CNN Editorial: Ron Paul - Future of GOP

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

All of you limited government types should want a commodity money standard – there is no better way to restrain government than keeping it from printing money at will. No, you would not be able to send the military over seas whenever you wanted but neither would you need to worry about socialized medicine either.

And even though Paul is for gold as money he has stated that he doesn’t know what the market would choose. The point is that money is created in the market and it would ultimately be up to the market to determine that. Historically, gold was chosen because of the properties it carries that make it useful as an exchange medium. With the advent of technology perhaps something else would come along but no one can know better than the market and no one can force a standard. Exchanges are mutual and one person cannot force another to accept something he doesn’t want – that goes for paper currency too.

22

[quote]orion wrote:
Really, you make the government back off, but let them control the currency?

How?

As long as they have the currency, they have the key to their own chastity belt.
[/quote]
I just don’t get how people cannot understand this point. There will never be limited government as long as government has the ability to print money whenever it wants.

And this isn’t even taking into consideration the moral implications of such actions either.

23

[quote]orion wrote:
Really, you make the government back off, but let them control the currency?[/quote]

Yes.

The economy has exploded since coming off the gold standard. The full faith and credit of the US Government is better than gold. Or at least should be when government spending is controlled.

I don’t want to go back to a finite pie.

[quote]As long as they have the currency, they have the key to their own chastity belt.
[/quote]

Which is why we need fiscally conservative representation, and an elimination of life time civil servants.

24

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
Really, you make the government back off, but let them control the currency?

How?

As long as they have the currency, they have the key to their own chastity belt.

I just don’t get how people cannot understand this point. There will never be limited government as long as government has the ability to print money whenever it wants.

And this isn’t even taking into consideration the moral implications of such actions either.[/quote]

Your definition of limited government is nowhere close to my definition of limited government.

But you are an anarchist, so that should tell you something right there.

25

[quote]rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
Really, you make the government back off, but let them control the currency?

How?

As long as they have the currency, they have the key to their own chastity belt.

I just don’t get how people cannot understand this point. There will never be limited government as long as government has the ability to print money whenever it wants.

And this isn’t even taking into consideration the moral implications of such actions either.

Your definition of limited government is nowhere close to my definition of limited government.

But you are an anarchist, so that should tell you something right there. [/quote]

Was the government big enough for you pre-WWI?

26

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Was the government big enough for you pre-WWI?[/quote]

I don’t have a huge problem with the Federal Reserve, if that is what you are angling for.

27

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Really, you make the government back off, but let them control the currency?

Yes.

The economy has exploded since coming off the gold standard. The full faith and credit of the US Government is better than gold. Or at least should be when government spending is controlled.

I don’t want to go back to a finite pie.

As long as they have the currency, they have the key to their own chastity belt.

Which is why we need fiscally conservative representation, and an elimination of life time civil servants. [/quote]

You would not have a finite pie but a finite money supply.

That is in no way, shape or form the same.

28

[quote]rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Was the government big enough for you pre-WWI?

I don’t have a huge problem with the Federal Reserve, if that is what you are angling for.

[/quote]

That is because you do not recognize that makes all things that do bother you possible.

29

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Really, you make the government back off, but let them control the currency?

Yes.

The economy has exploded since coming off the gold standard. The full faith and credit of the US Government is better than gold. Or at least should be when government spending is controlled.

I don’t want to go back to a finite pie.

As long as they have the currency, they have the key to their own chastity belt.

Which is why we need fiscally conservative representation, and an elimination of life time civil servants.

You would not have a finite pie but a finite money supply.

That is in no way, shape or form the same.

[/quote]

Going back to the gold standard would ruin the world economy. Just about every currency in the world is either pegged to the dollar, or free floating on its own.

You wan the US to go back to the gold standard, yet the Euro is not on it either. Why is it so important to you that the US adopt a horribly regressive economic policy but not so much for the EU?

30

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Was the government big enough for you pre-WWI?

I don’t have a huge problem with the Federal Reserve, if that is what you are angling for.

That is because you do not recognize that makes all things that do bother you possible.[/quote]

We can have a fiscally responsible government without committing economic suicide to get there.

There would be outright panic in the streets if the US did what you and the rest of the anti-fiat money crowd pine for.

31

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Really, you make the government back off, but let them control the currency?

Yes.

The economy has exploded since coming off the gold standard. The full faith and credit of the US Government is better than gold. Or at least should be when government spending is controlled.

I don’t want to go back to a finite pie.

As long as they have the currency, they have the key to their own chastity belt.

Which is why we need fiscally conservative representation, and an elimination of life time civil servants.

You would not have a finite pie but a finite money supply.

That is in no way, shape or form the same.

Going back to the gold standard would ruin the world economy. Just about every currency in the world is either pegged to the dollar, or free floating on its own.

You wan the US to go back to the gold standard, yet the Euro is not on it either. Why is it so important to you that the US adopt a horribly regressive economic policy but not so much for the EU?
[/quote]

It would not ruin the world economy.

It would however destroy whole industries that could not exist without faux money and constant inflation.

It would cause incredible withdrawal systems, that is for sure.

Since we will all have to go through that anyway, drawing it out is just going to hurt more in the end.

And finally I reject the “regressive economic policy” part. How do you know, that central banking and fiat currency is not merely a blind alley? Just because a lot of people who are married to the system say so?

I can tell you why we have fiat currency, because it makes fractional reserve banking much, much safer.

Otherwise, every bank would have to have enough money left to deal with a bank run, otherwise they would perish. However if a central bank can just sprinkle money on them like fairy dust whenever they want, banks are relatively safe.

I repeat: Central banking only makes sense when you want to grant banks the privilege to lend out more money than they actually have and demand interest for the money they do not even have.

So, bankers are not for it, central bankers are not for it, politicians are definitely not for it, but that does not change the fact that returning to commodity money is the only way to stop the constant plundering of every person that lives in such a system.

32

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Really, you make the government back off, but let them control the currency?

Yes.

The economy has exploded since coming off the gold standard. The full faith and credit of the US Government is better than gold. Or at least should be when government spending is controlled.

I don’t want to go back to a finite pie.

As long as they have the currency, they have the key to their own chastity belt.

Which is why we need fiscally conservative representation, and an elimination of life time civil servants.

You would not have a finite pie but a finite money supply.

That is in no way, shape or form the same.

Going back to the gold standard would ruin the world economy. Just about every currency in the world is either pegged to the dollar, or free floating on its own.

You wan the US to go back to the gold standard, yet the Euro is not on it either. Why is it so important to you that the US adopt a horribly regressive economic policy but not so much for the EU?
[/quote]

And I am still waiting for the argument why a fixed money supply would somehow kill the American economy?

33

[quote]orion wrote:
And I am still waiting for the argument why a fixed money supply would somehow kill the American economy?
[/quote]

Where would credit come from?

34

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
And I am still waiting for the argument why a fixed money supply would somehow kill the American economy?

Where would credit come from?[/quote]

Where does it come from now?

edit: and I am not trying to be an ass, I just want you too think of where it must come from now, to realize that creating new money cannot create new “credit”.

35

I liked his anti-war stance, but didn’t like his actual PLAN for immediate troop removal.

[Can’t believe I’m saying this] I’m with RJ on his gold standard kick.

I liked everything else though. Ron Paul helped make me (and many other young people like me) a libertarian, and for that, he deserves kudos.

He isn’t the candidate for the conservative movement, however. He comes off as a kook. We need someone with more vocal force.

36

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
And I am still waiting for the argument why a fixed money supply would somehow kill the American economy?

Where would credit come from?[/quote]

I just realized that that question probably was meant differently:

I think lots of people would be willing to lend a bank their money for a fee, for a week. Some for a month, some for a year.

A bank bundles all that money and lends huge sums to corporations.

That is what banks initially did, turning small short term loans into big long term loans.

37

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I’m with RJ on his gold standard kick.

I liked everything else though.[/quote]

How is that possible?

Almost “everything else” is related to that?

38

[quote]orion wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I’m with RJ on his gold standard kick.

I liked everything else though.

How is that possible?

Almost “everything else” is related to that?

[/quote]

You are being very myopic.

No government spending outside that which is explicitly enumerated in the constitution (that is Paul’s stance, no?) would clip the wings of the rabid money printing, as it will effectively remove deficit spending.

No need to crush the economy in an attempt to be the only fucking country on the planet using the gold standard.

The thing everything is kin to is not the Federal Reserve, but government’s out of control spending.

How in the hell does the Fed have anything to do with strict constructionist interpretations of the constitution?

39

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I’m with RJ on his gold standard kick.

I liked everything else though.

How is that possible?

Almost “everything else” is related to that?

You are being very myopic.

No government spending outside that which is explicitly enumerated in the constitution (that is Paul’s stance, no?) would clip the wings of the rabid money printing, as it will effectively remove deficit spending.

No need to crush the economy in an attempt to be the only fucking country on the planet using the gold standard.

The thing everything is kin to is not the Federal Reserve, but government’s out of control spending.

How in the hell does the Fed have anything to do with strict constructionist interpretations of the constitution?

[/quote]

Well first of all, how could the Fed exist “with strict constructionist interpretations of the constitution” ?

40

[quote]orion wrote:
Well first of all, how could the Fed exist “with strict constructionist interpretations of the constitution” ?
[/quote]

It has its roots in the early formation of this country, so the Fed is not a complete departure from some of the founding father’s thinking. And there was in fact a Federal Bank as far back as 1791. Google Alexander Hamilton.

The Government has had the right to print currency since the beginning.

I don’t see the huge departure from the constitution that you and a few anarchists seem to.