days?
I would suggest to you that most people would not handle that power responsibly. Same goes for groups of people. They just dress it up a bit more in respectable language or jargon for public consumption.
That's what I like about a gold standard- or PM standard- it's fundamentally more honest. And we don't need to meet in secret on Dr. Jekyll Island to make it happen. It contains inflation, enforces fiscal discipline on government, and makes it much more difficult for government to fight needless wars. Iraq anyone?
Another thing to consider is that we've never been on a 100% gold standard in the U.S. So I don't think it is entirely accurate to blame a gold standard for our past economic problems.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
zorbman
blarrr



Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: art]
#7773773 - 12/18/07 01:13 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
This discussion is really moot because as a practical matter, the U.S. can never go on a true gold standard. The entire value of gold ever mined in the entire world is worth about $3.4 trillion, whereas the U.S. economy is currently valued at about $13.7 trillion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_gold_reserves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
art
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/05
Posts: 331
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: zorbman]
#7774282 - 12/18/07 03:39 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zorbman said: This discussion is really moot because as a practical matter, the U.S. can never go on a true gold standard. The entire value of gold ever mined in the entire world is worth about $3.4 trillion, whereas the U.S. economy is currently valued at about $13.7 trillion.
that is why the value of gold changes, and is so unstable.
what is in the federal reserves best interest is in the peoples best interest. They do not want inflation/deflation just like we don't want it. Which is why they don't have the printing press smokin like a crack pipe. It would cause deflation, which would hurt everyone. Now I don't know about not ever being 100% on the gold standard, do you have anything to back that up? It would seem to me that whether or not you are completely on the gold standard is irrelevant. Wouldn't the same problems still apply? in fact, would they not be increased?
Yes, we are still feeling the effects from the lowered rates, but the question is what if they did not lower the rates? What if there was no federal reserve, then what would have happened, and what has happened in the past. It was the federal reserve that kept the economy steady.
The federal reserve is also extremely careful about mixing politics, and economics. I don't think they are nearly as corrupt as people think they are. People like Alan Greenspan are watched soooooooooooooo closely. There are people examining everything he does.
On a side note, do all of the Ron Paul supporters on the shroomery agree with his economic policies? or do they just view the social aspect as more important? I agree with him on many social issues, but his economic policies are just to radical for me to have any support for him.
|
art
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/05
Posts: 331
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said: I haven't finished reading it yet, I just took some huge hits and need to focus on finer aspects of life , but a key point I have heard from Ron Paul regarding what he would do, regards introducing a new currency, to compete with the dollar I think that adds a new dynamic to the whole thing.... like a counter-weight, perhaps, Stability with speculation.
stability with speculation? I have never heard of that before, isn't that an oxymoron.
|
zorbman
blarrr



Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: art]
#7774454 - 12/18/07 04:26 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
that is why the value of gold changes, and is so unstable.
Not at all. Take a look at the historical price of gold below. Up until 1971 the price was remarkably steady. In 1971 President Nixon canceled the Bretton Woods system and stopped the direct convertibility of the United States dollar to gold. The earlier blip occured in 1933 when FDR confiscated the gold of American citizens.

That's about as stable as you can get.
Compare that to the "stability" of the dollar:

Notice a trend?
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
art
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/05
Posts: 331
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: zorbman]
#7774906 - 12/18/07 06:30 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
so what exactly is your point with those graphs? first of all they leave out a million other factors.
With the second graph is inflation/deflation taken into account?
what about the 1850's and the gold strike, and then the depression of 1857? now I don't think it was the gold standard that was the main cause, but from my understanding it was a big contribution.
and so how is the federal reserve supposed to regulate the economy without a sound supply of gold?
And, even if the gold standard is a fine way of doing things what makes it BETTER?
|
zorbman
blarrr



Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: art]
#7775513 - 12/18/07 08:53 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
so what exactly is your point with those graphs?
Oh nothing. I just threw them up there because I thought the colors looked pretty.
Quote:
With the second graph is inflation/deflation taken into account?
NO. Obviously that would defeat the purpose of the graph. It IS inflation described in pictorial form. Sorry, but you really should educate yourself in basic economic concepts before you try tackling this type of subject. Baby steps..
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
art
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/05
Posts: 331
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: zorbman]
#7775851 - 12/18/07 10:29 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
you don't have to be an asshole.
so then what is your point? for the past two hundred years we have had inflation, so what! Inflation is not necessarily bad, nor is it necessarily good. I am asking you to explain what your point was by using the graphs. I am real confused as to how they back up Ron Paul's economics, and on that note you have yet to respond to any of my other points on Ron Paul's economics. Now I never claimed to be an expert on economics, in fact I mentioned that I do not know much about economics, especially libertarian economics.
I have yet to see someone explain how the economy will work without the federal reserve, deficit spending, taxes, NAFTA/WTO, ect. So please almighty economic expert, enlighten me.
|
zorbman
blarrr



Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: art]
#7775916 - 12/18/07 10:59 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I thought I was being quite restrained.
Go back and re-read that post and this time notice what I was responding to when posting the graphs. Look, I don't see why I should feel obligated to respond to your every little question when you don't even grasp what I've posted thus far and fail to grasp the most basic economic concepts. That doesn't bode well for future discussion. No one else had any problem understanding it.
I can't tell if you're being purposely dense or just trolling the forum but my patience is low for people who haven't done their homework. No one is going to hold your hand and lead you through this if you don't pay them the courtesy of paying attention. 
And if you were paying attention you would also know that I haven't taken a hard-line stance in favor of the gold standard. I said I was pretty much on the fence about it. And I don't believe I've even mentioned Ron Paul so you're asking me to defend positions I do not hold. I am here to explore this issue and learn just like everyone else.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
Edited by zorbman (12/18/07 11:19 PM)
|
art
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/05
Posts: 331
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: zorbman]
#7775973 - 12/18/07 11:22 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
what the hell are you talking about. how have I not done my homework, I know exactly what you were responding to. What don't you understand about your two graphs not proving that we should adopt the gold standard? How do I fail to grasp the most basic economic concepts? I understand inflation, you are the one who does not seem to understand that inflation is not necessarily bad! which is why I am confused by your graphs! they don't prove shit! So if it is so damn basic then just fucking explain it.
I can understand you not wanting to take the time to examine every one of my points, but then don't criticize my knowledge of economics if you are not going to back it up. I didn't know that there were guidelines that restricted posts to being made only with a thorough knowledge of the subject. I thought part of discussing issues like these was to learn, and I was enjoying doing so in a none personal manner, which is why I kept coming back to this thread, so I am sorry if that is "trolling", or being "dense"
|
zorbman
blarrr



Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: art]
#7776023 - 12/18/07 11:39 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Calm down.
You said the price of gold was very unstable. Notice that I quoted your assertion just before posting the graph showing it was in fact VERY stable historically up until the time Nixon took us off the gold standard. I wasn't making an argument for or against the GS- I was merely responding to your assertion.
I then followed up with a graph of what the performance of the US dollar was during much of that same period showing it's comparative instability.
You went on to ask if the dollar inflation chart was adjusted for inflation (you're gonna laugh at that one day) but failed to understand it WAS inflation! "Adjusting it for inflation" would be ridiculous when the whole purpose of the chart was to show the rate of inflation! That is why I was questioning your basic knowledge of economics and felt you might benefit from going back and solidifying your foundation before moving onto other topics. 
Sorry if I came across as rude. I am here to learn as well.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
art
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/05
Posts: 331
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: zorbman]
#7776092 - 12/19/07 12:05 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
what I was pointing out was that there are many other factors involved in the economy. I am skeptical to the point made by the first chart, because I know that during the 1850's the gold standard caused a pretty big problem for the economy, being one of the causes for the 1857 depression. I know it has also caused a few other problems, so I was confused as to what exactly the chart proved? I was trying to get at the fact that the supply of gold is unpredictable. In the 1850's there was a huge increase in supply, now I don't know about specifics on how it affected the price of gold, but it must of had a pretty significant impact. I know that there are many other factors involved, which was what I was wondering. It seems that if the graph is correct, then there must have been another reason for the problems in the economy during the 1850's as well as other times.
I was confused by the second graph because it is obvious that America has been going through inflation. I thought that surely there was another reason for the graph than merely showing the amount of inflation we have gone, which was my question. I understand the relationship between purchasing power, and inflation. What I don't understand is how it is bad. I know the devastating effects that inflation can have, but I also know it can be extremely useful if used right, hence why we have the federal reserve.
I know that you were responding to one specific point I made, but i am trying to bring everything together since they are all related.
|
bradmassive
KingOfTheHill


Registered: 11/03/07
Posts: 866
Loc: VA
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: zorbman]
#8093661 - 03/02/08 01:03 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I was gonna start another thread because I think Ron Pauls economic policies are the most sound I've ever heard. After watching him on youtube question the Fed directly its fun to see Bernake squirm and sidestep the comments. At some points Bernake even agrees in the face of what Ron Paul saying.
-------------------- "In the beginning, I had no name. i was a shape, a snarling shadow of the Old World which slipped into this existence" - Steven Erikson "Our progress as a species rests squarely on the shoulders of that tenth person. The nine are satisfied with things they are told are valuable. Person 10 determines for himself what has value." - My good friend Za -
Edited by bradmassive (03/02/08 07:23 PM)
|
Neanderthal
Philosopher


Registered: 03/02/08
Posts: 57
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Wolfgang]
#8094817 - 03/02/08 07:03 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Greenspan once fully advocated the very same policies that Rep. Ron Paul now advocates.
http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html
As Greenspan once said, "In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation."
In essence, Greenspan disavowed his previous convictions and adopted the ideological charlatanism of the Federal Reserve. Or, to put it more bluntly, Greenspan sold out.
-------------------- "I will give you consciousness expansion that will turn your blood to ice water." -- Terence McKenna
|
Wolfgang

Registered: 11/25/07
Posts: 8,370
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Neanderthal]
#8094881 - 03/02/08 07:13 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Interesting.
|
Smackshadow
It's Time for Wild Speculation


Registered: 09/27/05
Posts: 575
Last seen: 19 days, 13 hours
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Wolfgang]
#8095553 - 03/02/08 10:26 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Gold is speculated on, that is one of the reasons it is listed on the CBOT. More over anyone here who has bought gold in coin form, bullion, exc is speculating on gold. Yet I am guessing that everyone here would agree that Gold is stable.
More over the value is the dollar is publicly traded at the discount window at the federal reserve.
People here seem to keep saying that intrinsic value is better than derived value. Why? So long as the presumptions on which the dollar is valued are stable then the dollar itself will be stable. I bought a gallon of milk today for 3.50 and guess what tomorrow I will be able to buy a gallon of milk for 3.50.
I can appreciate that inflation can hurt fixed income and savings. However if we use personal restraint on a governmental level and not go out of our way to bankrupt America then I think our currency will do pretty well.
-------------------- The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. ~H. L. Mencken~
|
bradmassive
KingOfTheHill


Registered: 11/03/07
Posts: 866
Loc: VA
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Smackshadow]
#8095566 - 03/02/08 10:34 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
The problem is they keep printing money to deal with inflation, but that only leads to the debasement of the currency, artificial interest rates and further inflation.
So they print more money again, the value of the dollar goes down and the cycle continues. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class are slowly wiped out.
Newsflash, we are already in serious debt with other countries. There is time yet to turn back the tide but if we don't act soon we are headed for one hell of a recession. There is no way our currency can do 'pretty well' under the present monetary system controlled by a privatized FED.
-------------------- "In the beginning, I had no name. i was a shape, a snarling shadow of the Old World which slipped into this existence" - Steven Erikson "Our progress as a species rests squarely on the shoulders of that tenth person. The nine are satisfied with things they are told are valuable. Person 10 determines for himself what has value." - My good friend Za -
|
bradmassive
KingOfTheHill


Registered: 11/03/07
Posts: 866
Loc: VA
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Smackshadow]
#8095584 - 03/02/08 10:42 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Another thing to think about. How is our current system true 'capitalism' if it discourages capital savings?
-------------------- "In the beginning, I had no name. i was a shape, a snarling shadow of the Old World which slipped into this existence" - Steven Erikson "Our progress as a species rests squarely on the shoulders of that tenth person. The nine are satisfied with things they are told are valuable. Person 10 determines for himself what has value." - My good friend Za -
|
memes
Blessed



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 27,785
Loc: In a Tree
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: bradmassive]
#8097342 - 03/03/08 12:25 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bradmassive said: The problem is they keep printing money to deal with inflation, but that only leads to the debasement of the currency, artificial interest rates and further inflation.
So they print more money again, the value of the dollar goes down and the cycle continues. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class are slowly wiped out.
Newsflash, we are already in serious debt with other countries. There is time yet to turn back the tide but if we don't act soon we are headed for one hell of a recession. There is no way our currency can do 'pretty well' under the present monetary system controlled by a privatized FED.
Lol. We print money to deal with inflation? I would think that the countless examples from the past would pursuade our top monetary policymakers to deter from such a plan.
You can't honestly think that they print money to deal with inflation... And if so, I'd like a reputable source pleaseeeee.
They don't even print money to increase the monetary base - so I don't know where all this is coming from. If they want to circulate more money they buy back bonds.
Am I implying that the government never prints excess monies? No - i'm saying they don't do it to combat inflation. Why? because it makes no sense.
|
Wolfgang

Registered: 11/25/07
Posts: 8,370
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Neanderthal]
#8097366 - 03/03/08 12:29 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Neanderthal said: Greenspan once fully advocated the very same policies that Rep. Ron Paul now advocates.
http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html
As Greenspan once said, "In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation."
In essence, Greenspan disavowed his previous convictions and adopted the ideological charlatanism of the Federal Reserve. Or, to put it more bluntly, Greenspan sold out.
Its not secret that Greenspan was once for those views. He himself addresses it extensively in his writings. As he explains, he encountered lots of new data and analyses that caused him to abandon his old views.
To change your views or theories when you encounter new evidence or data is not to "sell out". Its to be responsible. Albert Einstein once believed that Quantum Mechanics was a bunch of nonsense, but he eventually admitted its correctness and nobody thought the worse of him.
To not change your mind and to expect others not to ever change their minds is a sign of religious zealotry, not rational thinking and is not desirable in any field with the possible exceptions of religion and politics.
In any case, Greenspan was running several successful businesses at the time and surely took a large pay cut to work with the Fed. So its not like it was selling out in any sense of the word.
|
bradmassive
KingOfTheHill


Registered: 11/03/07
Posts: 866
Loc: VA
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: memes]
#8097529 - 03/03/08 01:07 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
meams said:
Quote:
bradmassive said: The problem is they keep printing money to deal with inflation, but that only leads to the debasement of the currency, artificial interest rates and further inflation.
So they print more money again, the value of the dollar goes down and the cycle continues. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class are slowly wiped out.
Newsflash, we are already in serious debt with other countries. There is time yet to turn back the tide but if we don't act soon we are headed for one hell of a recession. There is no way our currency can do 'pretty well' under the present monetary system controlled by a privatized FED.
Lol. We print money to deal with inflation? I would think that the countless examples from the past would pursuade our top monetary policymakers to deter from such a plan.
You can't honestly think that they print money to deal with inflation... And if so, I'd like a reputable source pleaseeeee.
They don't even print money to increase the monetary base - so I don't know where all this is coming from. If they want to circulate more money they buy back bonds.
Am I implying that the government never prints excess monies? No - i'm saying they don't do it to combat inflation. Why? because it makes no sense.
I was typing to fast and not thinking. Printing money to lower interest rates is what I meant to say.
-------------------- "In the beginning, I had no name. i was a shape, a snarling shadow of the Old World which slipped into this existence" - Steven Erikson "Our progress as a species rests squarely on the shoulders of that tenth person. The nine are satisfied with things they are told are valuable. Person 10 determines for himself what has value." - My good friend Za -
|
Neanderthal
Philosopher


Registered: 03/02/08
Posts: 57
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Wolfgang]
#8098199 - 03/03/08 03:54 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Wolfgang said:
Quote:
Neanderthal said: Greenspan once fully advocated the very same policies that Rep. Ron Paul now advocates.
http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html
As Greenspan once said, "In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation."
In essence, Greenspan disavowed his previous convictions and adopted the ideological charlatanism of the Federal Reserve. Or, to put it more bluntly, Greenspan sold out.
Its not secret that Greenspan was once for those views. He himself addresses it extensively in his writings. As he explains, he encountered lots of new data and analyses that caused him to abandon his old views.
To change your views or theories when you encounter new evidence or data is not to "sell out". Its to be responsible. Albert Einstein once believed that Quantum Mechanics was a bunch of nonsense, but he eventually admitted its correctness and nobody thought the worse of him.
To not change your mind and to expect others not to ever change their minds is a sign of religious zealotry, not rational thinking and is not desirable in any field with the possible exceptions of religion and politics.
In any case, Greenspan was running several successful businesses at the time and surely took a large pay cut to work with the Fed. So its not like it was selling out in any sense of the word.
Certainly we should all be willing to cast aside outmoded ideas and beliefs if compelled by new evidence or reasoning. However, simply because a person has changed beliefs does not mean it was due to better evidence or reasoning!
-------------------- "I will give you consciousness expansion that will turn your blood to ice water." -- Terence McKenna
|
kristofer
Oneironaut


Registered: 01/01/06
Posts: 230
Loc: Indianapolis
Last seen: 8 years, 1 month
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Neanderthal]
#8098534 - 03/03/08 05:11 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Ron Paul does have some scary economic ideas. He believes free markets work. Time tells otherwise, which is why we switched to a federal reserve in the first place. During the great depression the flow of capital collapsed because all the money was tied up in this "stock market" concept. Capital is the only motivation for labor, and that's where our goods and services come from. If the capital flow stops, so does production of goods and services.
That is the biggest issue with free market economies.
The free market also fails to prevent monopolies from controlling particular markets within it. It also doesn't allow for some necessary local monopolies (like natural gas and electricity) to serve communities.
Going back to the way things were isn't an acceptable solution. In that case value is directly related to the scarcity of a particular commodity (like gold).
All economic concepts based on capital will have to struggle with the occasional recession or worse, a depression, and it's largely due to the fact that people are unpredictable.
Ron Paul's ideas aren't novel. They failed in the past, and they'll fail in the future.
-------------------- dewbie dewbie dew
|
Neanderthal
Philosopher


Registered: 03/02/08
Posts: 57
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: kristofer]
#8098818 - 03/03/08 06:00 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
kristofer said: Ron Paul does have some scary economic ideas. He believes free markets work. Time tells otherwise, which is why we switched to a federal reserve in the first place. During the great depression the flow of capital collapsed because all the money was tied up in this "stock market" concept.
Chairman Bernanke has openly blamed the Federal Reserve for the Great Depression.
The free market does work--no one can (or does) predict perfect monetary stability, just more stability than our current monopolized behemoth.
-------------------- "I will give you consciousness expansion that will turn your blood to ice water." -- Terence McKenna
|
bradmassive
KingOfTheHill


Registered: 11/03/07
Posts: 866
Loc: VA
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: kristofer]
#8098881 - 03/03/08 06:12 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
kristofer said: The free market also fails to prevent monopolies from controlling particular markets within it. It also doesn't allow for some necessary local monopolies (like natural gas and electricity) to serve communities.
Quote:
No, as i stated before, monopolies only thrive with government run 'corporate capitalism'. In a free market competition to produce the best quality product (because the prices are dictated by the market, not by the FED). This is why in a free-market one of the only ways a monopoly could exist is if it had the best quality and value for money product.
Going back to the way things were isn't an acceptable solution. In that case value is directly related to the scarcity of a particular commodity (like gold).
Quote:
Got anything to back this statement up?
-------------------- "In the beginning, I had no name. i was a shape, a snarling shadow of the Old World which slipped into this existence" - Steven Erikson "Our progress as a species rests squarely on the shoulders of that tenth person. The nine are satisfied with things they are told are valuable. Person 10 determines for himself what has value." - My good friend Za -
|
kristofer
Oneironaut


Registered: 01/01/06
Posts: 230
Loc: Indianapolis
Last seen: 8 years, 1 month
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Neanderthal]
#8099194 - 03/03/08 07:20 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Chairman Bernanke has openly blamed the Federal Reserve for the Great Depression.
The free market does work--no one can (or does) predict perfect monetary stability, just more stability than our current monopolized behemoth.
Quote:
The paper you linked to explains that countries who abandoned the gold standard came out of the depression faster than countries that continued to use the gold standard.
Countries that avoided use the gold standard altogether did not see problems in their local economies.
It expounded on that thought by explaining how countries that abandoned the standard after black tuesday came out of depression in a relatively short period of time, while countries that continued to use the standard dealt with depression for another decade.
Using gold or any precious commodity as a standard for value is insane. Using time makes a lot more sense. Every person has the same number of hours in a day.
-------------------- dewbie dewbie dew
|
kristofer
Oneironaut


Registered: 01/01/06
Posts: 230
Loc: Indianapolis
Last seen: 8 years, 1 month
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: bradmassive]
#8099210 - 03/03/08 07:25 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Got anything to back this statement up?
well, there's the paper that Neanderthal linked me to. It's a pretty decent reference to the great depression and how money backed by gold gives some countries unfair trading capacity because they just have more of it.
we see the same issue now with oil. our money isn't backed by oil, but it's scarcity means it's valuable. oil producing nations provide absolutely nothing else to the global economy, but the impact they have is dramatic.
-------------------- dewbie dewbie dew
|
bradmassive
KingOfTheHill


Registered: 11/03/07
Posts: 866
Loc: VA
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: kristofer]
#8099242 - 03/03/08 07:35 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
So your argument is that its 'unfair'? I see.....
-------------------- "In the beginning, I had no name. i was a shape, a snarling shadow of the Old World which slipped into this existence" - Steven Erikson "Our progress as a species rests squarely on the shoulders of that tenth person. The nine are satisfied with things they are told are valuable. Person 10 determines for himself what has value." - My good friend Za -
|
kristofer
Oneironaut


Registered: 01/01/06
Posts: 230
Loc: Indianapolis
Last seen: 8 years, 1 month
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: bradmassive]
#8099299 - 03/03/08 07:49 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
well fairness is reason enough for us to wage war on helpless nations. we want fair oil prices goddamnit.
speaking of which, did you take the time to read that 12 page document about the repercussions of the gold standard on economies during the great depression?
-------------------- dewbie dewbie dew
Edited by kristofer (03/03/08 07:58 PM)
|
bradmassive
KingOfTheHill


Registered: 11/03/07
Posts: 866
Loc: VA
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: kristofer]
#8099318 - 03/03/08 07:55 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Lets not mix issues of foreign policy and economic policy here.
No I haven't read it yet.
-------------------- "In the beginning, I had no name. i was a shape, a snarling shadow of the Old World which slipped into this existence" - Steven Erikson "Our progress as a species rests squarely on the shoulders of that tenth person. The nine are satisfied with things they are told are valuable. Person 10 determines for himself what has value." - My good friend Za -
|
kristofer
Oneironaut


Registered: 01/01/06
Posts: 230
Loc: Indianapolis
Last seen: 8 years, 1 month
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: bradmassive]
#8099366 - 03/03/08 08:08 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not trying to mix the two here, but fairness is legitimate. It's the entire purpose of having a standard to base value on in the first place. I was just pointing out that contradiction in the capitalist ideology.
-------------------- dewbie dewbie dew
|
bradmassive
KingOfTheHill


Registered: 11/03/07
Posts: 866
Loc: VA
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: kristofer]
#8099428 - 03/03/08 08:25 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
You were mixing the two. There is no contradiction as the world isn't a 'fair' place. Who are we even trying to be fair too? The 'global community'? Are we trying to setup a global standard? Dude, thats a step toward a global economy. We don't want that.
I'm drifting into foreign policy here but countries have different commodities. That is the way of the world and is a good reason for establishing healthy trade relations with other countries. Other nations can base their standard on whatever they like.
Gold happens to be a good, stable standard for the U.S.
-------------------- "In the beginning, I had no name. i was a shape, a snarling shadow of the Old World which slipped into this existence" - Steven Erikson "Our progress as a species rests squarely on the shoulders of that tenth person. The nine are satisfied with things they are told are valuable. Person 10 determines for himself what has value." - My good friend Za -
Edited by bradmassive (03/03/08 08:33 PM)
|
Wolfgang

Registered: 11/25/07
Posts: 8,370
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Neanderthal]
#8099518 - 03/03/08 08:55 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Neanderthal said:
Quote:
Wolfgang said:
Quote:
Neanderthal said: Greenspan once fully advocated the very same policies that Rep. Ron Paul now advocates.
http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html
As Greenspan once said, "In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation."
In essence, Greenspan disavowed his previous convictions and adopted the ideological charlatanism of the Federal Reserve. Or, to put it more bluntly, Greenspan sold out.
Its not secret that Greenspan was once for those views. He himself addresses it extensively in his writings. As he explains, he encountered lots of new data and analyses that caused him to abandon his old views.
To change your views or theories when you encounter new evidence or data is not to "sell out". Its to be responsible. Albert Einstein once believed that Quantum Mechanics was a bunch of nonsense, but he eventually admitted its correctness and nobody thought the worse of him.
To not change your mind and to expect others not to ever change their minds is a sign of religious zealotry, not rational thinking and is not desirable in any field with the possible exceptions of religion and politics.
In any case, Greenspan was running several successful businesses at the time and surely took a large pay cut to work with the Fed. So its not like it was selling out in any sense of the word.
Certainly we should all be willing to cast aside outmoded ideas and beliefs if compelled by new evidence or reasoning. However, simply because a person has changed beliefs does not mean it was due to better evidence or reasoning!
Sure, but he has written many things in extreme detail as to why he switched views. He lists how his data and reasoning changed. This is not some mysterious shift that happened. He has been very public about it, and has written and talked about it extensively. If you actually look for it, you can find plenty of stuff by Greenspan on the subject.
|
kristofer
Oneironaut


Registered: 01/01/06
Posts: 230
Loc: Indianapolis
Last seen: 8 years, 1 month
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: bradmassive]
#8099932 - 03/03/08 10:40 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I'm drifting into foreign policy here but countries have different commodities. That is the way of the world and is a good reason for establishing healthy trade relations with other countries. Other nations can base their standard on whatever they like.
totally agreed there. and the world isn't a fair place. but the purpose for standardizing our currency on gold is to provide a fair commodity to relate the value of other commodities to.
Basing value on the scarcity of a commodity doesn't stabilize value at all. If the commodity's scarcity changes so does value.
Beyond that, I don't understand how a gold based monetary system puts money back in the pockets of the people.
-------------------- dewbie dewbie dew
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: bradmassive]
#8100562 - 03/04/08 05:45 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bradmassive said: Dude, thats a step toward a global economy. We don't want that.
Uh, there already is a global economy. We do want that; its the only reason why we won't war with China and they won't war with us. The economy is common ground that unites everyone on this planet. Have you heard of free trade?
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: kristofer]
#8100568 - 03/04/08 05:48 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
kristofer said: Basing value on the scarcity of a commodity doesn't stabilize value at all. If the commodity's scarcity changes so does value.
Is there even enough gold to represent the value of an economy the size of the United States? The only value gold has is the abstract value that human beings assign to it. Obviously it might have more valuable as a tangible thing, but, as you've demonstrated, a tangible thing has its limitations in representing value. If a money supply was properly managed, there wouldn't be anyone talking about a gold standard. I think there were depressions in the 1800's... is that right?
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
bradmassive
KingOfTheHill


Registered: 11/03/07
Posts: 866
Loc: VA
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
bradmassive said: Dude, thats a step toward a global economy. We don't want that.
Uh, there already is a global economy. We do want that; its the only reason why we won't war with China and they won't war with us. The economy is common ground that unites everyone on this planet. Have you heard of free trade?
Jesus, I meant global currency and I think you knew that.
-------------------- "In the beginning, I had no name. i was a shape, a snarling shadow of the Old World which slipped into this existence" - Steven Erikson "Our progress as a species rests squarely on the shoulders of that tenth person. The nine are satisfied with things they are told are valuable. Person 10 determines for himself what has value." - My good friend Za -
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: bradmassive]
#8100795 - 03/04/08 08:25 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Actually I was skimming through and I thought that is what you meant.
Okay, so as someone who hasn't read into the matter at all, tell me why you think we don't want a global currency.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
bradmassive
KingOfTheHill


Registered: 11/03/07
Posts: 866
Loc: VA
|
|
Global currency is one step closer to a global bank and centralization of power leading to global government. I have a hard time believing that a global currency or global government would be feasible given the vast number of political and economic issues involved.
There are so many problems with it not least that global currency would undermine national sovereignty. National sovereignty is integral to maintaining healthy political and trade relations with other nations.
So thats what I think about that.
-------------------- "In the beginning, I had no name. i was a shape, a snarling shadow of the Old World which slipped into this existence" - Steven Erikson "Our progress as a species rests squarely on the shoulders of that tenth person. The nine are satisfied with things they are told are valuable. Person 10 determines for himself what has value." - My good friend Za -
Edited by bradmassive (03/04/08 09:10 AM)
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: bradmassive]
#8100905 - 03/04/08 09:09 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I thought there already was a world bank?
But yeah, I was just interested in your thoughts on the matter, I really don't have a stance one way or another on the whole global government thing.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
bradmassive
KingOfTheHill


Registered: 11/03/07
Posts: 866
Loc: VA
|
|
..
-------------------- "In the beginning, I had no name. i was a shape, a snarling shadow of the Old World which slipped into this existence" - Steven Erikson "Our progress as a species rests squarely on the shoulders of that tenth person. The nine are satisfied with things they are told are valuable. Person 10 determines for himself what has value." - My good friend Za -
Edited by bradmassive (03/04/08 12:31 PM)
|
kristofer
Oneironaut


Registered: 01/01/06
Posts: 230
Loc: Indianapolis
Last seen: 8 years, 1 month
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: bradmassive]
#8101005 - 03/04/08 10:05 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Global currency is one step closer to a global bank and centralization of power leading to global government. I have a hard time believing that a global currency or global government would be feasible given the vast number of political and economic issues involved.
A gold standard isn't going to change globalization. Capitalists are always looking to hoard another dollar, and exploiting the labor markets in developing countries is an easy way to turn a profit.
-------------------- dewbie dewbie dew
|
Neanderthal
Philosopher


Registered: 03/02/08
Posts: 57
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: kristofer]
#8101525 - 03/04/08 01:09 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
kristofer said: exploiting the labor markets in developing countries is an easy way to turn a profit.
-------------------- "I will give you consciousness expansion that will turn your blood to ice water." -- Terence McKenna
|
kristofer
Oneironaut


Registered: 01/01/06
Posts: 230
Loc: Indianapolis
Last seen: 8 years, 1 month
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Neanderthal]
#8103316 - 03/04/08 08:47 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I didn't say it wasn't necessary for a developing capitalist economy. It doesn't make it right though.
-------------------- dewbie dewbie dew
|
kahmura
BADBADNOTGOOD


Registered: 02/26/12
Posts: 7
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: Wolfgang]
#16414194 - 06/21/12 12:29 PM (11 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Where to begin. first of all this is a complete myth when you say we have had unqualified success for the past 25 years because you have nothing to compare that growth too( a system of laissez faire markets/ sound monetary policy.) what a fiat currency creates in monetary systems and Keynesian policy is something called the business cycle. the fed controls the interest rates at which the banks make loans from the fed. for years the fed kept the interest rates below one percent or around there flooding the markets with easily accessible credit causing a credit boom. this is basic Keynesian theory. under Keynesian theory to encourage growth you must create easy credit. however there are MAJOR flaws with this system. first off when the fed loans out the money, the money doesn't come from already circulating capital meant for centralized reinvestment( as Keynes himself originally intended), it comes from thin air. to make the situation even worse, the banks only are required to hold ten percent of the capital they claim to posses and can therefore go and lend the other 90% out. this is called fractional reserve baking. this is a recipe for hyperinflation causing our purchasing power to decrease and prices to increase. but even the feds themselves realize this and therefore they must eventually raise interest rates. this creates the business cycle. easy credit floods markets(called quantitative easing, usually practiced after a bust), short term growth, interest rates rise, creditors can't supply investors with original loan, borrowers default, bubble bursts and the cycle restarts. these cycles are getting worse and worse as time progresses.
The cycles must come to end eventually because of two reasons. if we decide to keep inflating the money supply we will suffer an inflationary implosion. the other much more likely scenario which will play out in the coming years is that we will keep borrowing more and more causing the rising powers of the east to take us off the world reserve currency status which allows us to print as much money as we want. when that happens all hell breaks loose. we will no longer be able to finance our debt causing all sorts of obvious problems.
i hope that explains to you why Keynesian policy is BAD and so is the fed( which is a fucking private bank looking out for its friends.). what we need is to remove the monopoly on monetary policy they control. we need parallel currency competition, with gold standard or other wise( by the way gold standards are immune to the business cycle pretty much because it pegs the value and encourages steady economic growth along with saving and smart investment). the fed isn't the only problem however. there is also the disgusting convoluted monster our government has become. if we really want economic growth we need to remove all the special interest regulation we have and allow the wonderful forces of natural selection, competition, contractual agreement, VOLUNTARY association and the free market do its work unhindered by an out of control central governments ridiculous economic intervention that only results in negative unintended consequences.
ron paul follows Austrian economics a much more logical and liberty minded school of thought. if you want to know more about Austrian economics you should research it or read hayek etc. or just simply study libertarian philosophy:thumb up: hope this helped
|
starfire_xes
I Am 'They'



Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 7 months, 1 day
|
Re: Ron Paul's Economics [Re: kahmura]
#16416572 - 06/21/12 07:22 PM (11 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Kenyan economics doesnt work.
|
|