[quote]vroom wrote:
Oh man, this thread is a blast!
What do you guys think Ron Paul would actually be able to do if he was elected?
Is he going to issue fiats from the white house declaring mass disbanding of all kinds of federal institutions?
I too really like some of the ideas that Ron Paul espouses, but I really haven’t heard anything approaching any type of transition plan from the current realities towards Ron Paul world.
Seriously, if you understood the scope of the some of the changes being proposed, and the huge impact that would be felt, you’d understand why he comes across as bat-shit crazy from time to time.
If he steps back from talking about a complete governmental fiscal rewrite and starts talking about a rational migration path towards a more republic oriented system then he’d have a lot less “handles” sticking around for sinking him if he were to become a serious contender.
Anyway, if he is talking in that capacity, the followers in this thread are doing a poor job of reflecting it.[/quote]
No one man IS Caesar (as I said before).
It would take a Category 5 type economic meltdown to get the American people to agree to any thing like privatizing Social Security or embracing real money and not the fiat money we have now. What Ron Paul doesn’t get is that most Americans WANT a big government that’ll provide some sort of safety net and ride herd on the place.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Oh man, this thread is a blast!
What do you guys think Ron Paul would actually be able to do if he was elected?
Is he going to issue fiats from the white house declaring mass disbanding of all kinds of federal institutions?
I too really like some of the ideas that Ron Paul espouses, but I really haven’t heard anything approaching any type of transition plan from the current realities towards Ron Paul world.
Seriously, if you understood the scope of the some of the changes being proposed, and the huge impact that would be felt, you’d understand why he comes across as bat-shit crazy from time to time.
If he steps back from talking about a complete governmental fiscal rewrite and starts talking about a rational migration path towards a more republic oriented system then he’d have a lot less “handles” sticking around for sinking him if he were to become a serious contender.
Anyway, if he is talking in that capacity, the followers in this thread are doing a poor job of reflecting it.[/quote]
If one listens to some of the interviews of Ron Paul, he has described, often in detail, how a transition on a given decision would be implemented over time in order to prevent a severe impact upon the economy.
For example, he has no intention of immediately discarding all fiat currency. Rather Dr. Paul intends on introducing hard currency alongside the fiat system; both currencies will be legal in this case. Gradually, an ever-greater number of individuals will gravitate toward the hard currencies given the inherent inflationary nature of fiat currencies.
Naturally, a significant reduction in the over-bloated expenditures on the current failing foreign policy and other unnecessary government institutions will help alleviate the expected devaluation of the dollar a flight from it toward a hard currency would entail.
A significant reduction in government spending as well a drop in the printing of new currency would obviously strengthen the dollar against other currencies, significantly reducing or even outright eliminating world market worries of the dollars long-term stability.
A further elaboration would require a book-length treatise. Rest assured, unlike what many individuals appear to be proclaiming, Dr. Paul does have a transitional period planned for any significant changes he seeks to implement. He is well aware of the harsh impact sudden shifts in economic policy could reap upon the middle and poor classes respectively.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What Ron Paul doesn’t get is that most Americans WANT a big government that’ll provide some sort of safety net and ride herd on the place.
[/quote]
Most individuals view government as their caretaker due to the fact that this is all most individuals know. For example, most view at various times in US history in particular, an aggressive interventionist foreign policy for self-preservation. They fail to realize that it is these various interventions that create the very enemies, intentionally or otherwise, that might ultimately threaten the United States.
Another example would be the welfare state. The majority of economic welfare is reserved for politically well-connected Big Businesses, giving the lie that it is a safety net for the poor. Furthermore, any monies relegated to the latter could easily be filled and more productively provided by private entities, such as churches or other private non-profit organizations.
The very existence of government welfare however crowds out private solutions as well as makes it more difficult for individuals to contribute to private organizations after the confiscation of a portion of their income by the government.
Most individuals become so dependent upon government that a mindset develops where it becomes almost impossible to see how a given good or service could be offered without it.
I believe that as more individuals educate themselves, thanks to the availability of almost the almost limitless information the internet provides, the realization that the mindset of government dependency will become less of a problem than currently exists.
In my opinion, the market can provide all the necessities as well as luxuries in life without the state. The latter should be relegated to, at the very least, the duties outlined in the original Constitution.
Once again (as mentioned in a previous post) a complete refutation would require a book length treatise and is beyond the scope of this board. However their are many sources available for further study on these issues.
Incidentally, I believe that all of us, regardless of whether one supports Ron Paul or not, desire a more prosperous nation (not merely economically) that benefits all individuals to one degree or another. The difference obviously lies only in the means to achieve this.
There is no “end of history”, where “nothing will ever change”, however the bleak the current outlook may appear. As stated on previous occasions, history can sometimes provide unique surprises. Perhaps we’re at one of these historical junctions. What has one got to lose by continuing the effort to educate others on liberty, assuming of course such an individual is interested?
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
For example, he has no intention of immediately discarding all fiat currency. Rather Dr. Paul intends on introducing hard currency alongside the fiat system; both currencies will be legal in this case. Gradually, an ever-greater number of individuals will gravitate toward the hard currencies given the inherent inflationary nature of fiat currencies.[/quote]
Hey, thanks for the increased details.
When you say “hard currency” do you mean paper currency backed by a tangible asset or instead tangible currency itself?
Modern fiscal issues are fairly well understood. Simply creating additional money is very inflationary, but generally credible governments are not doing this. Personally, I’m more concerned about how money is collected and spent by government than whether it is backed by a tangible asset.
Also, dollar strength has an awful lot to do with global trade… so that the international valuation of a currency is based on market forces. I realize this is a very large topic of discussion but one can’t just unilaterally stop being part of the larger world.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Oh man, this thread is a blast!
What do you guys think Ron Paul would actually be able to do if he was elected?
Is he going to issue fiats from the white house declaring mass disbanding of all kinds of federal institutions?
I too really like some of the ideas that Ron Paul espouses, but I really haven’t heard anything approaching any type of transition plan from the current realities towards Ron Paul world.
Seriously, if you understood the scope of the some of the changes being proposed, and the huge impact that would be felt, you’d understand why he comes across as bat-shit crazy from time to time.
If he steps back from talking about a complete governmental fiscal rewrite and starts talking about a rational migration path towards a more republic oriented system then he’d have a lot less “handles” sticking around for sinking him if he were to become a serious contender.
Anyway, if he is talking in that capacity, the followers in this thread are doing a poor job of reflecting it.[/quote]
These are all good questions and concerns. I asked these same question to one of the “younger” voters I was talking to last night and he stated quite eloquently, “if Paul gets elected given the current circumstances it will be by mandate”.
I think this would mean he wouldn’t face as much difficulty in congress as we would expect–that is, if congress is paying attention to their constituency.
He also talks about priority of change. Meaning, he realizes eliminating HUD isn’t as high on the list as eliminating the Fed, for example.
Not sure if you’ve listened to the google interview but it’s one of the best I’ve heard so far:
If you do a google video search for “candidates@google” you can see some of the others that have been done.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Hey, thanks for the increased details.
When you say “hard currency” do you mean paper currency backed by a tangible asset or instead tangible currency itself?
[/quote]
Both options are a possibility. However I believe Dr. Paul wants to make a currency that is redeemable in hard money, i.e., gold or silver coins. This isn’t to suggest that a commodity-based paper currency wouldn’t be implemented but rather that the option of the former is made available should the money holder desire it.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Modern fiscal issues are fairly well understood. Simply creating additional money is very inflationary, but generally credible governments are not doing this. Personally, I’m more concerned about how money is collected and spent by government than whether it is backed by a tangible asset.
[/quote]
Modern fiscal issues are typically shrouded in neo-Keynesian economic myth. The current FED chairman is a prime example, believing that the Federal Reserve fights inflation when it reality it is the problem itself. Again, a proper response is well beyond the scope of the board. However perhaps the following links might provide some insight:
What Has Government Done to Our Money?
Case for the 100% Gold Dollar
[quote]vroom wrote:
Also, dollar strength has an awful lot to do with global trade… so that the international valuation of a currency is based on market forces. I realize this is a very large topic of discussion but one can’t just unilaterally stop being part of the larger world.
Am I missing something?
[/quote]
It wasn’t suggested that we remove ourselves from the larger world, quite the opposite in fact. the international valuation of currencies are severely affected by central bank policy, regardless of nation.
The manipulation of the interest rate, the ever-increasing printing of new money, and a fractional-reserve-based system all distort the valuation of a given currency. Again, for an extensive elaboration these ideas see the above links.
In addition to the above discussion it would be prudent to mention the deleterious effects upon the cultural and even spiritual aspects of a society. The negative effects a fiat currency can have on human behavior (and thus, action) can be observed in distortion of people’s time preference. An elaboration of this idea can studied at the following links for those interested:
The Cultural and Spiritual Legacy of Fiat Inflation
Will The Federal Reserve Create The New Socialist Man?
Central Banking, the Depreciation of Self-Worth, and Decivilization (Is there a relationship between sex, suicide, decivilization, and central banking? Indeed, there is.) http://www.hyperinflation.net/essays/englund37.html
True, a great deal of the information provided in the above links requires a significant amount of reading but it is nevertheless worth the time.
An existential fiat currency, combined with central bank policies, inevitably results in an eventual decadence and consumerism (the latter typically blamed upon capitalism rather than the central banks).
[quote]vroom wrote:
cloakmanor wrote:
For example, he has no intention of immediately discarding all fiat currency. Rather Dr. Paul intends on introducing hard currency alongside the fiat system; both currencies will be legal in this case. Gradually, an ever-greater number of individuals will gravitate toward the hard currencies given the inherent inflationary nature of fiat currencies.
Hey, thanks for the increased details.
When you say “hard currency” do you mean paper currency backed by a tangible asset or instead tangible currency itself?
A significant reduction in government spending as well a drop in the printing of new currency would obviously strengthen the dollar against other currencies, significantly reducing or even outright eliminating world market worries of the dollars long-term stability.
Modern fiscal issues are fairly well understood. Simply creating additional money is very inflationary, but generally credible governments are not doing this. Personally, I’m more concerned about how money is collected and spent by government than whether it is backed by a tangible asset.
Also, dollar strength has an awful lot to do with global trade… so that the international valuation of a currency is based on market forces. I realize this is a very large topic of discussion but one can’t just unilaterally stop being part of the larger world.
Am I missing something?[/quote]
I don’t think so. We have gone beyond gold. There is more labor and material being exchanged throughout the world than gold can keep up with.
The whole idea of going back to a gold standard would stifle the worlds economy.
Old people vote about 4 to 1, as opposed to the younger crowd. The current Congress got there by giving old people gifts like the Prescription Drug Plan. These people are not going to go near ANYTHING which looks like ‘privatization’ or something that cuts their benefits in any way. They feel that they’ve earned them (those most did no such thing).
The Democrats would seriously demagogue Dr. Paul’s positions. This means that the Dems would get the Black vote (as always) and most of the old people (who vote a lot). Hillary wins.
The most practical plan would be to very slowly build a philosophical base, inform young people how they are being raped, and then wait…wait for the meltdown which must eventually come, whether that be tomorrow or in 20 years.
Besides, does Paul WANT to be in charge when the meltdown comes? Conservatism would be villified for the next 100 years.
Besides, does Paul WANT to be in charge when the meltdown comes? Conservatism would be villified for the next 100 years.[/quote]
I think he might. I think he (and many of his supporters) are anti-“consumerism”, meaning they don’t want anyone to have anything beyond what they absolutely need to survive and they must work their ass off to obtain even that.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t think so. We have gone beyond gold. There is more labor and material being exchanged throughout the world than gold can keep up with.
The whole idea of going back to a gold standard would stifle the worlds economy.
[/quote]
You are right. As long as we are backing a currency with something substantial and not just printing paper when the US Treasury asks for it I think we would be better off. I think competing currencies can work.
I think we can come up with something better than debt-backed currency and or gold/silver. I am not sure what that something would be though.
Maybe something like real estate value or labor…something that can be measured that individual private citizens could put their hands on. Something that cannot be stored away in a vault and manipulated.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Old people vote about 4 to 1, as opposed to the younger crowd. The current Congress got there by giving old people gifts like the Prescription Drug Plan. These people are not going to go near ANYTHING which looks like ‘privatization’ or something that cuts their benefits in any way. They feel that they’ve earned them (those most did no such thing).
[/quote]
Old people are actually the most financially well off people in this country as a collective unit. They have the most disposable income of any group of people. Think about their actual financial burdens…its mostly health care related.
They don’t pay for housing; they mostly don’t drive; they have no taxable income; and they don’t take on new debts. Drugs are their biggest expense.
You are dead on concerning educating young people and helping inform their opinion about the philosophy of liberty.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t think so. We have gone beyond gold. There is more labor and material being exchanged throughout the world than gold can keep up with.
The whole idea of going back to a gold standard would stifle the worlds economy.
You are right. As long as we are backing a currency with something substantial and not just printing paper when the US Treasury asks for it I think we would be better off. I think competing currencies can work.
I think we can come up with something better than debt-backed currency and or gold/silver. I am not sure what that something would be though.
Maybe something like real estate value or labor…something that can be measured that individual private citizens could put their hands on. Something that cannot be stored away in a vault and manipulated.
[/quote]
The incentives for fiat money are simply too powerful. There are too many people who gain by its use. The victims are the moral, the patriotic, the honest productive citizens. The majority of people would rather live w/o effort at the expense of those who produce. They really embrace a philosophy and worship of DEATH. Ayn Rand laid all this out years ago.
Until the ROOT changes, until humanity changes its philosophy, we’ll have what we have.
‘Crime is easier than Calculus.’ sums up their philosophy.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
cloakmanor wrote:
For example, he has no intention of immediately discarding all fiat currency. Rather Dr. Paul intends on introducing hard currency alongside the fiat system; both currencies will be legal in this case. Gradually, an ever-greater number of individuals will gravitate toward the hard currencies given the inherent inflationary nature of fiat currencies.
Hey, thanks for the increased details.
When you say “hard currency” do you mean paper currency backed by a tangible asset or instead tangible currency itself?
A significant reduction in government spending as well a drop in the printing of new currency would obviously strengthen the dollar against other currencies, significantly reducing or even outright eliminating world market worries of the dollars long-term stability.
Modern fiscal issues are fairly well understood. Simply creating additional money is very inflationary, but generally credible governments are not doing this. Personally, I’m more concerned about how money is collected and spent by government than whether it is backed by a tangible asset.
Also, dollar strength has an awful lot to do with global trade… so that the international valuation of a currency is based on market forces. I realize this is a very large topic of discussion but one can’t just unilaterally stop being part of the larger world.
Am I missing something?
I don’t think so. We have gone beyond gold. There is more labor and material being exchanged throughout the world than gold can keep up with.
The whole idea of going back to a gold standard would stifle the worlds economy.
[/quote]
You are completely wrong and have put zero though into this.
I could elaborate but I decided to respond they way you posted, minus the lack of economic knowledge.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t think so. We have gone beyond gold. There is more labor and material being exchanged throughout the world than gold can keep up with.
The whole idea of going back to a gold standard would stifle the worlds economy.
You are right. As long as we are backing a currency with something substantial and not just printing paper when the US Treasury asks for it I think we would be better off. I think competing currencies can work.
I think we can come up with something better than debt-backed currency and or gold/silver. I am not sure what that something would be though.
Maybe something like real estate value or labor…something that can be measured that individual private citizens could put their hands on. Something that cannot be stored away in a vault and manipulated.
[/quote]
No he is completely wrong.
You are right though to some degree though, why not competing currencies?
One based on gold, one on silver, one on the trust people have in the government and so on.
There is no reason why there should not be competition for the most important of all goods, money.
Let the most stable currency win, be it in gold, diamonds or rare vintage porn.
Historically that meant gold, but that is not carved in stone.
“Lack of gold” is such an amazingly stupid argument, because one dollar can equal 1 ounce of gold, 1/10 ounce of gold, 1/100 ounce of gold and so on.
All you have to do is set the rate in a way that there are enough dollar bills to go around, which is hardly a problem.
[quote]orion wrote:
…
“Lack of gold” is such an amazingly stupid argument, because one dollar can equal 1 ounce of gold, 1/10 ounce of gold, 1/100 ounce of gold and so on.
All you have to do is set the rate in a way that there are enough dollar bills to go around, which is hardly a problem. [/quote]
And then you have to revalue the gold rate or mine more gold when the population grows as it has been growing for hundreds/thousands of years. You have to be able to have more money in the system when system (population) grows.
Money is simply a method to account for labor, real property, raw materials etc. This will continue to grow until we outgrow the planet.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The incentives for fiat money are simply too powerful. There are too many people who gain by its use.
[/quote]
I think this is two separate arguments. To my mind, those that benefit from fiat currency are those with first access to it–i.e., those with collateral and good credit.
The middle-class pays their income back to the fed as interest; thus we can aptly call credit a form of “taxpayer subsidized corporate debt”.
[quote]orion wrote:
You are right though to some degree though, why not competing currencies?
[/quote]
I do believe in competing currencies…if it can work for Coco-Cola it can work for currency. If there was free and open competition a gold/silver backed currency would not be a problem because we could choose freely which currency we wanted to spend–imagine if you could transfer your gold dollars over to silver dollars–if one was perceived to be stronger or weaker.
I just think a singular choice like gold is a bad idea because it’s value can be manipulated too easily by keeping it out of the market or by conversely flooding the market.
I think the rate (whatever the chosen commodity) should be determined in the market and not artificially set by the amount of cash in circulation; thus the value can go up or down.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
…
“Lack of gold” is such an amazingly stupid argument, because one dollar can equal 1 ounce of gold, 1/10 ounce of gold, 1/100 ounce of gold and so on.
All you have to do is set the rate in a way that there are enough dollar bills to go around, which is hardly a problem.
And then you have to revalue the gold rate or mine more gold when the population grows as it has been growing for hundreds/thousands of years. You have to be able to have more money in the system when system (population) grows.
Money is simply a method to account for labor, real property, raw materials etc. This will continue to grow until we outgrow the planet.
[/quote]
And that is your insurmountable problem?
Instead of losing one zero every few decades as in the case of inflation we`d have to add a zero for conveniance every few decades?
I think the rate (whatever the chosen commodity) should be determined in the market and not artificially set by the amount of cash in circulation; thus the value can go up or down.[/quote]
The value of the underlying commodity yes, but a dollar would only be a receipt for an amount of gold (or whatever) stored, so that cannot fluctuate.
If one dollar means you get 1 gr of gold whenever you wish from a warehouse, you get 1 gr of gold whatever that is worth in relation to other goods.
