CNN Editorial: Ron Paul - Future of GOP

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

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

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.

[/quote]

Ah, you start to pick and chose what of the constitution is important to you and what is not?

Maybe try to twist a word here and there to make the meaning fit your intentions?

You asked, I answered.

Congress has the right to mint coins, not even to declare them legal tender, just to mint coins and if the states decide to issue legal tender they must be in gold and silver.

Just because you think that that is not important does not mean it does not matter.

Remember the phrase: “not worth a Continental”?

Do you really think congress had already forgotten the lesson?

42

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
In retrospect, we got a ‘cut/run’ administration anyway and even if RP (as Pres) pushed the Gold Standard, it wouldn’t happen anyway.

The other 95% of the time he’s right on would have been worth the gamble.[/quote]

I agree. Republicans turned their noses up and called him a kook. Now they’ve got Obama for their ignorance. Freaked out by the gold standard talk… ? That’s the only strike against him and they went ice cold with anarchist fear mania, stood idly by as McCain was destined for failure and the socialist opponent rose to power. Great strategy you fucking geniuses. Hind sight is indeed 20/20…lets not forget in 2012.

43

[quote]orion wrote:
Ah, you start to pick and chose what of the constitution is important to you and what is not?

Maybe try to twist a word here and there to make the meaning fit your intentions?[/quote]

I’m not trying to twist anything. A central bank has always been part of the national debate. I happen to agree with that line of thought as did quite a few signers of the constitution. Maybe they were the ones twisting the facts.

[quote]You asked, I answered.

Congress has the right to mint coins, not even to declare them legal tender, just to mint coins and if the states decide to issue legal tender they must be in gold and silver.

Just because you think that that is not important does not mean it does not matter.
[/quote]

When did this become a states’ rights issue?

[quote]Remember the phrase: “not worth a Continental”?

Do you really think congress had already forgotten the lesson?

[/quote]

The continental was a wartime currency.

Who is twisting facts now?

44

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Ah, you start to pick and chose what of the constitution is important to you and what is not?

Maybe try to twist a word here and there to make the meaning fit your intentions?

I’m not trying to twist anything. A central bank has always been part of the national debate. I happen to agree with that line of thought as did quite a few signers of the constitution. Maybe they were the ones twisting the facts.

You asked, I answered.

Congress has the right to mint coins, not even to declare them legal tender, just to mint coins and if the states decide to issue legal tender they must be in gold and silver.

Just because you think that that is not important does not mean it does not matter.

When did this become a states’ rights issue?

Remember the phrase: “not worth a Continental”?

Do you really think congress had already forgotten the lesson?

The continental was a wartime currency.

Who is twisting facts now?

[/quote]

The continental was a PAPER currency, whatever else it might have been.

Plus, it always has been a state rights issue.

I do not really understand your point of view. If you do not like what is written in the constitution, change it. If you cannot do that, accept what is written in there.

If someone pranced around the second amendment like you do now you´d be all over him.

45

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Ah, you start to pick and chose what of the constitution is important to you and what is not?

Maybe try to twist a word here and there to make the meaning fit your intentions?

I’m not trying to twist anything. A central bank has always been part of the national debate. I happen to agree with that line of thought as did quite a few signers of the constitution. Maybe they were the ones twisting the facts.

You asked, I answered.

Congress has the right to mint coins, not even to declare them legal tender, just to mint coins and if the states decide to issue legal tender they must be in gold and silver.

Just because you think that that is not important does not mean it does not matter.

When did this become a states’ rights issue?

Remember the phrase: “not worth a Continental”?

Do you really think congress had already forgotten the lesson?

The continental was a wartime currency.

Who is twisting facts now?

The continental was a PAPER currency, whatever else it might have been.

Plus, it always has been a state rights issue.

I do not really understand your point of view. If you do not like what is written in the constitution, change it. If you cannot do that, accept what is written in there.

If someone pranced around the second amendment like you do now you´d be all over him.[/quote]

Maybe, maybe not. If someone is spouting anti-second amendment arguments that have been around since before the constitution was even penned - then I would probably have to give their argument a certain amount of credence.

I am not espousing anything new, or anything that hasn’t been part of the national debate since the formation of this nation.

But you have done nothing to dissuade the notion that fiscal responsibility would completely marginalize your arguments against a fiat monetary system.

The dollar will never be a continental - no matter how badly you wish it to be true.

46

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Ah, you start to pick and chose what of the constitution is important to you and what is not?

Maybe try to twist a word here and there to make the meaning fit your intentions?

I’m not trying to twist anything. A central bank has always been part of the national debate. I happen to agree with that line of thought as did quite a few signers of the constitution. Maybe they were the ones twisting the facts.

You asked, I answered.

Congress has the right to mint coins, not even to declare them legal tender, just to mint coins and if the states decide to issue legal tender they must be in gold and silver.

Just because you think that that is not important does not mean it does not matter.

When did this become a states’ rights issue?

Remember the phrase: “not worth a Continental”?

Do you really think congress had already forgotten the lesson?

The continental was a wartime currency.

Who is twisting facts now?

The continental was a PAPER currency, whatever else it might have been.

Plus, it always has been a state rights issue.

I do not really understand your point of view. If you do not like what is written in the constitution, change it. If you cannot do that, accept what is written in there.

If someone pranced around the second amendment like you do now you´d be all over him.

Maybe, maybe not. If someone is spouting anti-second amendment arguments that have been around since before the constitution was even penned - then I would probably have to give their argument a certain amount of credence.

I am not espousing anything new, or anything that hasn’t been part of the national debate since the formation of this nation.

But you have done nothing to dissuade the notion that fiscal responsibility would completely marginalize your arguments against a fiat monetary system.

The dollar will never be a continental - no matter how badly you wish it to be true.

[/quote]

The dollar has lost 99% of its value since the day the Fed was founded.

I honestly think that that is bad enough.

Now, if Governments were able to control themselves the need for a commodity money would be greatly diminished and if pigs had wings they probably could fly.

With a gold standard governments must be fiscally responsible, without it they get rewarded if they aren´t.

You have seen a conservative revolution and how quickly those people got accustomed to Washington mores.

For Ron Pauls course of action you have to ram through a gold standard once, for your course of action you must elect honest and responsible people into both houses over and over and over again.

Seriously, what is more likely to succeed?

47

[quote]orion wrote:
The dollar has lost 99% of its value since the day the Fed was founded.

I honestly think that that is bad enough.[/quote]

Yet the rest of the world pegs their currency to the dollar. If we are going to hell, the rest of the world is either completely stupid, or your doomsday outlook is quite overstated.

Getting the government to stop spending is exponentially more feasible than trying to stuff an overweight Genie into an undersized bottle.

Can you name a major 1st world nation that is on the gold standard?

That is the fault of the people for not paying atention to what was going on.

[quote]For Ron Pauls course of action you have to ram through a gold standard once, for your course of action you must elect honest and responsible people into both houses over and over and over again.

Seriously, what is more likely to succeed? [/quote]

Going back to the gold standard will never happen short of a complete meltdown of all world governments. You can’t just demand the US regress without doing the same for the rest of the world.

Term limits would go a long way towards increasing the odds of keeping the mindset of our representatives on track.

48

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
The dollar has lost 99% of its value since the day the Fed was founded.

I honestly think that that is bad enough.

Yet the rest of the world pegs their currency to the dollar. If we are going to hell, the rest of the world is either completely stupid, or your doomsday outlook is quite overstated.

Now, if Governments were able to control themselves the need for a commodity money would be greatly diminished and if pigs had wings they probably could fly.

Getting the government to stop spending is exponentially more feasible than trying to stuff an overweight Genie into an undersized bottle.

With a gold standard governments must be fiscally responsible, without it they get rewarded if they aren´t.

Can you name a major 1st world nation that is on the gold standard?

You have seen a conservative revolution and how quickly those people got accustomed to Washington mores.

That is the fault of the people for not paying atention to what was going on.

For Ron Pauls course of action you have to ram through a gold standard once, for your course of action you must elect honest and responsible people into both houses over and over and over again.

Seriously, what is more likely to succeed?

Going back to the gold standard will never happen short of a complete meltdown of all world governments. You can’t just demand the US regress without doing the same for the rest of the world.

Term limits would go a long way towards increasing the odds of keeping the mindset of our representatives on track.

[/quote]

Jesus, where did you get this “regress” thing from?

Someone must have sold you the idea that a Fed and fiat money are a good thing.

How?

49

[quote]orion wrote:
Jesus, where did you get this “regress” thing from?[/quote]

Common sense maybe? The anti-fiat crowd seems to be blind to the glaring fact that you can’t just snap your fingers and switch from fiat to commodity with no repercussions. Like I have said at least twice before - you can’t simply put the genie back in the bottle.

[quote]Someone must have sold you the idea that a Fed and fiat money are a good thing.

How?

[/quote]

Alexander Hamilton.

I can read and understand at the same time.

50

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Jesus, where did you get this “regress” thing from?

Common sense maybe? The anti-fiat crowd seems to be blind to the glaring fact that you can’t just snap your fingers and switch from fiat to commodity with no repercussions. Like I have said at least twice before - you can’t simply put the genie back in the bottle.

Someone must have sold you the idea that a Fed and fiat money are a good thing.

How?

Alexander Hamilton.

I can read and understand at the same time.
[/quote]

I agree that the government with fiat money, taxes, subsidies and tariffs have created an economy that is so distorted that if all of that suddenly disappeared we would be in for a major recession.

That makes nothing of the above a good idea though.

Be that as it may, what was Hamilton’s argument that sold you the idea?

51

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Jesus, where did you get this “regress” thing from?

Common sense maybe? The anti-fiat crowd seems to be blind to the glaring fact that you can’t just snap your fingers and switch from fiat to commodity with no repercussions. Like I have said at least twice before - you can’t simply put the genie back in the bottle.

[/quote]
But you don’t understand that reintroducing a commodity currency would not be done by government. All that would happen is that competition would open up in the banking sector (just like credit) and banks would issue their own paper in terms of the new commodity. Either people choose to use the new commodity money or they don’t. First and foremost competition needs to be legalized.

There is no genie to put back; it is essentially like switching phone service from complete land-line to combination land-line and cell service and ultimately to complete cell service – no intervention is necessary here. The market will figure it out. Government just needs to protect the new contracts in this commodity money. End of story.

52

Paul was obviously right. He was obviously the best candidate. His loss is a tragedy, albeit an entirely predictable one.

The second that he lost the New Hampshire primary, conservatives lost one of their best chances in decades.

I was saying well over a year ago that all was lost if he didn’t win NH. And by “all was lost”, I meant just that: everything that conservatives could hope to achieve in their lifetimes. There is only one Ron Paul in Washington D.C. When he’s gone, conservatives are straight up the creek. I guess it takes a while for the gravity of it to sink in.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Tomato/tomAHto. Point being, if he didn’t sound like douchebag Buchanan wrt foreign policy, he would be taken much more seriously. [/quote]

You are correct that Ron Paul lost due to his foreign policy stance. The gold standard would not have been a deal breaker for him because the general public doesn’t understand monetary theory and doesn’t care about the economy unless it’s on TV. Your posts on this thread demonstrate that you don’t understand monetary theory either.

In 2007 and early '08, the economy wasn’t on the news. The primary issue was still the war. If only we could have had today’s headlines yesterday. Paul would have won in the current climate of financial panic.

Pat Buchanan is not a douche, but a fine conservative. He and Paul are two of the best our side has got. Give his “culture war” speech a listen for old times’ sake.

[quote]orion wrote:
The dollar has lost 99% of its value since the day the Fed was founded.

I honestly think that that is bad enough.[/quote]

Strictly speaking, it can only be considered “bad” if one of the following applies:

A) The time period over which the devaluation occured was short enough to have cut into peoples’ savings.

or

B) The dollar has lost value relative to other currencies.

Scenario A is applicable, while B is not, due to the fact that all other currencies are fiat and get inflated at nearly the same rate. That is the purpose of having a banking cartel, as I’m sure you’re well aware.

The bad news for the Austrians is that the present system can, indeed, be sustained indefinitely. The Keynesians were right in this regard. Provided that all of the world’s currencies are inflated in tandem, there is no reason why the process cannot continue forever. It’s simple confiscation. So long as there there is a productive economy underlying it, the state can facilitate the transfer of wealth from one class to another.

Everything else you have posted has been incredibly dead on. You and Lifty truly deserve accolades for your perseverance.

53

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Paul was obviously right. He was obviously the best candidate. His loss is a tragedy, albeit an entirely predictable one.

The second that he lost the New Hampshire primary, conservatives lost one of their best chances in decades.

I was saying well over a year ago that all was lost if he didn’t win NH. And by “all was lost”, I meant just that: everything that conservatives could hope to achieve in their lifetimes. There is only one Ron Paul in Washington D.C. When he’s gone, conservatives are straight up the creek. I guess it takes a while for the gravity of it to sink in.

rainjack wrote:
Tomato/tomAHto. Point being, if he didn’t sound like douchebag Buchanan wrt foreign policy, he would be taken much more seriously.

You are correct that Ron Paul lost due to his foreign policy stance. The gold standard would not have been a deal breaker for him because the general public doesn’t understand monetary theory and doesn’t care about the economy unless it’s on TV. Your posts on this thread demonstrate that you don’t understand monetary theory either.

In 2007 and early '08, the economy wasn’t on the news. The primary issue was still the war. If only we could have had today’s headlines yesterday. Paul would have won in the current climate of financial panic.

Pat Buchanan is not a douche, but a fine conservative. He and Paul are two of the best our side has got. Give his “culture war” speech a listen for old times’ sake.

orion wrote:
The dollar has lost 99% of its value since the day the Fed was founded.

I honestly think that that is bad enough.

Strictly speaking, it can only be considered “bad” if one of the following applies:

A) The time period over which the devaluation occured was short enough to have cut into peoples’ savings.

or

B) The dollar has lost value relative to other currencies.

Scenario A is applicable, while B is not, due to the fact that all other currencies are fiat and get inflated at nearly the same rate. That is the purpose of having a banking cartel, as I’m sure you’re well aware.

The bad news for the Austrians is that the present system can, indeed, be sustained indefinitely. The Keynesians were right in this regard. Provided that all of the world’s currencies are inflated in tandem, there is no reason why the process cannot continue forever. It’s simple confiscation. So long as there there is a productive economy underlying it, the state can facilitate the transfer of wealth from one class to another.

Everything else you have posted has been incredibly dead on. You and Lifty truly deserve accolades for your perseverance.[/quote]

I agree that a fiat money system could, theoretically, work indefinitely-

However, the social security system which is financed by it cannot, nor is the ever increasing public debt that is made possible by it sustainable.

So the fiat money system in and of itself will not fail, but the society it made possible will.

54

[quote]orion wrote:

I agree that a fiat money system could, theoretically, work indefinitely-

However, the social security system which is financed by it cannot, nor is the ever increasing public debt that is made possible by it sustainable.

So the fiat money system in and of itself will not fail, but the society it made possible will.[/quote]

I hate being right all the fucking time.

No. Really. I hate it.

55

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:

I agree that a fiat money system could, theoretically, work indefinitely-

However, the social security system which is financed by it cannot, nor is the ever increasing public debt that is made possible by it sustainable.

So the fiat money system in and of itself will not fail, but the society it made possible will.

I hate being right all the fucking time.

No. Really. I hate it. [/quote]

It must be lonely at the top.

56

[quote]orion wrote:
I agree that a fiat money system could, theoretically, work indefinitely-

However, the social security system which is financed by it cannot, nor is the ever increasing public debt that is made possible by it sustainable.

So the fiat money system in and of itself will not fail, but the society it made possible will.[/quote]

Yes, that’s true. SS will be going the way of the horse and buggy. Time will only tell how that affects society.

In the worst case scenario, every state can fall back on the coerced lifetime work output of its citizenry. Then we may have a 1984 scenario, but we’ll still have Keynesian economics, through it all.

G. Edward Griffin describes the inherent feasibility of such a system in his "a pessimistic scenario. They could pull it off if they wanted to.

I believe the only way to get rid of the current system will be through an [inevitably violent] well-financed revolution.

People like Bill Gates have been approached to get them to finance libertarian causes. So far, no major names have stepped on board.

The movement requires backers who are not just rich, but ultra-rich. And preferably, a good number of them. Then it will require organization, and many good men to stand up for their beliefs.

Something like the Free State Project might actually work if it were massively funded.

However, you may have noticed that a majority of the ultra-wealthy in this country are in favor of a redistributionist, social-democrat form of government.

Warren Buffet is the primary example. The irony being that he’s a quasi-socialist who owes his entire wealth to capitalism.

The single best chance that anyone has got to personally affect change on anything is to become as rich and powerful as possible under the current system. That’s the strategy I’m pursuing and I recommend you do the same.

57

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
I believe the only way to get rid of the current system will be through an [inevitably violent] well-financed revolution.
[/quote]

Actually, it doesn’t have to be a violent revolution. If government keeps fucking up the reserve currency and people get fed up enough it may be enough of a motivator to have competing currencies spontaneously emerge to fully subvert fiat. That alone would put government out of business. In fact it could be done with the technology we have today as long as there were enough people that would support it immediately.

The trick is to get as many consumer’s goods providers on board all at once. As soon as the elite at the top realize their paper money is no good to buy the things they need for everyday survival they will acquiesce. Their military and police would not even have the ability to buy bullets.

58

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
I believe the only way to get rid of the current system will be through an [inevitably violent] well-financed revolution.

Actually, it doesn’t have to be a violent revolution. If government keeps fucking up the reserve currency and people get fed up enough it may be enough of a motivator to have competing currencies spontaneously emerge to fully subvert fiat. That alone would put government out of business. In fact it could be done with the technology we have today as long as there were enough people that would support it immediately.

The trick is to get as many consumer’s goods providers on board all at once. As soon as the elite at the top realize their paper money is no good to buy the things they need for everyday survival they will acquiesce. Their military and police would not even have the ability to buy bullets.[/quote]

Really?

All they had to do is to make the private ownership of gold illegal.

59

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
It’s simple confiscation. So long as there there is a productive economy underlying it, the state can facilitate the transfer of wealth from one class to another.
[/quote]

Inevitably, the state will interfere so much that the market will become too unpredictable for entrepreneurs and shortly thereafter the collapse will happen. That is also when the biggest wealth transfer will take place when the state goes to print itself out of the hole and begins giving money to its power elite brethren.

It will be like Christmas time, but exclusively for the naughty kids.

60

Ron Paul speaking about the G-20 financial summit.